| Well, YOU'RE the one implying all promiscuous sexual behaviour is homosexual, I'm not. In case you missed it, there IS such a thing as heterosexual promiscuous behaviour. |
Look above just a bit and you'll see someone else (lets call them a dis-interested party) that seemed to read your words very similarly to the way I did.
On this point:
| Until terp compared me to a couple that starved their child to death. I think comparing me to a fucking murderer is a bit over the top, don't you, Sean? |
Let me say a few things:
1. I didn't call the couple murderers, or even add the expletive in front as an adjective. I'm heartened that you see what that couple did as a grave (no pun intended) mistake or purposeful action. I have compassion for them, and honestly, even grudgingly grant that they had rights as parents to pursue alternative means of providing nourishment for their child. You see, I might be the person that would argue for their parental rights at times, even though I would also term what they did as incredibly stupid, at least negligent, and most likely (by my understanding of the legal term) manslaughter.
2. I did make an extreme point about what can happen when parental rights are taken too far though, such as was the case with that couple and their poor child. My bigger point was that over zealous parents *could* take their parental rights too far, including in the case of the HPV vaccine, or as was the case with the child of the vegans. The same thing could be discussed at times for children of some religions that don't allow modern medical treatment, but that's an argument for a different day.
Was the comparison over the top, most certainly, and apparently somewhat effective, but I guess it goes to show I don't leave my weapons in the holster when put up to a fight. Especially a fight where my best and most effective weapons -- calm, cool, reasonable, ration discussion -- are cut off because there is no way to discuss things *in place*, *in context*, and *in line* where it should be.
For those that are speaking up elsewhere on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the blacklist feature, suffice it to say it seems to be working perfectly, and even if not, I'd respect it enough to leave most comments unsaid unless I was incredibly passionate in my support of an issue.
Recent evidence would show that I'm pretty passionate in the idea that AIDS is still a dread disease, is still an epidemic, does still deserve attention, and finally indirectly that bashing gays or others is not something that should be tolerated. It would also very obviously suggest that I feel pretty strongly about health issues when it comes to my children -- the most precious items in my life -- and I believe strongly in helping to give them the best chance at avoiding health issues that could come up in their future.
As Gid may have seen elsewhere (if he cared to read it), I can be a very reasonable opponent in a discussion. I'll argue pretty vociferously, and yes, occassionally I might toss out what someone considers a low blow (which I assume was the case when I stated that Gid may be letting his libertarian side overrule the potential for good that could have come from Perry's plan), but I would expect a reasonable person to discuss the issue and argue their side without picking up the ball and going home. That's a pretty childish response and one that left me with the impression that either I'm awfully good at disproving the points and must be kept away lest it be proven that the emperor has no clothes, or that the other side just didn't have that much faith in their beliefs to really argue their points and convey their message in a manner that might lead to common ground.
If Gid believes an apology is in order for the comparison to the OK vegan couple, then here is one. I'm sorry that the comparison of parental rights in one area seemed to be too extreme when compared to parental rights in another area. In both cases there was potential for damage to the health of a child, one directly done by the actions of the parents (or rather than inaction in providing for feeding the child a nutritious meal as they should have) and one potentially by in action of parents (who decline to have their child vaccinated for something they don't see as an immediate threat).
I most certainly wasn't saying that Gid's a murderer, or a want to be murderer, and honestly I am not saying that Gid's a homophobe, bigot, gay basher or anything of that kind either. In the latter case, I have said that the words that were stated, no matter to what pains one went through in stating them, could be seen as having some of the connotations of gay bashing and that was extremely disappointing to me. I don't expect that from Gid and sincerely hope those feelings aren't there.
Again, I'd have reasonably discussed some of these issues elsewhere, but that wasn't possible, so it's here for anyone else to read and comment about.
