🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gqgA2.4334$pE6....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabm...@geoshitties.com says...

This is going to be complicated so be careful. Once you are done, cut out 
enough to reduce the post but no so much as to lose context. If you do 
not wish to reply get rid of the lot.

> > > > > It's judgemental because you make it sound like that's all I care
> > > > > about.
> > > > 
> > > > Not as I read it. You are offended for some reason and are seeing what 
> > > > you want to see. 
> > > 
> > > And you did it on purpose to show me how a homosexual feels... 
> > > Are you saying now that they are only seeing what they want to?
> > 
> > 2+2 will never = 5. How do you make these jumps from what is written on 
> > the page to something completely irrelevant?
> 
> If I did that, then I would not understand either.  However that
> didn't happen.
> 
> You wrote: 
> 
> "To be honest, I purposely classified you to show you something. Look
> how mad you are over being grouped with a few people sharing a common
> opinion.  How do you think a homosexual feels every day of their life?
> Follow me?"
> 
> I assume you mean that they feel offended at being put in a "class".
> So far so good?
> 
> Then you write "You are offended for some reason and are seeing
> what you want to see."
> 
> Now the logical assumption would be that you were trying to say,
> "Homosexuals get offended for some reason and see what they want
> to see every day of their lives."

Only by your logic. Thank you for that though because now I can see why 
your replies rarely match the post. You take a paragraph from message A 
put it somewhere in message B making a whole new post message C and then 
derive from that.

Let's put things back together shall we. (The [Px] will become relevant 
as you read.)

[P1]
You wrote "Why does one opinion make me "people like you"?  Don't you 
think it's a bit judgemental for one opinion to somehow put me in a 
certain class? "
I reply "No. Your opinions are consistent with your view and some other 
people's view of homosexuality. People like you is a simple 
generalisation covering people with similar opinions. How is this 
judgemental?"

[P2]
You wrote "Why does one opinion make me "people like you"?  Don't you 
think it's a bit judgemental for one opinion to somehow put me in a 
certain class?"
I reply "No. Your opinions are consistent with your view and some other 
people's view of homosexuality. People like you is a simple 
generalisation covering people with similar opinions. How is this 
judgemental? To be honest, I purposely classified you to show you 
something. Look how mad you are over being grouped with a few people 
sharing a common opinion. How do you think a homosexual feels every day 
of their life? Follow me?"

[continuation of *P1*]
You reply to P1 with "It's judgemental because you make it sound like 
that's all I care about."
I reply to *that* with "Not as I read it. You are offended for some 
reason and are seeing what you want to see. "

P1 should be attached to P1 whereas P2 is in a slightly different 
context. Trying to take bits from P2 combine them with bits from P1 and 
derive a conclusion is obviously 2+2=5.

OK, now back to your questions...

[pasted from above for relevance - original kept for continuation]

> > > > > It's judgemental because you make it sound like that's all I care
> > > > > about.
> > > > Not as I read it. You are offended for some reason and are seeing what 
> > > > you want to see. 
> > > 
> > > And you did it on purpose to show me how a homosexual feels... 
> > > Are you saying now that they are only seeing what they want to?
> > 
> > 2+2 will never = 5. How do you make these jumps from what is written on 
> > the page to something completely irrelevant?
> 
> If I did that, then I would not understand either.  However that
> didn't happen.
> 
> You wrote: 
> 
> "To be honest, I purposely classified you to show you something. Look
> how mad you are over being grouped with a few people sharing a common
> opinion.  How do you think a homosexual feels every day of their life?
> Follow me?"
> 
> I assume you mean that they feel offended at being put in a "class".
> So far so good?

Sort of, your derived meaning is close enough but there was more to it. 
Homosexuals were not a definitivee part of the sentence. Any minority 
group or persecuted group would do. Also classification was not of major 
importance. Still, we will leave it there.

> Then you write "You are offended for some reason and are seeing
> what you want to see."

In a different place and different context. You read more into a comment 
I made than was intended and took offence. That is what I was referring 
to as "seeing what you want to see" you are looking to be persecuted and 
therefore you find it even if it is not there.

