Yeah, classifying hybrids as mono-colored creatures is just an excuse to run more multi-colored creatures heh
Quote from wtwlf123 »They both drew about the same amount of cards per game on average. The Scrivener either drew none or drew a bunch, but not a whole lot in between. Whereas I was usually able to get a card out of Pain Seer almost every game. The ceiling was lower on the Seer, but the average performance was better. And the second point of toughness was relevant, even though the average amount of life lost per card was slightly higher. So both cards are really similar, except instead of the card draw per game being 0, 0, 0, 4 it was 1, 1, 1, 1.
That was Blinking Spirit.
Is that why you asked why I didn't reference the Sedition Act when I did? Cuz that kind of sounds like someone who didn't look up the actual case.
Not to mention you're doing the exact same thing. It's not as though you knew about Abrams v. United States prior to this debate either.
And then you link to a Wikipedia article? Really?
So clearly it is possible for someone to go off on the idea of the "marketplace of ideas" without recognizing that it is employed to defend the rights of people like himself.
Quote from Crashing00 »Quote from KBH »You have it entirely backwards. You are so sure that all readers are completely ideologically indoctrinated into your philistine belief system that you think throwing around wild claims in colorful language (oceans of blood, mountains of corpses) somehow overwrites the well documented and indisputable genocides of the last century -- by the murderous, barbaric capitalist class.
Do you know what a tu quoque fallacy is? No, I thought not. Well, this is the part where you go learn everything you know about a subject from wikipedia during the middle of a discussion. Don't worry, though, I'll wait. But meanwhile, I will observe that the silence on the actual question raised about your position continues.
Quote from KBH »You have it entirely backwards. You are so sure that all readers are completely ideologically indoctrinated into your philistine belief system that you think throwing around wild claims in colorful language (oceans of blood, mountains of corpses) somehow overwrites the well documented and indisputable genocides of the last century -- by the murderous, barbaric capitalist class.
. Your response to every question concerning your position has been silence (a silence I find particularly salient when it comes to the matter of the oceans of blood and mountains of corpses that accrue to the practice of the ideology you're defending)
Its not possible to materially support thug excrement mugging for the cameras with their swastika neck tattoos and then claim any moral high ground.
What, that you made a snide remark about the person who coined the phrase "marketplace of ideas," without having the historical knowledge to know that John Stuart Mill was was a utilitarian, an advocate for the rights of the individual, a supporter of worker cooperatives, and at times a defender of socialist policies, or that the Supreme Court Justice who was famous for bringing this phrase into the US political dialogue did so during a case in which he was defending a person who was protesting against the US from providing military assistance against the Bolsheviks?
Sadly, no, I don't find that strange at all. The demonstration of a complete lack of historical knowledge in your arguments has proven itself to be well within the parameters of what is normal.
The marketplace of ideas metaphor was first developed by John Stuart Mill in his book, On Liberty in 1859 (although he never uses the term "marketplace").
The first reference to the "free trade in ideas" within "the competition of the market" appears in Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States.
First of all, John Stuart Mills, and no, he wasn't.
Second, and how's this for irony, in terms of US politics, the phrase "marketplace of ideas" is famously linked to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Abrams v. United States, in which Holmes defends the free speech rights of the defendants who were protesting United States involvement against the Bolsheviks.