Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost1
the first part indicating you thought that diode was losing the argument...the 2nd part explaining uh ohs side of the argument....the 3rd part advising diode to research information supporting uh ohs argument, seemed to me to say that you pretty clearly agreed with uh oh............and uh is clearly saying that there is no longer an excuse for black poverty and that they are responsible for their own low class status.........which is exactly what diode is saying that you said.
so I guess that is where im confused when you just said that's not what you are currently saying.......I think diode would agree
if you were just sayng that diode argues like a child ....which is why you thought he was losing the argument.....despite the validity of his position....then say that.
|
Reread it. Nothing points to me explicitly siding with uh oh. It actually defends joe and not uh oh. And I was pretty obviously, in my opinion, defending his right to have a view on something relating to minorities and not be a white supremicist. Being that cut and dry about opposing views is nonsense and beyond childish. Children don’t have the thought process to go out of their way to ignore anything they don’t like.
Really solid post by me that I haven’t seen anyone refute yet. Just yelling nonsense on a Golden soap box made of diamonds.