Hell, me neither. It's not like you're making any sense. Just equivocating on definitions like almost everybody else in the thread, and then strutting around like Foghorn Leghorn taking a "victory lap". It's a shame too, because it's a pretty interesting topic.
Oh, it's not like I'm making any sense? That is the most intellectually dishonest thing you said of all, or you simply cannot connect the dots.
To be fair, I'm not really reading your posts anyway. I mean, I read up until you become obnoxious and rude, but that usually happens right out of the gate, so my critique of your position is, admittedly, not fully informed. You'd probably be more persuasive if you weren't such a dick.
Look,
dblack, my first post on this thread didn't contain anything but a as brief as possible description of what natural law and natural rights are in the Anglo-American tradition of our nation's founding, a fairly complex topic.
Rabbi's response: "babbling nonsense." There's a history here you don't know about. When I first came to this board a few years ago, Rabbi blindsided me on another thread about this very same topic with the same kind of post. I responded by citing historical facts and made a few very simple arguments from them, and I wasn't a dick about it. He flames me again. No consideration of the contents of the post whatsoever.
You think Rabbi's not a dick.
This time around, I simply didn't put with it.
I got the same kind of thing from
G.T. on this thread, and you know what post I'm talking about because you and I responded to it. In THAT response I wasn't a dick. I firmly, yet fairly, suggested he actually show us why I'm wrong rather than simply saying I'm wrong. Anyone can do the latter. Prove it.
I can be a dick, I know, but not usually in the way that you mean. If one is actually exchanging ideas with me in good faith, even if I disagree with one, I never flame one. I don’t make fun of one or ridicule one, though I might ridicule an idea or an argument made by one, albeit, backed by a real argument. But when one is attacking the contents of my posts, as G.T. and you did, without actually reading or thinking about them. . . .
How can I tell? Because none of you have ever directly cited anything, just pooh-poohed the contents via some slogan or another.
Ask
Sallow if he thinks I'm a dick. Maybe he does, but he also knows that I have always read and thought about his posts, and answered their contents directly and thoroughly.
Perhaps you're a bit biased regarding the manner in which atheists and relativists, in particular,
routinely talk about theists/absolutists and their ideas
from the jump in this post-modern world of ours all over this board, you know, as if theists/absolutists were idiots, while the former never make any real argument of any kind and never even bother to read or think about anything the theists/absolutists say on this board as they blast them . . . because, after all, everybody knows the theists/absolutists' beliefs are passé, right?
You don't think that's annoying? Consider the fact that I am a theist and an absolutist in a post-modern world who has to deal with persons who routinely talk to me like that.
Come on. Everybody knows that the biggest, most arrogant dicks in the world are atheists. And you want to know why? Because the fact of the matter is that there's really nothing backing their conviction but the veneer of sneer and superiority, so I give it right back at 'em in spades, albeit, backed by real arguments. I don't like bullies, especially when they beat on decent folks who may not know, as I do, where the bodies lie just below the top soil concerning the seemingly cogent but utterly fallacious arguments of atheists.
Atheistic leftists are an especially vicious breed, or haven't you noticed?
But anyone who's entire worldview is prefaced on the notion that there are no absolutes, except the absolute that there are no absolutes; therefore,
the absolute that there are no absolutes is necessarily false, has got a real problem that he's utterly unaware of. Where does such an idiot get off making those of us who know better out to be fools?
You want to know why the typical leftist's thought processes are so crazy? Because that's what they're ultimately based on, something crazy, inherently contradictory and self-negating.
How else do you get the fool's attention but unman, as it were, his vanity.
Yeah. Lots of folks think I'm a dick. Believe me. I know that. But there's rhyme to the reason of my dickness.
And by the way, there are two other side exchanges I'm involved in on this thread where there is no rancor at all, though there be disagreement, because the persons with whom I'm speaking make direct arguments regarding the contents of my posts and vice versa. You want to know how often I give rep to those with whom I disagree and even to those, like you, whom I know do not read me because they think I'm a dick? All the time, every time I see a well executed argument made in good faith, whether I agree with it or not. I've even given
Sallow rep before, at least twice, and we've never agreed on anything that I know of.
I give Rabbi rep all the time too, because more often than not, he makes good sense, though I know he dislikes me. LOL!
Good faith.
You want to know how much of that is on this board or in the world? Very little.
Notwithstanding, I do regret the way in which I spoke to you in that last post; I actually felt that way a few hours after posting it. It was unnecessarily harsh. I apologize.
Wrong term. To be fair, I left it for you to smash. Good eye. Brain fart on my part. Had you not smashed it, I would have brought it to your attention in this post and acknowledge the error anyway. 
