Re: Ode to Scottie Witlessmongrel

On Dec 10, 9:11 am, Jenn <jenncondu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<bdb47056-da1f-48e9-9e7a-15acf7ce4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,





 ScottW <Scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:19 am, Jenn <jenncondu...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<6d8e1dc1-a0d5-4e11-a30c-1ada7fc3a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

 If I said you possibly harbor hatred, would you not feel accused?

If someone asked me if I hate something,

 You never did that, not that it would change anything.

You take a strong stance against SSM and its supporters.

I did? I don't recall engaging much against SSM. I have
taken a stance against some of its supporters and their tactics.

The key word there is "some".  You tend to group all gay people
together, for example, "I don't think I shall support rights for people
who condone acquiring them by depriving others of their rights."

Actually I think I split them into perps and silent supporters.
That would be at least 2 groups.




You make
over-generalized statements about gay people.

Sounds like an over-generalized statement about me.
If you don't want to be over-general, you should
consider providing some specifics.

See above for one example.



 You won't say why you
oppose SSM, after being asked the reason several times.

 Yes and I never will after being threatened if I don't.

You weren't threatened.

LoL. Are you going to speculate if I don't?



  I didn't accuse
of you hating anyone.  Based on all of the above, I said that I don't
know.  That's because I don't know.

 But you choose to believe it's possible. What makes it possible?
What prevents it from being impossible. Reality is you don't know.

That's what I said.

So you don't know if it's possible.




 I will not be compelled to answer simply because
 refusing gives you license to speculation IYO.

 I would simply answer.  If I
refused to answer,

 So refusing to answer your questions opens
any line of speculation as far as you're concerned?

No, it means that I don't know.

 Not knowing is quite a different thing than presuming
possibilities.

I'm not presuming anything.  I simply don't know.

Which is not a completely accurate repetition of what
you said.


I would understand why hate would be open to
speculation.

  Only to people of repugnant morality.

I see.

 No, it's obvious you don't.

 If you say that you  (sic) hatred of
gay people or of homosexuality in general isn't the reason,

 I think your hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
reason for your support of SSM.

You're such an interesting person.  While I didn't accuse you of
anything, you're now accusing me of hating heterosexuals.

 Oh I'm so sorry, I meant,
"I think your POSSIBLE hatred of heterosexuals in general isn't the
 reason for your support of SSM."
Is that better?

No, because I've stated that I don't hate heterosexuals.

 Not before in this thread.

I've never been asked or accused of that before.

 Should you feel compelled to respond to such
accusation?  I don't.

I don't feel compelled, but if I want people to be clear about the
situation, I answer.

Your threats removed any desire I might have had to
clear your troubled mind.


 So what other ridiculous speculative
accusation should I conjure up for your denial?
Let's discuss your hetero sexual experiences.
Come clean or your perversions will be open to
speculation.

My hetero sexual (sic) experiences are nobody's business.

 Oh well then....
 Exactly what makes thje reasons for my alleged opposition to SSM your
business?

You bring up your opposition to SSM.

And in your example above I provided my reason.
But I don't find stating a position compells anyone to
answer why.



 It's very
simple.

 Yes, I needn't deny anything to prevent being
subjected to your ill willed speculations.

I hold no ill willed speculations.  I said "I don't know".

 But it's possible.  Why do you keep leaving out the
worst part?

I don't know your motivations.  I also don't care.  But when you take a
stance and won't give reasons, one is left to wonder why.

Of course, but public speculation?

I wonder if she' got the clap?
I wonder if she's had an abortion.
I wonder if her partner shaves.

 I didn't
accuse you of anything.

Ok, you're were just being rude.


I'll believe
you.  I have no reason not to.

I have a lot of reasons to question how you choose
raise your accusations of hatred.

I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.

 Really.  You seem to imply that I have possible hatred
that may or may not be a reason for opposition to SSM.
Do you have possible racism? Possible bigotry?
The possibilities are endless.

Many people who are against SSM harbor hatred of homosexuals.

Proof?

You're kidding, right?

  No, and define many people why your at it.

Example:  I listened to Colmes' radio show on Fox radio on the way home
last night.  I listened for a half hour, and the topic was SSM.  I heard
about 10 callers.  Four of them were gross, violent statements against
gay people in general.  "Faggots should just die."  "Queers shouldn't
even exist, more less get married."  If you deny that there is a segment
of the population who hate gay people, you are simply denying reality.

So you seem to thing that talk radio provides a representative
sample of the American public? LoL.
Only thing I can draw from that tidbit is why Colmes radio
show is floundering.

How many people have you personally talked to about SSM?
More than 10? Given Colmes sample at least 4 should have
made gross violent statements against gay people in general.
Did they?

Here's a clue. Radio and TV are not representative of America.
You drawing your conclusion is as dumb as the jihadists
who want to burn America because they saw an episode
of Queer as Folk or whaterver that Showtime show was.


  Anyway, I am not many people and I resent being
stereotyped by your bigotry.

I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.

  Many homosexuals don't know when their insinuations
are offensive or not.

I didn't insinuate anything, Scott.

Denial, denial, denial.




  As I said
several times, if you say that you don't, that's good enough for me.

I will not descend to the level of your accusations with a denial.

I didn't accuse you of anything, Scott.

  I won't say. Now what?

That's fine with me.

What? No threat? A pleasant improvement. Congrats.



since
you haven't indicated what the reason is.  So what other
"hateful"
things do I do?

 I think this is sufficiently repugnant for now.

lol  I see.

Do you think making false accusations is funny?
I see extended exposure to the debating trade
as conducted by Middius continues to diminish your
morality and make you blind to what you're becoming.

An idiotic question and statement.  Obviously what I was laughing
at
was
calling anything I did "repugnant".  I've not accused you of
anything.

In fact, I said that if you say that your opinion on the topic of
SSM
is
not born of any hatred, then I believe you.

 "if" is a simple little word which can be very repugnant when so
phrased.
  What "if" I choose not to say?

That's fine, but then you open the possibility of people guessing what
your motivation is.

 Guess away if you feel you must.
 Only repugnant people presume malicious intent and ill-will.

I'm not guessing about anything.  I said that I don't know what your
motivations are.  YOU are the person presuming ill will.

 No, you are implying the possibility of ill-will in the absence of
your knowledge.   Possibilities of mine aren't influenced by
you or your lack of knowledge.
 Who ordained you center of all perspective?

This is ironic, considering how often you presume ill-will on my part.

I haven't presumed it, I've witnessed it.



  Is it so different when you choose not to engage in defense of
your faith?

I engage in defense of my faith all the time.  I just don't think this
is the place to have in depth discussions on religion.

 Should I then speculate what hedonistic religious rituals
you engage in?

Why would you?

 I won't, but anything is possible for you when you don't know.

Have I given you reason to believe that I participate in such rituals?

Let me listen to Colmes radio for awhile and get back to you
on that one.

ScottW
.