> Now the logical assumption would be that you were trying to say,
> "Homosexuals get offended for some reason and see what they want
> to see every day of their lives."

No. Let's take a little look at logical derivation.

Some men are white.
Some white men are stupid.

The only logical derivations are

Some white men are stupid. Some men are stupid.

You cannot derive 

All men are stupid. All men are white. 


>From my comments, you cannot derive "every day of their lives". This 
is you adding prejudiced comments into an incorrectly derived conclusion. 

You cannot derive "homosexuals ... see what they want to see". This is 
you mutating my words to form your argument in an effort to place said 
words into my mouth. 

You can derive "homosexuals get offended for some reason". But only  
because everyone does so that is of no relevance to anything since we are 
not discussing the intricacies of how touchy people are. 

You cannot splice together the comments you chose to draw a conclusion in 
the way you did. 

I hope that is clear now. ;)


Fuck, I am not sure if this bit below is supposed to be here or not now 
;)

Seems you copied everything twice and then I so things are going to be 
very strange for a while ;)
> 
> > > > > > To be honest, I purposely classified you to show you something. Look
> >  how 
> > > > > > mad you are over being grouped with a few people sharing a common 
> > > > > > opinion. How do you think a homosexual feels every day of their life?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Follow me?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's why they should get help, so they'll stop feeling that way.
> > > > 
> > > > Then you must agree you need help for the feelings you have every time I 
> > > > use the word Christian or group you with other homophobes. 
> > > 
> > > 1) I call myself Christian, so why would I get offended if someone
> > >    else did?
> > 
> > I do not know, but you do. Every time I use the term or make any 
> > reference to your faith I am bombarded with abuse from yourself.
> > 
> > > 2) I don't know what you mean by "other" homophobes, since for that
> > >    to work, homophobia would have to exist 
> > 
> > Homophobia does exist. We have already had this conversation. Just check 
> > out a dictionary or discuss it with the psychiatrists you are so fond of 
> > and you will discover that it IS REAL and DOES EXIST.
> 
> If homophobia existed, then people would be free to discriminate against
> them legally because of their "condition".  e.g., someone who's
> claustrophobic won't have to work in small places any more than
> someone who's homophobic would have to work with a gay person.

Have you bothered to check? No, thought not. Stop spouting garbage. 

> > >    and then I'd have to be
> > >    homophobic.  
> > 
> > If you were not we would not be having this conversation.
> 
> I assume you think "homophobia" to mean "fear of homosexuals".

I know what homophobia means and I have explained it to you in depth 
previously. Look for it while digging up dirt on Dejanews :P

> There's no fear there, not even hatred.  I "love the sinner,
> hate the sin".  

Are you saying you love all homosexuals without question? If so why do 
you hate the "sin"? What exactly is it you hate or fear?

> It was never even implied that homophobia
> refers to the action, but the person.

The action and the person cannot be separated per se. The action makes 
the person what they are. 

> > > > > How do you think someone who is inclined to practice bestiality
> > > > > feels every day of his/her life?  Oh wait, you already answered
> > > > > that with a simple "I do not care".
> > > > 
> > > > !
> > > 
> > > Do you remember that?  You said you did not care whether people
> > > got put in jail for practicing bestiality or not...  you call
> > > this compassionate?
> > 
> > I have no compassion for rapists. We have done this already. 
> 
> It's not always necessarily rape.

I have yet to have this shown.

> > > obviously you have fooled yourself very well
> > > in that regard.
> > 
> > I am not fooling myself. I am not the one who believes in all that crap.
> 
> You believe that I do not like being called a Christian, and that's
> how you fooled yourself.

I *assumed* it from your constant jibes whenever I use the term and your 
requests that I do not. I am not fooling myself. You have fooled 
*yourself* into thinking I am fooling *myself*. The terms are not equal.

> > > Still, it's better that the people inclined towards bestiality
> > > get professional help rather than go to jail for it.
> > 
> > Rape = Jail sentence seems fine to me.
> 
> It's not always about rape, and it would be better to cure them
> (at least give 
> them some kind of treatment) to make sure that it
> doesn't happen.

What treatment do you suggest? Doggy cum patches!

-- 
Mark