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.
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.
Unless you are a moron, TJ's meaning was rather clear. He was using the word homosexual as a derogative adjective.
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.
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.
Last edited by Lucius on Sep 9th, 2009 at 05:44 AM
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
Autokrat:
Whatever. I'm sorry? I should not have grouped my post in that way. It gave an impression of formality to what was (originally) intended to be an aside. Can I stop being formal and conciliatory now?
Wait... what is this? No vicious counter argument? How is this fun at all... ? College doesn't start up again for another three weeks, I need something to occupy my time otherwise I'll waste away in my dark closeted room...
Sep 9th, 2009 05:40 AM
