D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

---

Should I have the right to marry more than one woman at the same time or not? (Polygamy) Should I have the right to be married to the same woman as another man at the same time or not? (Polyandry). Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old girl? Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old boy? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Of what, again, do you think I am trying to convince myself?

---

D.C., with all due respect you continue to conflate cultural decisions with pragmatic decisions. Hence my reference to causality.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

---

Should I have the right to marry more than one woman at the same time or not? (Polygamy) Should I have the right to be married to the same woman as another man at the same time or not? (Polyandry). Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old girl? Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old boy? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Of what, again, do you think I am trying to convince myself?

---

D.C., with all due respect you continue to conflate cultural decisions with pragmatic decisions. Hence my reference to causality.

---

You aren't making any sense. What is the difference between a "cultural decision" and a "pragmatic decision?" Why can't a "cultural decision" be "pragmatic" or a "pragmatic" decision be "pragmatic" due to culture?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

---

Should I have the right to marry more than one woman at the same time or not? (Polygamy) Should I have the right to be married to the same woman as another man at the same time or not? (Polyandry). Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old girl? Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old boy? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Of what, again, do you think I am trying to convince myself?

---

D.C., with all due respect you continue to conflate cultural decisions with pragmatic decisions. Hence my reference to causality.

---

You aren't making any sense. What is the difference between a "cultural decision" and a "pragmatic decision?" Why can't a "cultural decision" be "pragmatic" or a "pragmatic" decision be "pragmatic" due to culture?

---

Clearly we live in different universes. Mine uses a thing called a 'dictionary'.

** sigh **

Have a good day, D.C.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

---

Should I have the right to marry more than one woman at the same time or not? (Polygamy) Should I have the right to be married to the same woman as another man at the same time or not? (Polyandry). Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old girl? Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old boy? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Of what, again, do you think I am trying to convince myself?

---

D.C., with all due respect you continue to conflate cultural decisions with pragmatic decisions. Hence my reference to causality.

---

You aren't making any sense. What is the difference between a "cultural decision" and a "pragmatic decision?" Why can't a "cultural decision" be "pragmatic" or a "pragmatic" decision be "pragmatic" due to culture?

---

Clearly we live in different universes. Mine uses a thing called a 'dictionary'.

** sigh **

Have a good day, D.C.

---

And mine also uses a thing called a "brain."

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

---

Should I have the right to marry more than one woman at the same time or not? (Polygamy) Should I have the right to be married to the same woman as another man at the same time or not? (Polyandry). Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old girl? Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old boy? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Of what, again, do you think I am trying to convince myself?

---

D.C., with all due respect you continue to conflate cultural decisions with pragmatic decisions. Hence my reference to causality.

---

You aren't making any sense. What is the difference between a "cultural decision" and a "pragmatic decision?" Why can't a "cultural decision" be "pragmatic" or a "pragmatic" decision be "pragmatic" due to culture?

---

Clearly we live in different universes. Mine uses a thing called a 'dictionary'.

** sigh **

Have a good day, D.C.

---

And mine also uses a thing called a "brain."

---

Mine too. Sort of where that dictionary comes into use.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Are you seriously comparing a pedophile and someone who likes the same sex?

---

I don't think you quite get the point.

---

I think he does. Age of consent is a real thing, and morally not in the same universe as same-sex attraction.

---

Doesn't look like you quite get the point either.
And "age of consent" is a social construction, much like the idea that people should only be married to one person at a time.

---

Apparently you do not believe in objective morality.

That's your opinion, not at all what everyone agrees is the case.

You seem to be arguing that a Libertarian position is the same thing as a Libertine position.

If so, you need a better dictionary.

---

I am making no such argument.

You say that "age of consent" is a "real thing." It is no more or less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing."

---

I disagree, and you need look no further than human history to see the difference. Polygamy was common even among reasonably advanced cultures for much of human history, while pedophilia has only been common among degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures.

That is, humans learned early on that there is a direct cost to their culture for allowing certain behaviors, so it may reasonably be said that there was objective rejection of such behaviors aside from personal preferences.

