Originally posted by divegeester
If I said that you were the equivalent of a child molesting, granny bashing, turd-eating sociopath and then required you to provide evidence that you were not, what would you say to me?

Nothing, i would say you are entitled to your opinion and ask for evidence of my granny bashing etc etc

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
prejudice is prejudice, indeed what makes one prejudice different from another.

People hanging other people from trees makes their prejudice different from the prejudice you perceive in some slights you've felt on an internet message board.

Originally posted by FMF
People hanging other people from trees makes their prejudice [b]different from the prejudice you perceive in some slights you've felt on an internet message board.[/b]

Therefore his prejudice differs in location? or in magnitude? but still remains prejudice? Thats what I have been saying, is it not? Both have the same moral disposition in that they display prejudice, it only differs in location and in magnitude.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Therefore his prejudice differs in location? or in magnitude? but still remains prejudice? Thats what I have been saying, is it not? Both have the same moral disposition in that they display prejudice, it only differs in location and in magnitude.

On Thread 163746 you said this to divegeester: "Lets start, that would be 4000 persons your churches have lynched, mutilated, burnt and invited your friends and children to watch die." You kept saying that he was "hateful" enough to do it. Where has any "prejudice" you claim he has demonstrated been "hateful" enough to suggest that there is "not any difference at all" between his and the moral disposition of those who who "lynched, mutilated, burnt" people with divegeester and his family supposedly condoning it in your imagination?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Therefore his prejudice differs in location? or in magnitude? but still remains prejudice? Thats what I have been saying, is it not? Both have the same moral disposition in that they display prejudice, it only differs in location and in magnitude.

You said he was as "equally hateful" as the murderers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If divesgeester has been hurt by this comparison then I retract it all and I will issue a full public apology, without pretence or reservation.

I imagine it's more a case of him thinking you are daft and unpleasant and not very funny. It's just a debate forum. I doubt he could be "hurt" by the sort of things someone like you chooses to say in cyberspace.

Originally posted by FMF
You said he was as "equally hateful" as the murderers.

I retracted all my statement with regard to his moral equivalence.

Originally posted by FMF
I imagine it's more a case of him thinking you are daft and unpleasant and not very funny. It's just a debate forum. I doubt he could be "hurt" by the sort of things someone like you chooses to say in cyberspace.

Well I guess if anyone knows a wet nurse like you would. 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I retracted all my statement with regard to his moral equivalence.

No you didn't. You retracted the word "equally" but then you would not say whether he was more "hateful" or less "hateful" than a murdering lynch mob and you continued to say his moral disposition was "the same" and "not at all different". Your retraction of the word "equally" was just rubbish.

Anyone who has read Thread 163746 or Thread 163832 from about page 28 onwards will know full well that your fatuous claims about having "retracted" anything is nothing more than insincere, puerile and completely principle-free posturing. The best spin I can put on this incessantly tasteless riff of yours is that you are just trying too hard to be funny and controversial.

Originally posted by FMF
No you didn't. You retracted the word "equally" but then you would not say whether he was more "hateful" or less "hateful" than a murdering lynch mob and you continued to say his moral disposition was "the same" and "not at all different". Your retraction of the word "equally" was just rubbish.

Anyone who has read Thread 163746 or [threadid]1638 ...[text shortened]... ntly tasteless riff of yours is that you are just trying too hard to be funny and controversial.

Oh does little diddums dweebjeester need his mommsy wommsy! there there little dweebjeester your wet nurse FMF will be along any minute.😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Nothing, i would say you are entitled to your opinion and ask for evidence of my granny bashing etc etc

Exactly, the accuser wouldn't be asking you for evidence, the accused would be asking the accuser.

So why on earth should I, the accused by you, be required to provide you with evidence proving I'm not what you say i am? It should be the other way around.

I'm astonished that after previously having your pants down on the internet twice already, that you choose to bring this up a third time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh does little diddums dweebjeester need his mommsy wommsy! there there little dweebjeester your wet nurse FMF will be along any minute.😵

Good grief, what a total prick you are.

Originally posted by divegeester
Good grief, what a total prick you are.

Oh didums, is 'what a prick you are', really the extent of your creativity? no wonder you need a wet nurse like FMF to comfort you 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Oh didums, is 'what a prick you are', really the extent of your creativity? no wonder you need a wet nurse like FMF to comfort you 😵

did you want to address my point in the post three up from this one?

Originally posted by FMF
No you didn't. You retracted the word "equally" but then you would not say whether he was more "hateful" or less "hateful" than a murdering lynch mob and you continued to say his moral disposition was "the same" and "not at all different". Your retraction of the word "equally" was just rubbish.

Anyone who has read Thread 163746 or [threadid]1638 ...[text shortened]... ntly tasteless riff of yours is that you are just trying too hard to be funny and controversial.

The intellectual dishonesty from robbie carrobie is quite surprising for a man who claims to be one of Jehovah's ministers.