See, that's the very thing I noted about you that's problematic.
It really comes through. That and the odd right wing habit of simply labeling everyone that gets under their skin and doesn't toe their particular ideological line, in every respect, a liberal, so they can dismiss what they won't meet in a more deliberate manner.
Would a black man have passed for a voter when you were growing up? Or, appeals to tradition aren't always golden.
Were that true (and I believe you know it isn't) you'd be about as nonplussed by the effort as I am debating race with Trad or misogyny with Cruc.
Now that's a good reason not to engage, if not entirely for the reason you'd think. If you find discourse with someone leads you to actually thinking what you wrote is true, it doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's not for you.
The only danger in that, and it's substantial, is in beginning with a two part premise. Part one is, "I always possess the truth" and part two is, "They're always willfully wrong and their opinions to the contrary or in agreement are worthless". I'm not suggesting anyone enter an argument thinking they have it wrong, but you're taking confidence to a contempt filled level that rarely leads to anything good. In fact, it already so demonstrably distorts your thinking that you're comfortable saying something no Christian should ever say when they have a moment to reflect on the temper that sponsored it. Here it comes:
That's...tragic. Unless you outgrow it, putting me on ignore is the least of my worries.
And in the meantime I'll go back to mostly not reading your attempts to...blog?
lain:
