Misteria is threatening to put me on ignore

[Guido]

You've repeatedly made claims about yourself that you later denied, despite the fact several members recall you making them.

That excludes highly dubious claims you've made about yourself that can't be disproven through the anonymity of the Internet; ie, your insistence that you attend an Ivy League law school.

No one can technically refute that, even though given the utter void of intellectual ability evident in your posts, the closest you ever got to the Ivy League is Ivy, the $2 hooker who blows you in Times Square.

Actually, every claim I've made about myself is true.

Of course, I never claimed that I "attend an Ivy League law school," you cretin. I did however attend an Ivy League graduate school (Yale University) and earned a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature there. My dissertation was about the concept of theatricality in early romantic European literature and philosophy, principally Heinrich von Kleist, Diderot, Kant and Lessing. After that I attended and earned a law degree from a non-Ivy League law school.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Yes, you did, you dolt. You just edited it out, as further evidence of your deceitful nature.

And, you literally said you support Hezbollah and Hamas, in exactly those words, on the pre-crash forum, so you can hardly say you don't support terrorism.

[Guido]

Yes, you did, you dolt. You just edited it out, as further evidence of your deceitful nature.

And, you literally said you support Hezbollah and Hamas, in exactly those words, on the pre-crash forum, so you can hardly say you don't support terrorism.

I just wrote this:

To assign moral value or condemnation to "terrorism" generically is just the kind of soft-minded, mushy sentimentality that mediocrities like you substitute for thinking. Like other forms of political violence, some terrorism is worth supporting, while some is worthy of condemnation.

That implies that I support some acts of terrorism and don't support (and in fact deplore, condemn, etc.) other acts of terrorism, depending on how the moral analysis works out in any particular case. In that sense, I'm like every other non-pacifist person who is able to engage in honest moral reasoning. (You are not able to engage in moral reasoning, and are apparently constitutionally dishonest. That's why you still can't get it, despite my repeating the point ad nauseaum in plain English.)

Another way to put it is: Calling something "terrorism" doesn't end the moral discussion; in fact, it doesn't even begin that discussion. But the discussion will have to occur in your absence.