Roy Moore / Alabama Special Senate Election Megathread

[Ngelmish]

Would you be equally indifferent to molestation if Moore wasn't for less gun regulation than Scalia?

I'm hardly "indifferent". I simply stated molestation isn't as bad as killing. And that would hold true if Moore wanted to repeal the 2A and throw me in Guantanamo Bay.

That is, delightfully, not quite an answer to the question. Put one over the other. Molestation or unrestricted gun rights. Moore is for both.

[Telconi]

I'm hardly "indifferent". I simply stated molestation isn't as bad as killing. And that would hold true if Moore wanted to repeal the 2A and throw me in Guantanamo Bay.

How do you kill something that is not technically alive?

Nice shot at derailing the conversation.

Simple fact is, I'd support a molester over a murderer, plain and simple. If they believe that Jones is a murderer, they would do the same.

[Telconi]

I'm hardly "indifferent". I simply stated molestation isn't as bad as killing. And that would hold true if Moore wanted to repeal the 2A and throw me in Guantanamo Bay.

That is, delightfully, not quite an answer to the question. Put one over the other. Molestation or unrestricted gun rights. Moore is for both.

That's not possible.

[Vassenor]

How do you kill something that is not technically alive?

Nice shot at derailing the conversation.

Simple fact is, I'd support a molester over a murderer, plain and simple. If they believe that Jones is a murderer, they would do the same.

So who has Jones allegedly killed?

[Telconi]

Nice shot at derailing the conversation.

Simple fact is, I'd support a molester over a murderer, plain and simple. If they believe that Jones is a murderer, they would do the same.

So who has Jones allegedly killed?

Bunch of unborn children?

[Vassenor]

So who has Jones allegedly killed?

Bunch of unborn children?

Which comes back to my "how do you kill something which isn't technically alive" question.

Also when did he personally do that?

[Telconi]

Bunch of unborn children?

Which comes back to my "how do you kill something which isn't technically alive" question.

Also when did he personally do that?

Not relevant.

Never? But alas, also not relevant.

[Vassenor]

Which comes back to my "how do you kill something which isn't technically alive" question.

Also when did he personally do that?

Not relevant.

Never? But alas, also not relevant.

So how can he be a murderer if he wasn't personally involved in the unlawful killing of another human being?

[Telconi]

Not relevant.

Never? But alas, also not relevant.

So how can he be a murderer if he wasn't personally involved in the unlawful killing of another human being?

Don't know. Interesting thing about hypothetical If-then statements is that they're exactly that.

[Ngelmish]

That is, delightfully, not quite an answer to the question. Put one over the other. Molestation or unrestricted gun rights. Moore is for both.

That's not possible.

Molestation and unrestricted gun rights are on the same level?

[Telconi]

That's not possible.

Molestation and unrestricted gun rights are on the same level?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question. If we're talking which of these things I consider a better policy, then unrestricted gun rights would be the obvious answer.

[Ngelmish]

Molestation and unrestricted gun rights are on the same level?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question. If we're talking which of these things I consider a better policy, then unrestricted gun rights would be the obvious answer.

I am asking if you combine those two things, as a personal behavior and a policy preference, which one you privilege. Because Moore is for both the behavior, for himself at least, and the policy. Which do you choose over the other? A vote for unrestricted gun rights or the barring of, for lack of a better term, molestation rights. One cannot elect Roy Moore without simultaneously voting for gun rights and his personal peccadilloes. Which is the more urgent moral imperative?

[Vassenor]

I mean by the logic we've just been presented anyone in favour of unrestricted gun rights is a murderer.

[Ngelmish]

I mean by the logic we've just been presented anyone in favour of unrestricted gun rights is a murderer.

Not necessarily. But Telconi has been offering half-answers this whole thread, and gun rights are his particular bugaboo. I want to see how far that logic extends.

[Vassenor]

I mean by the logic we've just been presented anyone in favour of unrestricted gun rights is a murderer.

Not necessarily. But Telconi has been offering half-answers this whole thread, and gun rights are his particular bugaboo. I want to see how far that logic extends.

If Doug Jones is a murder by being pro-choice then logically being pro-gun liberalisation is being a murderer too.

[Telconi]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question. If we're talking which of these things I consider a better policy, then unrestricted gun rights would be the obvious answer.

I am asking if you combine those two things, as a personal behavior and a policy preference, which one you privilege. Because Moore is for both the behavior, for himself at least, and the policy. Which do you choose over the other? A vote for unrestricted gun rights or the barring of, for lack of a better term, molestation rights. One cannot elect Roy Moore without simultaneously voting for gun rights and his personal peccadilloes. Which is the more urgent moral imperative?

That's utterly impossible to quantify in a vacuum.

[Telconi]

Not necessarily. But Telconi has been offering half-answers this whole thread, and gun rights are his particular bugaboo. I want to see how far that logic extends.

If Doug Jones is a murder by being pro-choice then logically being pro-gun liberalisation is being a murderer too.

That sets a new bar of rediculousness, even for you.