You may deny it as you do here, but to sell the argument you'd have to ignore causality.

---

It was not uncommon in our own county a relatively short time ago for people to be married at ages that violate today's laws. I suppose we are only of those "degenerate (in terms of technology, violence and disease) cultures." At the same time, age of consent and legal marriage age vary now among different states and have varied greatly over time.

Age of consent, again, is no more or no less a "real thing" than "marriage is between one adult man and and one adult woman" is a "real thing," yet many will accept one and deny the other.

---

You see no difference between 5 and 15, then?

Age of consent is indeed real, and while it may have changed a bit over time, it has always existed in sustainable cultures.

---

I most certainly see a great deal of difference between five and 15.

I also see a difference between men and women and a couple vs. a number greater than two.
The same arguments that bring society marriage between two men or two women also bring us polygamy and what I would classify as child sexual abuse: you can't judge who someone loves. They were born that way. "Love wins!" etc. etc.

---

You seem to be working very hard to convince yourself. I don't see that argument swaying anyone else here, though.

---

1. Convince myself of what?
2. I don't expect people to be swayed by logic and reason when they have already decided what to believe with emotion.

---

See, there you go again. Ignoring anything that does not agree with you.

You may have a future in the Biden Administration!

---

Should I have the right to marry more than one woman at the same time or not? (Polygamy) Should I have the right to be married to the same woman as another man at the same time or not? (Polyandry). Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old girl? Should I as an adult male have the right to marry a 13-year-old boy? My answer to all of those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Of what, again, do you think I am trying to convince myself?

---

D.C., with all due respect you continue to conflate cultural decisions with pragmatic decisions. Hence my reference to causality.

---

You aren't making any sense. What is the difference between a "cultural decision" and a "pragmatic decision?" Why can't a "cultural decision" be "pragmatic" or a "pragmatic" decision be "pragmatic" due to culture?

---

Clearly we live in different universes. Mine uses a thing called a 'dictionary'.

** sigh **

Have a good day, D.C.

---

And mine also uses a thing called a "brain."

---

Mine too. Sort of where that dictionary comes into use.

---

You haven't been making any sense. You say I am "ignoring anything that doesn't agree with me," but you seem unable to articulate what any of that is and you seem unable to articulate whatever it is that you think I am trying to convince myself of. A dictionary doesn't do much good when you can't seem to put complete thoughts together. If you want to lay out what you think my arguments are, I would be glad to explain whether you are correct, but saying that I am "ignoring anything that doesn't agree with me" or that I am "trying to convince myself" of something is meaningless.

Look, I laid out my explanation in a series of emails. You don't understand them because you are reading them only to see what you can rebut.

Hence my sigh. I like discussion but this ain't it. You continue to assert the same thing over and over, no matter what anyone shows you.

OK. That establishes that you are not open to discussion.

I have decided to take you at your word.

If you really want to discuss this issue, take a moment and consider the difference between a cultural decision and a pragmatic one. I didn't post that as some kind of trick, it really does address the distinction you are denying, but if all you can do is toss off denial, there's really no point in continuing the same thing.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

---

Lmao - just no. I'd fully expect that most of today's Americans would side with the union, purely because 150 or so years later we all recognize slavery as an evil act.

My apologies if I didn't word it clearly - I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats.

There really is no substance to my point lol, I was more just trying to point out how the parties have drastically shifted when it comes to conservative and liberal values.

"I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats."

Again, strongly disagree. Both the Republican and Democrat parties were inventions of the 19th Century and reflected the mood of the time.

The idea that the party which regarded Slavery as a property issue and war as a valid means of diplomacy having much support from any modern mind is laughable.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats."

Again, strongly disagree. Both the Republican and Democrat parties were inventions of the 19th Century and reflected the mood of the time.

The idea that the party which regarded Slavery as a property issue and war as a valid means of diplomacy having much support from any modern mind is laughable.

