Allegory wrote:
Because it isn't even remotely correct. You're going to have show how there's an ounce of truth to it first, because the most specific thing anyone could do is point to the whole thing and shrug.
Soooooo me "completely using a word incorrectly" prevents you from properly defining a word and explaining how it was used incorrectly?
You're wrong and you don't want to admit it. Else, put your money where your mouth is and defend your claim. You attacked me, not vice versa, and you have done so with nothing else other than "urdoinitwrong". If that is sufficient, then my counter is "na-uh, urdoinitwrong".
Allegory wrote:
So I did a search of all her posts for the past two months in this thread, and not one of them made anything within the proximity of that claim. Most are just sarcastic one-liners.
There is more to Belkira than the past two months of this thread. She has been mostly quiet in this thread as compared to others. I'm sorry if you're unable to realize her point of view after having the same argument numerous of times for over 5 years now.
Allegory wrote:
So I went back to review two months of his posts in this thread. He hasn't said anything like that either for the past two months, though he did state specifically to the contrary:
Omegavegeta wrote:
I'll accept a logical argument for the disenfranchisement of homosexuals in the military if you can provide one.
He disagrees that there is a good reason to discriminate, but he's willing to accept it the moment you provide it.
You are so full crap. There is absolutely no way that you could have "accidentally overlooked" PAGES of him arguing that there are no logical forms of discrimination of race and sexuality (which lead into the actor/actress debate, which lead into the Affirmative Action debate) and just so happen to fall upon that one quote.
He stated that there is none. Once again, you claim "fail safe" on me, but don't when he does it. He obviously "threw the ball in my court", so he could just say "I disagree, that isn't logical" to every response. That's exactly what people accused me of with SSM.
I see that you must have coincidentally overlooked my responses as I "threw the ball back in his court". I told him that if he truly does believe that there exist a scenario, then give me an example of such a scenario. He failed to do so, because he doesn't believe that there currently exists one.
I gave an example, if the military were co-ed, I would fully support it. Why can't he, or anyone else, provide a similar example?
Allegory wrote:
So not only are people not doing this thing you're accusing them of, but even if they were it still wouldn't matter. Holding strongly to a personal belief isn't bigotry. It's obstinacy towards others that's bigotry.
Nowhere in that definition does it hint "with malicious intent". Once again, that's another fallacy that you all like to use. Quit making up definitions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot wrote:
big·ot
   [big-uht] Show IPA
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
.....
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
So, if you're a "die hard Republican" who believe that Republicans are always right in everything, that would make you a bigot. If you're a Protestant Christian who believes that Christians are always right in everything and everyone else is wrong, that would make you a bigot. If you believe that homosexuals are somehow magically exempt from any form of discrimination, unlike every other human trait known to man, that would make you a bigot.
Allegory wrote:
And this is why people write you off with succinct sarcastic remarks. Because it takes effort to specifically demonstrate even the most obvious of truths, and you're just not worth it. So next time I tell you you're wrong, I'm not going to bother. I'll be terse and cutting, and you'll accuse me of having no substance, because you won't learn.
Yet you spent that much effort in that response when all I asked you was to simply define a word and elucidate your point. You're in total disavowal if you believe for a second that you have the wit to illude me into thinking that I'm falsely accusing you of anything. When I type long posts, people complain. When I type short posts, people complain.
When your response is "I don't have to because it's obvious", then you are lacking substance. There is no way around it.