like it or not, Gates did actually have a lot of talent at what he did.
You mean he's a natural crook?
So the author submits a book which he doesn't believe is legally required to be submitted. Then when changes are suggested he cries "censorship" and ignores the changes, with apparently no legal ramifications whatsoever. That doesn't sound much like censorship to me. The case involving the Progressive was indeed censorship (and prior restraint at that), but this seems more like an attempt to garner some publicity and "authenticity" for the book. But then again maybe I'm too old and cynical about these things.
Oops -- "its" not "it's."
That was generally considered to be the Soviet plan as well. Probably the Chinese, too. Deterrence still worked. I would prefer no Iranian bomb, but it's most likely use isn't a strike on the continental United States or even Israel, but rather use on Iranian territory if invaded.
US doctrine has never been "no first use," unlike that of some other countries (USSR during the Cold War, China). Heck, we haven't even promised not to use them against nonnuclear states, attempting to retain their use as an option in the event of CBW attacks.
It is an avoidable risk, in that we can tell idiotic humans to stop flying quadcopters near planes, you fools!
Oh, just tell them to stop and that will solve the problem. How little some people know of human nature.
Part of David Gerrold's War Against the Chtorr series portrays pedophilia as something understandable given the context -- from the perspective of our protagonist. He changes his mind, but molests his boys and others along the way. (Can't remember which book does this -- it's been more than 20 years since I last read the series).
Yes both "PC loser" and "SJW" are ad hominem but they're insults not arguments. An ad hominem attack is a response to a person based on them rather than the content of their argument. This was not a response to his argument, please note he's the one that started throwing insults around.
Your claim of "Tu Quoque" is also wrong, I objected to him telling everybody who disagreed with him not not say anything "ever", but never suggested in my response that he should remain silent.
On a personal note: the "no you are!" defence? Really? I haven't seen heard that since I was six. What a pitiful attempt at rational argument.