Dear me. I'm afraid I had to return, since Tiassa is now using his amazingly well protected powers of ultra-moderation (in the
Ethics subsection, no less) to accuse me roundaboutly of homophobia. Witness if you will:
No. It's that you go out of your way to indulge your psyche in hostility.
When termed "retarded" or "illiterate" by a person whose major claim to fame appears to be a pitiful grasp of argumentation then yes, I admit my gorge rises. What was the other term of good debate you used? Ah yes: "prig".
You're the one who can't figure out the obvious when it's written in front of you.
"No,
you are!" Oh,
well done, Tiassa. Which school was it you graduated from again?
Because it's clear you haven't a clue about the weight of said confession. The statement is not true. But it's true one cannot make the leap to the notion that your statement of what is not true constitutes a lie.
Tiassa has finally grasped that the truth or untruth - my evil "lie" here again
- of a statement, and specifically my statement, has nothing to do with the weight of said statement. He realizes suddenly that a lie is a
omission; an untrue statement may simply be incorrect. Now, as I was stating a personal position, there is little reason in the common discourse to term a lie. It is a
position which which Tiassa happens to disagree with, which makes his ego cringe and causes him to lash out, apparently. Ironically, Tiassa did earlier accuse of "lying", which ironically might actually itself be a lie, since he would actually have to be
particularly ignorant to think that a statement of position was a lie, or that I was misrepresenting myself.
I assume you see how that works now, Tiassa? I don't have time to reteach you everything you never learned about liberal arts.
Ah. So the specifics of raising children are meaningless?
This is most amusing. I have referred to literature, mathematics and morality, which I - in my obvious ignorance - had thought specific enough; this tangent pops up again and again without any definition of why Tiassa thinks it so critically important to the central issue of whether or not one should have a frothing freakout at the determination of one's child's sexuality. Lately, he's attempting to inject society into the issue:
Strangely, those two statements have nothing to do with one another. You treat the closeted gay as if their worry is extraneous
No. We are dealing with unnecessary
parental angst, not unnecessary
societal angst. Please stay on topic.
, as if it originates entirely internally
This was the entire
geist of your synthesis - the parental response. What school did you go to again?
and then get disgusted at "Americans" because I think you're wrong.
Is this your usual method of argumentation? Try to reduce the other side to some banal accusation? Well done. Whine though you may, I believe different nationalities have different national moods. There is nothing net wrong with the American one; I find Americans prone to discussion of their problems, rather than discretion of their problems. I believe this manifests itself to some degree in the sort of pointless angst you're describing. Or, as Sam put it: there are more important things to worry about.
Fine. I believe you. Whatever you say.
:yawn: That was possibly the
most clever thing anyone's ever said on here. I hope they're not paying you for this "moderator" gig.
Are you, perchance, retarded? You object to extraneous hand-wringing. Great. What does that have to do with anything?
"Retarded"? Personal attacks from
Tiassa? My, my. Well, I won't bother to report you. The report would pass through you and - I quite correctly imagine - promptly be vetoed by you. Tiassa, I hope you realize how painful and inappropriate it is for you to use the phrase "retarded"? There are many mentally disabled people out there who, I think, would be quite offended. Honestly, I had hoped for better. Not
expected, mind.
The hand-wringing has been extensively defined above. Namely: yours. You routinely assume a maudlin puddle of a parent is the best response to such a major issue? Or is this a stance you instead personally assume from time to time?
No, Geoff. You injured your own dignity by demeaning other people.
Demeaning other people? I'm most interested. Who have I demeaned, precisely? Does your ill-formed ego count as a personality? This, of course, from the moderator too frightened to take off his mod hat.
Noted. Shall I hold you to it? Oh, right. Never mind.
No idea what you were attempting to convey here; please don't bother to explain yourself. Your skill
z at argumentation remind me of a fellow with a Go-Bot for an avatar.