No, not everyone. Just you. And I'm not convinced that I'm in the minority on that opinion. Tend to your own quirks — if you can admit to them — before you worry about anyone else's.

You're contradicting yourself... I would remind you that in a previous post you held the President-elect and the United States generally to be homophobic.


Yeah well, you are... why else would you accuse the US of being homophobic?

km

Do you have a point, or are you just practicing your word knots like a good boy scout?

Regarding Obama, I said "...it would seem that he is..." I also said it wouldn't surprise me if he altered his view at some point (yeah, I know, you would need a lot of help understanding something like that).

Can you prove to me that I'm in the minority in my belief that you're homophobic? Can you prove to me that your not?

And please show me where I accused the US at large of being homophobic? Another one of The Cases In Your Head, consigliori? Really, km, manufacturing realities to suit your argument is not a sign of a sound mind. Or or credibility for that matter.

I would remind you — again — that you shouldn't try to bullsh!t a bullsh!tter.

Well 'debunk' doesn't mean 'disprove' but 'expose the weakness in...'. The Pope seemed to do that quite effectively. Specifically, he pointed out that just because tolerance of an aspiration is demanded doesn't mean it's justified.

km

Justification being a perspectival thing . . . not for you, of course.

That's right... "much to your disappointment".


You mean he might cease to be homophobic? Why don't you just admit that he's not homophobic and get it over with?


I don't have to prove anything. You made the accusation - you prove it.


It was rolled in with the Obama exchange. I said that if opposition to gay marriage was homophobic then the United States and the President elect were homophobic. Your reply was "so it would seem, much to my disappointment".


I'm not manufacturing anything - just reminding you about what you said previously.

km

Yeah, mainly because it's not perspectival.

km

Love these conversations. Remindes me of the give and take and personal jabs of the old MC forums

dave

Yeah, although speaking for myself whilst I do believe in give and take I never make personal jabs because that would be quite rude.

km

What you call rude, I call straightforward. I don't mince words. I don't have a problem examining and allocating merit to both sides of an argument (to the point where some have accused me of fence-sitting), and I don't dance around issues by sticking my head in statutes and refusing to entertain the concept of a different POV.

What you call personal jabs are me calling you out on your obstinate dismissal of anything you don't hold up as reality. Of course you think it's rude. And inconvenient, I'm sure. But I take some comfort and confidence in seeing that many here who are on a higher intellectual plane than I (that's right, I have no problem being the mental schlepper in the crowd) — those who can express themselves in less emotional and reactive terms than I — also do not buy your brand of bigoted baloney.

Rude? It comes down to this: You reap what you sow. Or as another old expression goes, Stop it — you'll go blind!