---

You're not really understanding my point, but that is okay - this conversation is pointless as we can't go back in time lol, it's just theoretical. Would love to have a beer at a tailgate and discuss this more

But bringing this back full circle to the original intention of my post, both modern parties suck balls and Ranked Choice voting will at least help somewhat alleviate that

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

---

Lmao - just no. I'd fully expect that most of today's Americans would side with the union, purely because 150 or so years later we all recognize slavery as an evil act.

My apologies if I didn't word it clearly - I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats.

There really is no substance to my point lol, I was more just trying to point out how the parties have drastically shifted when it comes to conservative and liberal values.

---

I don't think they've really shifted. The democrats have just done a better job at concealing their racism as compassion in this day an age.

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

---

Lmao - just no. I'd fully expect that most of today's Americans would side with the union, purely because 150 or so years later we all recognize slavery as an evil act.

My apologies if I didn't word it clearly - I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats.

There really is no substance to my point lol, I was more just trying to point out how the parties have drastically shifted when it comes to conservative and liberal values.

---

I don't think they've really shifted. The democrats have just done a better job at concealing their racism as compassion in this day an age.

---

You do not sound as fun to have a beer with

BaylorJacket said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

---

Lmao - just no. I'd fully expect that most of today's Americans would side with the union, purely because 150 or so years later we all recognize slavery as an evil act.

My apologies if I didn't word it clearly - I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats.

There really is no substance to my point lol, I was more just trying to point out how the parties have drastically shifted when it comes to conservative and liberal values.

---

I don't think they've really shifted. The democrats have just done a better job at concealing their racism as compassion in this day an age.

---

You do not sound as fun to have a beer with

---

I'm not. Especially since I don't drink.

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

---

Lmao - just no. I'd fully expect that most of today's Americans would side with the union, purely because 150 or so years later we all recognize slavery as an evil act.

My apologies if I didn't word it clearly - I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats.

There really is no substance to my point lol, I was more just trying to point out how the parties have drastically shifted when it comes to conservative and liberal values.

---

I don't think they've really shifted. The democrats have just done a better job at concealing their racism as compassion in this day an age.

---

You do not sound as fun to have a beer with

---

I'm not. Especially since I don't drink.

---

You should consider it

Osodecentx said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

---

Lmao - just no. I'd fully expect that most of today's Americans would side with the union, purely because 150 or so years later we all recognize slavery as an evil act.

My apologies if I didn't word it clearly - I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats.

There really is no substance to my point lol, I was more just trying to point out how the parties have drastically shifted when it comes to conservative and liberal values.

---

I don't think they've really shifted. The democrats have just done a better job at concealing their racism as compassion in this day an age.

---

You do not sound as fun to have a beer with

---

I'm not. Especially since I don't drink.

---

You should consider it

---

No I shouldn't

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Assuming you are from the South and a true conservative, you would have been a proud Democrat when the Republican Party was formed over a 100 years ago

---

How so? I suspect I know the answer but am interested in your take.

---

Not my take - the Confederacy that tried to break away from the union consisted of Southern Democrats. At the time, the Democratic Party was the more Conservative party.

---

So because you believe the Southern Democrats were "more conservative" than Republicans (not sure about that being undisputed, just FYI), today's Republicans would have proudly supported the positions of Southern Democrats during the confederacy?

Gotta say, that's a really odd take.

---

Lmao - just no. I'd fully expect that most of today's Americans would side with the union, purely because 150 or so years later we all recognize slavery as an evil act.

My apologies if I didn't word it clearly - I meant if we were born 150 years ago (assuming you're in the south) we probably would have been Democrats.

There really is no substance to my point lol, I was more just trying to point out how the parties have drastically shifted when it comes to conservative and liberal values.

---

I don't think they've really shifted. The democrats have just done a better job at concealing their racism as compassion in this day an age.

---

You do not sound as fun to have a beer with

---

I'm not. Especially since I don't drink.

---

You should consider it

---

No I shouldn't

---

Indeed.

Impact of RCV; a good example https://t.co/zHcPfVJKYo

— NV Election Reform (@nvelectreform) November 7, 2021