[Ngelmish]

Not necessarily. But Telconi has been offering half-answers this whole thread, and gun rights are his particular bugaboo. I want to see how far that logic extends.

If Doug Jones is a murder by being pro-choice then logically being pro-gun liberalisation is being a murderer too.

That's a question of math, guns vs abortion, and isn't, immediately obvious to answer. You'll notice my question was about the moral hierarchy of molestation vs gun rights, not murder. I'd rather Telconi answer which one he cares more about before we change the subject

[Ngelmish]

I am asking if you combine those two things, as a personal behavior and a policy preference, which one you privilege. Because Moore is for both the behavior, for himself at least, and the policy. Which do you choose over the other? A vote for unrestricted gun rights or the barring of, for lack of a better term, molestation rights. One cannot elect Roy Moore without simultaneously voting for gun rights and his personal peccadilloes. Which is the more urgent moral imperative?

That's utterly impossible to quantify in a vacuum.

You quantify things in a vacuum all the time. Although it's telling that, like Roy Moore, you don't find molestation, in itself, disqualifying, when important things, like say, unrestricted gun rights, that even Scalia didn't support, come up.

[Telconi]

That's utterly impossible to quantify in a vacuum.

You quantify things in a vacuum all the time. Although it's telling that, like Roy Moore, you don't find molestation, in itself, disqualifying, when important things, like say, unrestricted gun rights, that even Scalia didn't support, come up.

Elections are by their very nature relative. Nothing is inherently disqualifying.

[Ngelmish]

You quantify things in a vacuum all the time. Although it's telling that, like Roy Moore, you don't find molestation, in itself, disqualifying, when important things, like say, unrestricted gun rights, that even Scalia didn't support, come up.

Elections are by their very nature relative. Nothing is inherently disqualifying.

You still refuse to answer the question. Are they equivalent for you? Or do you just not care about molestation so long as "muh guns" that not even Scalia supported?

[Telconi]

Elections are by their very nature relative. Nothing is inherently disqualifying.

You still refuse to answer the question. Are they equivalent for you? Or do you just not care about molestation so long as "muh guns" that not even Scalia supported?

It's a preposterous question. And one that cannot be answered as posed. It's also driving us off topic. As my views on guns are not the subject here.

[Ngelmish]

You still refuse to answer the question. Are they equivalent for you? Or do you just not care about molestation so long as "muh guns" that not even Scalia supported?

It's a preposterous question. And one that cannot be answered as posed. It's also driving us off topic. As my views on guns are not the subject here.

Your views on guns are directly related to whether or not it's moral for people to vote for Roy Moore. Your attempt to avoid putting a moral spectrum on molestation as opposed to policy views that you agree with is nothing more than obfuscation. It's an easy thing to say that whatever Moore may have done, his vote on things is more important.

Your failure to do so, while carrying water for the idea that he should be voted for, is telling. And it's hardly preposterous when it's your signature issue, as opposed to, say, molestation.

[Telconi]

It's a preposterous question. And one that cannot be answered as posed. It's also driving us off topic. As my views on guns are not the subject here.

Your views on guns are directly related to whether or not it's moral for people to vote for Roy Moore. Your attempt to avoid putting a moral spectrum on molestation as opposed to policy views that you agree with is nothing more than obfuscation. It's an easy thing to say that whatever Moore may have done, his vote on things is more important.

Your failure to do so, while carrying water for the idea that he should be voted for, is telling. And it's hardly preposterous when it's your signature issue, as opposed to, say, molestation.

The only telling conclusion here is that your are unable to form a coherent query. And then proceed to manufacture conclusions about others based upon their inability to answer your incomplete question.

Anyhow, I no longer care to attempt to explain this, and your obsession with an unrelated policy issue is driving the thread off topic.

[Ngelmish]

Your views on guns are directly related to whether or not it's moral for people to vote for Roy Moore. Your attempt to avoid putting a moral spectrum on molestation as opposed to policy views that you agree with is nothing more than obfuscation. It's an easy thing to say that whatever Moore may have done, his vote on things is more important.

Your failure to do so, while carrying water for the idea that he should be voted for, is telling. And it's hardly preposterous when it's your signature issue, as opposed to, say, molestation.

The only telling conclusion here is that your are unable to form a coherent query. And then proceed to manufacture conclusions about others based upon their inability to answer your incomplete question.

Anyhow, I no longer care to attempt to explain this, and your obsession with an unrelated policy issue is driving the thread off topic.

I asked a question that you previously called "preposterous," rather than, say, incoherent. You should stop lying just because you don't want to answer awkward questions.

You still refuse to answer the question. Are they equivalent for you? Or do you just not care about molestation so long as "muh guns" that not even Scalia supported?

It's a preposterous question. And one that cannot be answered as posed. It's also driving us off topic. As my views on guns are not the subject here.

Your unwillingness -- or inability? -- to answer it is written in your own words. It was a simple question, molestation or unrestricted gun rights, and it remains telling, regardless of whether or not you answer it.