25 Aug '16 13:15>
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhen Duchess calls someone a pathological liar, it does not actually mean that they said anything untrue. It just means that she disagrees with them. I believe that her language is actually not merely an obnoxious violations of the terms of service and against the spirit of discussion, it is also completely inaccurate. For example, demanding trial protections that are standard in modern western civilization for all accused of rape is not being a rape apologist. It just means that you want a fair procedure for accessing guilt and innocence. One is entitled to their views, but Duchess is an extremist on this issue and at best completely indifferent to convicting innocent people. Similarly disagreeing with Duchess does not make you a liar or pathological but as, anyone who has been on this forum can see, it is her standard operating procedure. It certainly would not bother me if her continual insults were converted into more productive speech.
Who here has insisted on that?
[b]Is there really a need to call someone a "pathological liars" when they actually mean they "have a different viewpoint?"
But do they? As far as I know, that phrase is used almost exclusively by Duchess, and as far as I can tell, she means it. Why do you not take her at her word and instead try to mind read what yo ...[text shortened]... with something that sounds better to his ear but does not represent what is being communicated?[/b]