Originally posted by robbie carrobiePeople 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.
prejudice is prejudice, indeed what makes one prejudice different from another.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFTherefore 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.
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]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn 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?
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 carrobieYou said he was as "equally hateful" as the murderers.
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 carrobieI 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.
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.
Originally posted by FMFWell I guess if anyone knows a wet nurse like you would. 😵
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 robbie carrobieNo 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.
I retracted all my statement with regard to his moral equivalence.
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOh does little diddums dweebjeester need his mommsy wommsy! there there little dweebjeester your wet nurse FMF will be along any minute.😵
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.
