Originally posted by FMFnot about me.
Aside from the bad form of changing a post after someone has already responded to it 3 or 4 times, it won't alter the fact that you said what you said, and you placed the significance on it that you chose to. If you go ahead and change it, it will just make you seem even more disingenuous. Why did you focus on a few posts by a brand new poster who made absolutel ...[text shortened]... ntive debate "point" to speak of, and ignore the content of dozens and dozens of other posts?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems you do not want to take responsibility for the opinions you express.
still not about me
Did you feel personally victimized by e4chris? I am curious as to why you have allowed his few posts to distort your characterization of this thread so much.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyawn, it still not about me. why you seem unable to focus on anything other than personalities is rather curious in itself, but there you are.
It seems you do not want to take responsibility for the opinions you express.
Did you feel personally victimized by e4chris? I am curious as to why you have allowed his few posts to distort your characterization of this thread so much.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWithout the slightest foundation? Well, there was what LemonJello posted at the bottom of page 25. You just blanked it out. I think you should have at least addressed it and rebutted if you thought it didn't have the "slightest foundation". You simply ignoring it would seem to suggest it has a little more "foundation" than you are able to address.
[there have been] assertions of homophobia and bigotry without the slightest foundation.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFyes without foundation, there is not the slightest piece of evidence that doctor Diggs was being homophobic in presenting his findings. Once again, its not about me.
Without the slightest foundation? Well, there was what LemonJello posted at the bottom of page 25. You just blanked it out. I think you should have at least addressed it and rebutted if you thought it didn't have the "slightest foundation". You simply ignoring it would seem to suggest it has a little more "foundation" than you are able to address.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou do indeed assert that "there is not the slightest piece of evidence" but you do so without actually addressing the content of the posts and points made by people like Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello. There are serious misgivings raised and explained about the credibility of Diggs' statistics. You have just blanked them out. You have just ignored them. You have refused to address them and said, instead, things like "there is not the slightest piece of evidence" and saying things like "it's not about me", "it's not about me", "it's not about me".
yes without foundation, there is not the slightest piece of evidence that doctor Diggs was being homophobic in presenting his findings. Once again, its not about me.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFyes, but it does not demonstrate that Diggs was being homophobic
You do indeed assert that "there is not the slightest piece of evidence" but you do so without actually addressing the content of the posts and points made by people like Rank Outsider, avalanchthecat, JS357 and LemonJello. There are serious misgivings raised and explained about the credibility of Diggs' statistics. You have just blanked them out. You have just saying things like "it's not about me", "it's not about me", "it's not about me".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell then why don't you address the points people have made and demonstrate that they do not raise serious questions about Diggs being homophobic [and it affecting his credibility] rather than blanking it out with stuff like "there is not the slightest piece of evidence" and "it's not about me", "it's not about me", "it's not about me"
yes, but it does not demonstrate that Diggs was being homophobic
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFDr. Diggs has not displayed any intolerance of nor a hatred towards homosexuals, you will explain why calling into question the validity of certain studies and how data was gathered or under what circumstances has any relevance to this?
Well then why don't you address the points people have made and demonstrate that they do not raise serious questions about Diggs being homophobic [and it affecting his credibility] rather than blanking it out with stuff like "there is not the slightest piece of evidence" and "it's not about me", "it's not about me", "it's not about me"
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have explained this to you already.
yes without foundation, there is not the slightest piece of evidence that doctor Diggs was being homophobic in presenting his findings. Once again, its not about me.
Dr Diggs says that homosexual sex is harmful from a medical perspective. No caveats.
Not all homosexual sex is harmful from a medical perspective. That is a simple fact. I can go into detail if you like, but you are rather squeamish about this, so I will spare your sensibilities this time.
Dr Diggs ignores all the elements of homosexual sex which are perfectly safe, some of which are practised regularly by doctors on their patients. The only difference being intent and purpose, which are not matters for a doctor who does not have an ulterior motive.
Stating that homosexual sex (i.e. the totality of practices carried out by gay people for sexual purposes) is harmful, focussing exclusively on the extreme end of these sexual practices and then using hopelessly biased statistics to show that gay people are habitually accustomed to engage in this type of activity is something that could be reasonably labelled as homophobic. It's just what the word means.
Whether you think this is conclusive or not, it is unquestionably evidence in support of the allegation.