Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (71988)	8/6/2003 9:28:28 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

Copy your stupid lies over and over you glutton for punishment! Message 19185497 And THIS: Message 19182777 Jewels, I'm going away for a couple of weeks to Scotsdale and Vegas; so I won't be here to kick you around--nor to respond to your mindless insults. Consequently, I will make the situation perfectly clear before I go. I have NEVER misrepresented you. I represent ME. YOU represent YOU. It is quite possible that YOUR choice of words may sometimes misrepresent YOUR thinking or YOUR meaning; but that is YOU--NOT ME. I am not the scapegoat for your mistakes or embarrassing moments. I am the LAST person on this thread who may be reasonably accused of misrepresenting ANYONE. Let us take the incident yesterday where I made a reasonable response to your "repugnant" post. You had posted that heterosexuals "typically" find sodomy "repugnant". You also said that tolerance must be taught (I.E. that intolerance in the form of "repugnance" was the default interface between heterosexuals and homosexuals). So in a couple of lines you slipped in several ugly assumptions as though they were factual and proven: You said that repugnance was "typical". I suggested it was not. You said (by extension) that intolerance (as repugnance) was natural or immanent. I suggested it was not. In suppport of my disagreement to your assertions I offered the case of the Greeks who were one of many instances of people "typically" finding homosexual sex NOT repugnant. And (again by extension) my example suggests that tolerance (in the form of NON-repugnance) is the default typification and norm. So there were two bones of contention: 1). Is there a natural inbred repugnance by heterosexuals toward homosexuals (and presumably vice versa), or is such a repugnance a learned cultural behavior? and 2). Is "repugnance" the typical feeling of hetrosexuals (and presumably vice versa)...or is it NOT? In both of these the "repugnance" is regarding the sex act itself although argument could (but need not necessarily) extend the repugnance to the actors as well as the act. One would expect (if the feeling was genetically based) that homosexuals would also have a repugnance toward heterosexual sex. Do they? Typically, I mean?? Some of them may be repulsed at thoughts of doing it our way THEMSELVES. But do they find my doing it repugnant? In any event, I am beyond the argument now because instead of responding to me in a rational and intelligent manner you said this: "Your comment missed the point completely. As usual, you are attempting to plant something that doesn't belong there into my view point so that you can give the appearance of debate." This was non-responsive, insulting, and truly misleading and misrepresentative. I planted NOTHING in your post: I simply analyzed your post and responded to it reasonably. You continued in the same vein with whining and personal invective--insults to which I had no reasonable option but to respond in kind. I argue PRINCIPLES, not PEOPLE. The ONLY time I engage in personal invective is when it is necessary as a response to barnyard behaviour. You are one of several people on this thread who (sooner or later) forego decent discussion in favour of ad hominems. Frankly, I only respond to such stupidity out of the principle that lowbrows and bullies ought to control neither playgrounds nor boardrooms. If you feel inadequate to respond to argument with other than whining or personal insults...then perhaps you ought to take a good hard look in the mirror and recognize yourself as a weakling. As to the cheap shots between you and your witless friends: there is nothing more telling of a lack of argument than these pathetic little swishy "support groups"; and more pertinent yet--there is nothing more suggestive of weak character and spinal deficiency. Talk to your phoney baloney buddy, CH. He wants you on his side so he can control you in your childishness.