Moonlight Graham

If the world ends, what will happen to the moon? Think about THAT!

Yes, the drawing of gay Jesus is almost certainly historically inaccurate. They didn't have those badass jackets around back then. Hypothetical gay Moonlight does not offend Moonlight.

I guess I'm a bigot to myself then. Fun fact: I'm a Christian, have been all my life, baptized, with all my sacraments completed. Went to a Christian school from kindergarten through high school graduation. I have a close sibling who is gay, and is getting married next year to another homosexual, and they're getting married in a Christian church (no, not in a Catholic or Anglican one LOL). Try again.

Interesting. Evidence? Link?

First of all, even if I did break any of those rules you posted,t they're all referring to messages posted in the forums. I see no rules regarding avatars. Secondly, gay Jesus does offend Christians. A gay president would also offend Christians. If I change my photo to a pic of two men kissing, Christians would also get offended. Jesus never married, never had kids, never had a female lover (unless you read the Da Vinci Code) and surrounded himself with a dozen men who followed him everywhere. For all we know, he could have been gay. Statistically there's a 10% chance he was. The question is, if he was gay (or even the very act of me questioning if he was), why does that offend you?

In the span of two sentences, in something you quoted in the previous sentence mind you, how do you get me saying definitely "it's true" from me actually rather asking "what if it's true?". Seriously.

I addressed the trolling accusation already. As for me being a bigot: I'm not intolerant of all other differing belief, religion etc. other than my own, but there are certain opinions/beliefs that I think are absolutely wrong. So by definition, no I'm not a bigot.

A single post or a single photo isn't trolling (and there's no rules here on user photos from what I can see), a troll is someone consistently baiting and annoying with ill intent. I didn't accuse BC based on one post, I based it on the 30,000 or however many posts he has, and I put up with literally years of his behaviour until finally making the first accusation based on overwhelming evidence.

I'll agree with that for the most part. Though on the very rare occasions I call someone out for being a troll, it's not name-calling, but it is an accusation.

And you admitted your mistake, yet with a lack of evidence to make the conclusion, betsy accused you of being a (and this is a direct quote ladies and gentlemen of the jury): And she's calling us the childish ones who throws accusations around like Santa throws around candy?

Since AW probably triple-checked my search (see: smallc) I'm assuming my "4" number is accurate. But you very likely didn't look at my prior accusations (given that "socialist" is a username, not an ideological label I gave them, and would have known that had you looked at the posts I referenced) so why are you saying it's 4 times too many? Why would you assume "socialist" was unfairly accused if you've only seen one example of me accusing anyone. You seem to consistently make generalizations and conclusions, whether religious/metaphysical or personal, based on a lack of evidence.

I hope you don't mean yourself. What if the people you're calling a bigot are a bigot? What if the 2 people I've accused of trolling are, indeed, trolling?

Who on MLW is anti-American?

Say wha? I did a search, and since I've been on MLW since 2007 I've used the words "troll" or "trolling" exactly 5 times (4 of those aimed at the currently accused, once at "socialist") before this thread. I used the term another time replying to a thread called "Is trolling a mental illness?" where I accused nobody, so that doesn't count. So 2 people I've accused of trolling in over 5 years, that's hardly using the term lightly. So accusing me of throwing "troll" around like a discus and abusing/cheapening the rule? "That's being unfair and dishonest. Not to say, childish". All I'm saying is please present evidence that BC doesn't partake in trolling here regularly. I'm sure I could rustle up a significant number of fellow posters who would side with me, and he's been accused many times before by many other users.

The post, in a bubble, is fine. The issue is that I and many other posters on here have responded to the same claim countless times over several years, a claim posted with the primary intent of trying to offend readers and provoke a negative emotional response (see definition of trolling). Smallc obviously agreed with me in the reply that first drew my attention to the post: I'm not controlling anything you read, not stepping on anyone's "rights", and censoring nobody. I have no such authority. Really? Let's leave that for the majority of MLW posters to decide.

Agreed with Cybercoma. Above is case in point, isn't it? You're insinuating you'll start murdering people with your guns if authorities come to confiscate them? Can't do that with rubber spatulas.

That's a slippery slope fallacious argument. First, I'm not saying that all gun use should be banned, just highly regulated (want to hunt? maybe even shoot a handgun? Go to the police station and pick up your gun and then drop it back off). Most other dangerous leisure activities also don't pose the threat to other people's lives that guns do. Most guns are designed to kill humans, or larger-than-human animals and thus capable of killing humans as well. For assault rifles and handguns etc., they have no other purpose other than to kill humans as efficiently as possible. Not many other leisure activities function around the purpose of killing humans. Motorcycles and airplanes can kill other people, but that's not their express purpose. Society should factor the weight measuring the leisure activity and its purpose to the risk to other human lives. ie: Hunting rifles have less of a purpose to kill humans and less of an ability to kill humans in large numbers than do handguns & automatic guns, so restrictions should be tighter for handguns/assault weapons than hunting rifles.

Ladies and gentleman of MLW, may I present to you the members of the "Alienated Fraternity of BC Defenders" (AFBD): Shady: Most MLW'ers disagree with him consistently, so must defend BC because he's a fellow American conservative AW: Fellow American apologist Betsy: Persecuted Christian of MLW, therefore must defend BC because he's a God-believer who doesn't challenge her theism (at least last time I checked). JOIN AFBD TODAY! Funny, I guess when you accuse a fellow AFBD member of being a troll, all swarm to their defense! Be wary my fellow MLW'ers.

I have long ago, but I can't ignore when he's quoted in other posts.

Actually I'll go ahead and do or say exactly what I want, thank you very much. Stop trying to censor me

Yet you didn't challenge any of the arguments in this thread for stricter gun control, so how are they invalid or unreasonable? Firearms are one of the worst and most socially destructive human inventions in the history of human civilization, so yes I hate guns. So I guess for you: fun > human lives

bot = A fake user controlled by a computer program.

See my reply to AW. Also interesting you'll reply to me about this but you'll ignore a large number of my replies to your posts challening you on your religious claims (about homosexuals and whatnot).

Because he's a troll and it's the 5000th time he's said the same thing and will do so at any opportunity just he can try to get people riled up.