Political Crossfire Forums

[Æ]

Drake wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Drake wrote: I was hoping aLienaTeD would offer his answer.
I already answered your question. From your position, you're looking to throw bricks at steel.

No you haven't. Is GLAAD's statement indicative of a guilty conscience on their part?
Their response has nothing to do with a guilty conscience one way or the other. The 'oh-so-righteous' and their friends are effective at pushing whatever image they want of gays (and of their other 'values' in general). This is a defensive move which is not indicative of guilt, but is simply a defensive response to another sad attempt to slag those with alternative preferences.

[George W Bush]

I think Acme supermarkets should protest Walmarts sales of guns then make sure to tell consumers they would never sell guns in their store.

this is essentially where this argument has gone.

Now, they are both stores and they sell things. Why shouldnt Acme make a declaration over gun sales - since it is a store. And, a few former wal-mart employees now work for Acme. so Acme should denounce assure the public they will not sell guns in their stores.

No offense. Its just how I see it. Thats all. I'm sure someone could come up with a better characterization.

[Drake]

George W Bush wrote:

No offense. Its just how I see it. Thats all. I'm sure someone could come up with a better characterization.

Yes, someone could and already has earlier in the thread. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[red dragon]

George W Bush wrote: I think Acme supermarkets should protest Walmarts sales of guns then make sure to tell consumers they would never sell guns in their store.

this is essentially where this argument has gone.

Now, they are both stores and they sell things. Why shouldnt Acme make a declaration over gun sales - since it is a store. And, a few former wal-mart employees now work for Acme. so Acme should denounce assure the public they will not sell guns in their stores.

No offense. Its just how I see it. Thats all. I'm sure someone could come up with a better characterization. :think: :think: :snoot: :snoot:

Don't understand a single bit of that........sorry.

[Drake]

aLienaTeD wrote:

No, it is most likely due to obnoxious prudes like yourself.

Why would you resort to name-calling? Could it be because your own illogical reasoning was exposed? It's O.K. to admit you were wrong, there's no shame in that.

[Æ]

Drake wrote: aLienaTeD wrote:

No, it is most likely due to obnoxious prudes like yourself.

Why would you resort to name-calling? Could it be because your own illogical reasoning was exposed? It's O.K. to admit you were wrong, there's no shame in that.
I already answered your question, but I'm sure you'll continue to do what you came here to do.

[Drake]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:

Tell us something: Do you believe that gay people recruit children to be gay?

No, I don't believe they recruit children to be gay. Why do you ask that?

[Drake]

aLienaTeD wrote: Their response has nothing to do with a guilty conscience one way or the other.

O.K., so you admit you were wrong when you wrote "In fact, feeling the need to make such a statement necessarily indicates one's guilty conscience." right?


aLienaTeD wrote: The 'oh-so-righteous' and their friends are effective at pushing whatever image they want of gays (and of their other 'values' in general). This is a defensive move which is not indicative of guilt, but is simply a defensive response to another sad attempt to slag those with alternative preferences.

So why not defend themselves and their image by denouncing NAMBLA more vehemently? What prevents them from doing that?

aLienaTeD wrote:
I already answered your question, but I'm sure you'll continue to do what you came here to do.

Exactly what is it you think I came here to do?

[Æ]

Drake wrote: aLienaTeD wrote: Their response has nothing to do with a guilty conscience one way or the other.
O.K., so you admit you were wrong when you wrote "In fact, feeling the need to make such a statement necessarily indicates one's guilty conscience." right?
No, I wasn't wrong. One's feeling a *need* to state their position again such-and-such <insert bad organization> *without* someone like you pestering them to do so or without outside coercion would only occur under the circumstance of guilt. Get it?

aLienaTeD wrote: So why not defend themselves and their image by denouncing NAMBLA more vehemently? What prevents them from doing that?
There is nothing to defend. There is nothing for them to feel guilty about.

Quote: Exactly what is it you think I came here to do?
To continue to disrupt this forum without contributing anything meaningful to it.

[Drake]

aLienaTeD wrote:
No, I wasn't wrong. One's feeling a *need* to state their position again such-and-such <insert bad organization> *without* someone like you pestering them to do so or without outside coercion would only occur under the circumstance of guilt. Get it?

I'm afraid I don't. There's no indication that any denouncement from GLAAD or any other group was done under any type of "coercion".

aLienaTeD wrote: There is nothing to defend. There is nothing for them to feel guilty about.

Fair enough, if you believe that. I think lending years of support to a group such as NAMBLA would make me feel guilty for quite some time. At the very least, I would feel obligated to offer an explanation.

aLienaTeD wrote:
To continue to disrupt this forum without contributing anything meaningful to it.

What on earth are you talking about? Disruption? No meaningful contribution? You've gone off the deep end. I started this thread that you feel so compelled to post on. If it isn't meaningful, why post on it?

[Plodder]

nambla is scary