BitYakin
Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
BitYakin, no offence meant - it's just that your posts are generally so simple that nobody knows what to say to you in reply. Do you think you might try to weigh and balance things a little before commenting? I think it might help.
Not sure how it works on your side of the pond, but generally over here when someone starts a sentence with "no offence" you can be pretty sure what they are about to say will be offensive. But somehow that's supposed to excuse the bs that's about to come out of their mouth. They seem to think adding "no offence" will make them look like less of an asshat and it doesn't.
No, over here it means, 'I'm sorry, but I have to be blunt'. And I did have to be blunt, because BY's comments were just too basic, prejudiced and downright wrong for me to be able to have any kind of useful conversation with him about them.
I hope that clears that up for you, THB.
I'll keep in mind that saying you didn't want to be rude excuses you from doing it in the future...
that must be a English thing
maybe you are just so used to thinking you are superior that the rest of us should just assume you'll be rude and offensive and not take offense by it, another one of those "I WAS BORN THAT WAY THINGS"
as for my comments being basic, why yes yes they are. and for most people, BASIC and SIMPLE tends to mean they are correct. but prejudiced, sorry no not in the least. see there is where your argument falls apart, you ASSUME, that any and everyone who doesn't see things YOUR WAY must be PREJUDICED, therefor you can just hand wave away anything anyone says as STUPID
what I actually think is, that since its SO BASIC, you cannot refute it, so your only recourse is to claim its STUPID!
getting back to the prejudice thing, no I am not, not in the tiniest way, but I take the stance I do because I don't agree with BANNING something because one group doesn't LIKE IT
what is anti gun people say, if doing it saves just ONE LIFE then its worth it, well the reverse is also true, if this therapy or some form of it allows some percentage the hope of what they perceive as a better life then its worth it too
I can even see the dilemma with using it on minors who would have no choice in the matter...
perhaps instead of an out right ban a compromise similar to abortion could be installed where when its to be used on a minor parental consent isn't required, or the reverse in this case, where parents cannot force it on a child who doesn't want it
but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO you want to ban it outright so even informed adults who may actually WANT TO GIVE IT A TRY aren't ALLOWED TO
|
RE: Talk about science denial - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread