Is the preceding poster a poltroon or not?

[Badger]

one of hoonor and decorum. a paltroon?!? i dare say sir you are crossing a dangerous line....

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

one of hoonor and decorum. a paltroon?!? i dare say sir you are crossing a dangerous line....

You don't seem to be a poltroon, but she's a ma'am.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Badger is not a poltroon. He would never evade a honorable challenge.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No way.

[Torie]

Grumps may have his character flaws, but being craven is definitely not one of them.

[White Trash]

Certainly not.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Grumps may have his character flaws, but being craven is definitely not one of them.

Awwwww. 

SKIP

[RFayette]

Certainly not.

[Enduro]

Nope.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ordinarily I would say "no", but not having an avatar is a bit poltroonish.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

one of hoonor and decorum. a paltroon?!? i dare say sir you are crossing a dangerous line....

I didn't feel like I knew centrist well enough to make a certain answer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, since she chickened out when her support for mandatory abortion was challenged. Then again, that might have been for the best.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes, since she chickened out when her support for mandatory abortion was challenged. Then again, that might have been for the best.

A. Screw you too

B. You took that position WAY out of context. You forgot the part about "only in cases of incest between siblings or parents and children to prevent children from having to live with crippling birth defects". But it's easier to attack someone when you leave out the reason they advocate a policy you disagree with. Then there's just an inflammatory strawman that gets people angry. And the best part is that you never technically lied about the opinion.

C. I considered changing it after someone made an argument that forced actual thought. I haven't actually changed my mind, and I probably should have said so.

D.Under this policy, people in first degree incest relationships would know that they can't have biological children, so they wouldn't bother trying, instead probably opting to adopt.

E. Seriously, you left out what the opinion actually is, or even the most basic description of where it was even discussed, leaving people with nothing to go off of but your own mischaracterization. A pretty cowardly thing to do. So yes, you are very much a paltroon. Did you expect me to just take you spitting in my face? Because I won't. And this isn't the first time you did this. You called me "some random edgy creep whow supports mandatory abortions". I defended myself  (albeit rather awkwardly). You never responded.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Less of a poltroon than, say, The Arizonan.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, since she chickened out when her support for mandatory abortion was challenged. Then again, that might have been for the best.

A. Screw you too

B. You took that position WAY out of context. You forgot the part about "only in cases of incest between siblings or parents and children to prevent children from having to live with crippling birth defects". But it's easier to attack someone when you leave out the reason they advocate a policy you disagree with. Then there's just an inflammatory strawman that gets people angry. And the best part is that you never technically lied about the opinion.

C. I considered changing it after someone made an argument that forced actual thought. I haven't actually changed my mind, and I probably should have said so.

D.Under this policy, people in first degree incest relationships would know that they can't have biological children, so they wouldn't bother trying, instead probably opting to adopt.

E. Seriously, you left out what the opinion actually is, or even the most basic description of where it was even discussed, leaving people with nothing to go off of but your own mischaracterization. A pretty cowardly thing to do. So yes, you are very much a paltroon. Did you expect me to just take you spitting in my face? Because I won't. And this isn't the first time you did this. You called me "some random edgy creep whow supports mandatory abortions". I defended myself  (albeit rather awkwardly). You never responded.

Oh wow, I didn't expect this level of self-righteous outrage from someone who's proudly advocating for policies most people with a conscience find inherently abhorrent. Funny.

You're more than welcome to resume the old thread and continue the discussion there. You left a post by Nathan unanswered and I'm really curious to see you grapple with it. If you somehow can put together a coherent response, I'd be happy to take my turn at debunking it.

(BTW, a quick skim of this might help you understand why the specific circumstances for which you're advocating for mandatory abortions are morally irrelevant to most of us)

[RFayette]

Antonio is just about the opposite of a poltroon, even though I'd imagine we mutually agree on maybe two or three issues at most.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

RFayette is not a poltroon.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Yes, since she chickened out when her support for mandatory abortion was challenged. Then again, that might have been for the best.

A. Screw you too

B. You took that position WAY out of context. You forgot the part about "only in cases of incest between siblings or parents and children to prevent children from having to live with crippling birth defects". But it's easier to attack someone when you leave out the reason they advocate a policy you disagree with. Then there's just an inflammatory strawman that gets people angry. And the best part is that you never technically lied about the opinion.

C. I considered changing it after someone made an argument that forced actual thought. I haven't actually changed my mind, and I probably should have said so.

D.Under this policy, people in first degree incest relationships would know that they can't have biological children, so they wouldn't bother trying, instead probably opting to adopt.

E. Seriously, you left out what the opinion actually is, or even the most basic description of where it was even discussed, leaving people with nothing to go off of but your own mischaracterization. A pretty cowardly thing to do. So yes, you are very much a paltroon. Did you expect me to just take you spitting in my face? Because I won't. And this isn't the first time you did this. You called me "some random edgy creep whow supports mandatory abortions". I defended myself  (albeit rather awkwardly). You never responded.

Oh wow, I didn't expect this level of self-righteous outrage from someone who's proudly advocating for policies most people with a conscience find inherently abhorrent. Funny.

You're more than welcome to resume the old thread and continue the discussion there. You left a post by Nathan unanswered and I'm really curious to see you grapple with it. If you somehow can put together a coherent response, I'd be happy to take my turn at debunking it.

(BTW, a quick skim of this might help you understand why the specific circumstances for which you're advocating for mandatory abortions are morally irrelevant to most of us)

Don't complain about me afting self righteous when you'return oozing with it yourself. You finding something abhorrent doesn't mean that everyone does. And even if that were true, my argument for this position is that not doing it would cause more harm than good. You refuse to acknowledge that fact, perhaps because then you wouldn't be able to act like I don't have a consious. Then you might have to actually think.

It's not the disagreement that's the problem,  (though I admit that I can be intense and confrontational about disagreements, sometimes justified, usually not; probably because I get pissed off when people I perceive as being wrong keep holding the same opinions, so debates get heated) It's the not even talking about my arguments, instead pretending that I just believe it cause I'm evil or something.

You are being an asshole, bluntly. You'be made multiple jabs at me since the first incest thread, all without context, that would have no logical point other then to either hurt me or damage my reputation.

And that moral system you linked to is disgusting. The philosophy was criticized for implying the belief that it was immoral to not tell a murderer where their target was, and the creator of the philosophy said that implication was true. I.E. he said it was morally wrong to protect someone from a murderer by lying about their location. I'm not going to read anymore of it, because it's a stupid philosophy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The categorical imperative may have been criticized for indicating that it's wrong to lie to protect somebody from a murderer, but consequentialism has been criticized for indicating that it's moral to kill someone to harvest their organs. Clearly you didn't even read to the end of the section in question, which brings up a possibility that both Kant and Constant fail to address. Is it possible that the originator of a concept may not have the most ironclad understanding of it??!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Nathan: most certainly not a poltroon.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Kal is a Zombie poltroon.

[RFayette]

Sanchez is a great guy, we agree on about 90% of stuff,, and he has a wicked sense of humor?  Poltroon?  I think not.

[Mr. Smith]

nope

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A brave Mormon.