robbie carrobie

Originally posted by FMF
[b]You just now said "...they wanted to be treated like any other customers and sought to make this bakery do just that by pressing the matter." So how do you know this? Were you there? Did you see the whole thing as it happened? Do you have a link to support this assertion of yours? Or was that just you 'superimposing' some thoughts ...[text shortened]... ence. That is why I was interested in whether you were able to substantiate your interpretation.

I suspect, however, that we have different prejudices when it comes to lesbians...

Aha, and there it is! You started with an assumption. The assumption forms the basis of your argument and dictates what you are willing (or able) to see and hear. It's no wonder you have trouble following a line of thought, because everything must fit into whatever assumptions you've started off with. Anything I say that doesn't seem to line up with your assumptions and fit in with your narrative is summarily ignored and dismissed as being irrelevant.

By the way, nice job of deflection... it almost worked, until I backed up to see just what it was you were supposedly responding to.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Aha, and there it is! You started with an assumption. The assumption forms the basis of your argument and dictates what you are willing (or able) to see and hear.

I disagree. The assumption forms the basis of my point blank on-topic questions to you about what you wrote and questioning each other about the content of what we post, in this way, is the life blood of discussions in a forum like this.

Originally posted by FMF
I disagree. The assumption forms the basis of my point blank on-topic questions to you about what you wrote and questioning each other about the content of what we post, in this way, is the life blood of discussions in a forum like this.

AND, in this case, boring as hell.

Originally posted by Suzianne
AND, in this case, boring as hell.

I find it quite interesting how right wing Americans project various kinds of malevolence onto certain minorities whose empowerment they do not approve of or where they are instinctively [or perhaps even unthinkingly] inclined to oppose the end [or lessening] of discrimination. I think it's worth addressing and engaging it whenever this kind of thing crops up, even if it is boring for some members of the community.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Not everyone who reports a crime follows through. It doesn't mean a report isn't filed by someone because officers must file a report no matter what happens whenever they are called. A victim can change his or or mind if he or she doesn't want to press charges, nevertheless a report of the call will show up somewhere. In some states even if a victi ...[text shortened]... r[/i]-reported. I've already said enough (more than I had intended) for you to connect the dots.

I'm struggling to understand based on what you are saying and claiming, if domestic violence among gays and lesbians is as you say highly under reported, how can there be "reports" which are not "followed through"?

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm struggling to understand based on what you are saying and claiming, if domestic violence among gays and lesbians is as you say highly under reported, how can there be "reports" which are not "followed through"?

I'm struggling to understand...

I don't believe you or FMF are struggling to understand anything. You both employ the same technique... zero in on relatively meaningless details to "struggle" with to the exclusion of everything else. If you didn't have trouble with the main thrust of my argument you wouldn't need to be doing this. You may continue to try directing my attention and keeping my focus on whatever details you wish... but all it means to me is that you are either unable or unwilling to deal with the main thrust of my argument.


If you had a point to make, but all I did was to pepper you with leading questions and comments over some minor detail in an attempt to find fault with something (anything) you were saying, would you really not think I was trying to avoid dealing with the topic as a whole? In other words, would either of you be fooled if I employed the same technique when arguing with you?


Edit: I have a homework assignment for you and FMF... and for wolf too, unless he thinks he has nothing more to learn. Look up the word McCarthyism and do some research on what it means. Then take an honest** look at todays political climate and think* about what it might mean if someone were to ask you:

Are you, or have you ever been, critical of anything homosexuals do or say?




*thinking is not a crime
**honesty is not a dirty word

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I'm struggling to understand...

I don't believe you or FMF are struggling to understand anything. You both employ the same technique... zero in on relatively meaningless details to "struggle" with to the exclusion of everything else. If you didn't have trouble with the main thrust of my argument you wouldn't need to be doing this. You may conti ...[text shortened]... ns to me is that you are either unable or unwilling to deal with the main thrust of my argument.[/b]

What was the main thrust of your argument?

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I'm struggling to understand...

I don't believe you or FMF are struggling to understand anything. You both employ the same technique... zero in on relatively meaningless details to "struggle" with to the exclusion of everything else. If you didn't have trouble with the main thrust of my argument you wouldn't need to be doing this. You may conti ...[text shortened]... hing homosexuals do or say?[/b]




*thinking is not a crime
**honesty is not a dirty word[/b]

Wow.

I just thought you made a statement that was not supportable; clearly it wasn't.

Originally posted by divegeester
Wow.

I just thought you made a statement that was not supportable; clearly it wasn't.

I think he's making himself sick again.

