edit: seems admin action has taken place, didn't see it before i posted. post hidden.
Yep. And until we get a ruling from the admins that it is ALWAYS unacceptable to make the blanket claim that anybody or any number of people are incestuous, pedophilic rapists, then I shall keep doing it.
in other words, you know the rules, but you're going to keep breaking them because you don't
understand the rules.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If there is no problem with NJ declaring gays to be incestuous, pedophilic rapists, why is it a problem to turn that prejudice back around on him? He's the one who brought it up.
because attacking your opponent in debate instead of his argument is a very basic logical fallacy and disrupts the flow of civil debate on the site. i understand that you think you are attacking his argument by using it against him, but that's irrelevent. you are attacking a member of the board.
Now, I'm not saying that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist.
just like rush limbaugh wasn't saying all drug addicts should go to jail? the body of your posts disagrees with you. you repeatedly asked NJ why he fantasized about raping his infant son. i would call that an accusation that he is an incestuous pedophiliac rapist. perhaps, rrhain, the more important question at hand is
why are you obsessed with imagining him doing such things? there's a certain logical disconnect between what he says and what you accuse him of, so one must wonder where this idea in your head is coming from.
I'm simply saying that he thinks about it an awful lot.
on the contrary, you seem to think about it an awful lot. i certainly read nothing about his desires in his posts.
But since he is the only person who ever deigns to think about raping one's infant child when considering the topic of sex between adults, it is not personal to ask him why. It is merely specific.
it seems that you very basically do not understand what "personal" means.
NJ is the one that brought it up. Therefore, he needs to explain why it is that the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately made him think of raping his infant son.
and i explained it to you above, whether or not NJ did. the christian right feels that all these things fall under a broad category of "sexual deviancy" and that if you open the door for one sexual deviancy, the rest will come with it. that is the point you should be arguing against, not what you fantasize about NJ doing.
He's the one who brought it up. Why is it taboo to make him justify it for his own case?
it's not. it's taboo to
specifically attack a single person you are engage in debate with. i realize that you think certain positions are disgusting, but turning generally bigotted arguments into specific attacks...
I am attempting to reframe the discussion. Rather than trying to force the justification be of gays, I am having NJ justify straights.
that's fine. attacking him in the process, specifically, is not.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that when he thinks about having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son. That doesn't mean he actually does it. It simply means that he can't help but think about it. And the thought is so compelling that he feels the need to tell us about it. It is up to him to explain why.
Do honestly not understand the difference?
when you get a grasp of what your opponent's argument actually is, feel free to come back and lecture the rest of us on "not understanding the difference."
But it isn't about him personally
then don't attack him personally. is this really so hard to understand?
And we believe him why?
because he's making the argument. he's probably a better source on what he's trying to say than you are.
So what you're saying is that if I tell you repeatedly that I am not trying to say that NJ is an incestuous, pedophilic rapist, that'll be good enough for you?
it's a useful clarification, yes, but your actions are still inappropriate.
Hint: There is a festive clue in there about NJ's defense of his own argument. Can you figure out what it is? Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
yes, like there is a legal "double" standard that allows the KKK to exist and spew their hate speech, but when they start burning crosses on peoples' lawns they get in trouble. that's not a
double standard, it's a
standard. and part of it is specificity. do you really not understand this concept?
don't personally attack your fellow members.
Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? I do not ask this for my health. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer to that question. For if you do, it would explain a lot about your defense of NJ.
i do not.
If you don't, then we're back where we started with your inability to understand that if NJ's argument shall not be applied to him, then it necessarily means that it shall not be applied to anybody else, either, and he should stop making it.
you're still missing the very basic point. i understand that you feel attacking many people is a lot worse than attacking one person, but generalities and specific attacks are two very different things. you cannot make specific attacks. period.
Since he seems to be incapable of controlling himself, since he seemingly cannot help but tell us all of his visions of raping his infant son when he thinks about sex with someone of the same sex, perhaps he should be told to have those thoughts somewhere else.
and constantly mischaracterizing your opponent in this manner, whether or not you say he is
doing these things, is in rather poor taste -- regardless how tasteless you feel NJ's point may be. if you think his behavious is disgusting,
don't do it yourself.
And yet, NJ is still allowed to post. If it is against the forum rules, why is NJ still allowed to post?
no, rrhain. try to parse the sentence more carefully, and not live in your own little la-la land. personal attacks are against the forum rules. being a bigot is not.
Again, it's like the idiots in schools who seem to think that the solution to bullying is to punish the ones being bullied for fighting back.
yes, well, when the bullies are fighting with fists, and the bullied brings a gun to school... it's hardly the same thing, is it? but oh, no, wait, that's okay because bullying is wrong, and people should be able to fight back? anything in the name of stopping the people you hate? not much better here, but a whole lot worse.
yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper.
Yes, arachnophilia, that's what I'm trying to say. You hit it spot on. Couldn't have nailed it any better. I'm amazed that you were able to read my mind so clearly.
Hint: I didn't really mean that. I know my words seemed to indicate that I did, but I didn't. Perhaps just because somebody says something, that doesn't mean they're telling the truth.
perhaps you should stop fantasizing about people raping babies.
Who said I was claiming the moral high ground?
perhaps that's my problem. you're content to be a bigot too.
What I said I was doing was trying to make a point. Does the term "double standard" mean anything to you?
you are held to the same standard. in fact, if there's a double standard, it's that you got off when you personally attacked another poster. i promise that NJ wouldn't have been so lucky.
Three wrongs don't make a right, arachnophilia. If it's wrong when I do it, then it's just as wrong when NJ does it and it is just as wrong to come down on me and not him.
you attacked another member personally. he did not. why do you not understand this?
I have not attacked NJ. I have simply pointed his own argument back against him. If it is personal to have his argument applied to him, then it is personal to have it applied to anybody else.
So why is NJ still allowed to make that personal argument?
congratulations! you have used logic to prove that black is white! i'm sorry, rrhain, but words have meanings. "personally" is when something is directed at a specific person. "general" is when it is not. your logic is faulty.
™ Version 4.2