Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Well then you should stop.
That requires me to care about the feelings of homosexuals. Not that they get any special mistreatment; I don't care about the feelings of anyone besides those select few inside my monkysphere, but this is besides the point.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
And I am not attacking it to score points within the context of the issue but to change behavior by refusing to condone such behavior with inaction.
Except that you did, albeit indirectly, but you still did.
TJ used the word "homosexual" in a colloquial form. In you response you decided to ask a loaded question.
And is this health care for homosexuals or by homosexuals?
Unless you are a moron, TJ's meaning was rather clear. He was using the word homosexual as a derogative adjective.
1. It is an adjective that refers to a sexual orientation.
2. If you mean to say that the bill has a sexual orientation then you are not worth the time of day. (Because that is dumb.)
Two worthless points not even related to your actual argument (which incidentally I agree with), but you put them here anyways. Attacking TJ's usage of the word homosexual is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It's nitpicking, simple as that. You were certainly quick to take advantage of it when you declared victory that he had given a poor performance.
I give you 0/4. That was just bad, even the attempt at levity.
Your argument could have stood perfectly fine without the irrelevant moral maxim on respecting the feelings of homosexuals. By attacking TJ's usage of the word, you implied (regardless of your intention) that you held the superior ground, casting TJ as a person with little regard for the feelings of homosexuals who improperly used a word in a derogative manner while making a poorly constructed point.
Personally, this is one of the more clever ad hominem attacks I've seen.