Originally posted by Agerg
Typed (the kind of obvious) "lesbian couple christian bakery" into google - the first page has numerous links to this event some dated sept 2013 which as lemon lime stated is just less than a year ago.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=lesbian+couple+christian+bakery&safe=on

Haven't tracked down a statement by the couple but this suffices to substantiate what lemon lime claims

I didn't think it was that long ago because the memory of it is still fresh in my mind. I got lucky guessing it was less than a year ago, because September will soon be here.

I think one of those 'man on the street' type interviews might have actually been from a radio program, so it was probably an audio clip or a quote... it doesn't fit well within the narrative of the televised interviews, so it was probably rejected and found it's way to the editors trash can.

Anyhow... the reason I remember that one is because the woman appeared to be trying to defend the couple rather than criticize them. It was one of those instances when someone is speaking on behalf of someone else but inadvertently reveals details that do just the opposite. Her comments were like those of a defense attorney who inadvertently argues the prosecutions case... to the detriment of their own client. lol


And now, someone here will surely wonder how a clip from a televised interview could have been rejected, but her comments were recorded by someone who doesn't necessarily work for any of the television news channels... yet another mystery to explore! LOL

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I'm struggling to understand...

I don't believe you or FMF are struggling to understand anything. You both employ the same technique... zero in on relatively meaningless details to "struggle" with to the exclusion of everything else. If you didn't have trouble with the main thrust of my argument you wouldn't need to be doing this. You may conti ...[text shortened]... hing homosexuals do or say?[/b]




*thinking is not a crime
**honesty is not a dirty word[/b]

I don't have enough thumbs to give this post the recognition it deserves.

Glad someone sees past the concocted BS to the real posting habits, and therefore the lack of integrity, beneath the surface, beyond what he wants people to see. Misdirection, yes, he excels, unfortunately.

Actually, I thought you were speaking to FMF specifically, since I find this to be his main tactic, and recently Andy, perhaps he's a devotee of his mentor, perhaps he IS the mentor (perhaps they are BOTH the "walrus"... hehe). I see dive as merely a hanger-on, employing the same tactic because of the (apparent) success of it. As you said, it's the same technique.

Originally posted by HandyAndy
What was the main thrust of your argument?

MOTS. Yes, more of the same.

Attack the person, not the argument. Same old, same old.

Originally posted by HandyAndy to lemon lime
What was the main thrust of your argument?

The main thrust of lemon lime's "argument" appears to me to be encapsulated in these two sentences: "[the lesbian couple] wanted to celebrate their new life together by putting a Christian bakery out of business, or at the very least give them a very hard time of it. How sweet. All marriages should be celebrated by the loving couple harassing the people they hate...".

Lemon lime has claimed this without offering a single quote from the couple in question confirming that this [rather than simply pushing back against discrimination] was their motivation. If they were activists deliberately trying to "put a Christian bakery out of business" in order to "celebrate" their wedding, then there would certainly be statements from the couple to corroborate this.

Therefore, lemon lime's "argument", such as it is, is simply him superimposing imagined malevolence [rather than a desire to fight back against prejudice] onto the lesbians, presumably to discredit them ~ although he may have other reasons for doing it, which he may or may not wish to go in to.

Originally posted by FMF
The main thrust of lemon lime's "argument" appears to me to be encapsulated in these two sentences: "[the lesbian couple] wanted to celebrate their new life together by putting a Christian bakery out of business, or at the very least give them a very hard time of it. How sweet. All marriages should be celebrated by the loving couple harassing the people they ha ...[text shortened]... hem ~ although he may have other reasons for doing it, which he may or may not wish to go in to.

Lemon lime has claimed this without offering a single quote from the couple in question...

Well no kidding! And why do you suppose that is?

I can't quote what isn't there... you can pull up quotes out of your own hinder parts if you want to, but that's not my style. The couple did not appear on camera, and nothing they actually said showed up for anyone to read or hear.

So all anyone has to work with here are actual facts, whether those facts are stated or not. This is a large metropolitan area with dozens of bakeries, so maybe you would like to offer your own thoughts as to why this couple wanted a small mom and pop (Christian) bakery to make their wedding cake?

There are plenty of bakeries they could have gone to that are more than happy to make cakes for gay and lesbian couples, so why did they decide to go to a bakery where they knew their request would be received with less than a warm welcome? Were they perhaps more interested in making trouble for people they hated than in preparing for their own marriage? It certainly seemed that way.

So why aren't you happy for them? They were successful in putting a straight couple out of business. Does this not give you a warm feeling inside? Do you hate the lesbian couple, is this why you are not happy with their success? Shame on you!

Originally posted by lemon lime
I can't quote what isn't there... you can pull up quotes out of your own hinder parts if you want to, but that's not my style. The couple did not appear on camera, and nothing they actually said showed up for anyone to read or hear.

You admit that "nothing they actually said showed up for anyone to read or hear" and yet you have chosen to project a most deliberate form of malevolence onto their motives?