General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gun activist sent 30-round magazine to Conn. Governor for Christmas [View all]beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm saying that I appreciate your confirmation that you guys block based on identity rather than post content.
Of course, we already knew that because you guys have already demonstrated that, but its nice of you to confirm it for all to see.
"It would not be conducive to constructive discussion or debate."
That's hilarious.
You guys don't want discussion or debate. You want an echo chamber, as evidenced by the SOP of your group, the strict application and enforcement of it for some but not others (yes Virginia, half the posts by pro-more-control posters do not meet the SOP of your little group, but its allowed, because you know, "guns bad"
, and your proposal of pre-emptively blocking people for their beliefs rather than what they post.
And an echo chamber, you guys got. Good for you.
But not good enough apparently.
So pro-gun posters retaliate by SOP alerting in GD - to put a finer point on it - Pro-gun posters attempt to have the GD SOP as strictly adhered to and enforced as your own little group, and you guys complain. That's the textbook definition of hypocrisy - Rules for thee but not for me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594429
"Kind of like your sides "more guns everywhere makes people safer" faith based nonsense."
That's a popular strawman. Not a single poster here says "more guns everywhere makes people safer".
Not.A.Single.One.
You knew that, yet grossly misrepresent and mischaracterize the positions of pro-gun posters just the same.
In short, you guys are all about strict adherence and selective enforcement of your SOP in your group, which I would be most willing to provide proof of should you choose to deny it since its all over every single page of that forum, but expect to be treated to loose adherence requirements and enforcement of the SOP in GD.
I'd be happy to stop pointing out hypocrisy, as soon as I see it cease.