Apparently, it's still *legal* for schools to expel gay stud

[pErvinalia]

Absolutely. Seth's version of libertarianism asserts that 'harm' can only be inflicted via physical force. That's clearly nonsense.

Force and fraud. How is not associating with someone an exercise in either force or fraud. For "shunning" to be using force against someone would require some sort of premise that claims that the individual being shunned has some prevailing right to associate with others against their will in voluntarily social or economic transactions. Is that what you're suggesting?

Ok, sorry. I think I jumped the gun a bit there. I'm all for groups of individuals (individually or as a group) refusing to patronise a company or organisation if it doesn't meet their personal standards of ethics. I was thinking you were talking about the private school's right to "shun" gay students.

A private school is a "group of individuals" acting privately to provide schooling...

No they're not. They are acting commercially.

to select students who fit in with the educational agenda and political ideology of the founders of the school. Such private schools range from The Citadel military academy to Summerhill and other liberal to leftist private schools. They criss-cross the political spectrum, which is perfectly appropriate because it allows parents and students to select a school that is suitable to their political, social and religious needs and desires.

I've got no problem with that, as long as it meets certain minimum standards. IMO discrimination based on gender, race or sexual preference should be included in those minimum standards.

If a private school doesn't want to accept gays, then gays can find, or form, their own school that meets their ideological and social expectations. The same applies to every other variety of social, ideological, personal, religious, or educational preference. If you can't find a school that fits you, find another school, or create one.

Disagree. Society is more than just a bunch of individuals doing their own things.

[pErvinalia]

No, pawiz, that would be inflicting physical harm on another person. Excluding them is not the same thing as that. Now go to bed.

So "physical harm" is the standard for what's legal and what's illegal is it? Fuck me, do actually read what you write sometimes?

One of them.

Definitely. But your response to pawiz implies that it is perhaps the only one. That's what I was responding to.

Well, that was pretty fucking ignorant of you, wasn't it?

Nope. You said: Excluding them is not the same thing as that. I.e. excluding gays isn't the same thing as physical harm; but you said this in the context set by pawiz that excluding gays is wrong in the same way that raping babies is (i.e. not that they are both physical harm, but they are both immoral).

[pErvinalia]

It's unpleasant, but that sensation is self-generated, and is not proximately caused by lack of association. You, for example, are not "forced" by the lack of association on the part of some Sherpa in Tibet not associating with you, are you? You only feel the moral implications of shunning when those doing so are of emotional value to you. You desire their company, and you dislike having that company withdrawn from you. That's your problem, it's not an assertion of force by others.

I maintain that 'harm' is a better word than 'force' per se.

Anyway, I've detected that you are going down the line of reasoning that it's solely the responsibility of the person who feels emotional/mental harm. I.e. you are suggesting that it is the person's fault that they are emotionally harmed by what someone else does to them. This is clearly wrong, and hinges on the mistaken belief that we have free-will and total cognitive control over our behaviour and emotions. Neither of these is correct. Most of our emotional response (and in reality most of our behavioural responses) are controlled subconsciously. Saying it's the fault of the person who is being mentally harmed that they are harmed, is about as silly as saying that it is the fault of the person who is being bruised that they are bruised after being physically punched.

What a load of irrational bollocks.

I'm afraid not Seth. It's scientifically verifiable. Not like your penchant for religious guff.

Your emotions may be controlled subconsciously, but who gives a flying fuck, it's YOUR subconscious, not mine.

Fail. "YOUR subconscious" is an oxymoron. You do realise that, right? There is no "you" at subconscious levels. "You" is equivalent to consciousness. "YOU" have no control presently over what you subconscious comes up with. "YOU" can certainly undergo cognitive exercises to condition some of your behaviours, but that happens after the fact, not at the time of the 'harm'.

That your subconscious is not under YOUR control DOES NOT MEAN that it's under MY control. Geeze.

Strawman fail. Never said that.

Your "bruise" analogy is utterly fallacious because in order for a bruise to happen, the person has to be punched. The question is WHO does the punching.

And for the 'mental' bruise to happen some on has to mentally punch someone else (i.e. act or speak to them in a way that causes them emotional distress or harm).

The correct construction would be that it's not MY fault if you suffer a bruise because YOU punched yourself in the eye because of something I DIDN'T DO to you, like meeting your selfish expectations of association against my will.

Stop strawmanning or i'll report you. I'm not sure for what, but there must be a rule around here to stop people from constantly misrepresenting their opponents position.

If you want to beat yourself up, mentally or physically, for being a dick to everyone around you to the extent that they shun you, be my guest, but don't blame everyone else for your being a dick or for damage to your self esteem, or your eye socket, merely because they choose not to associate with you.

Science obviously means nothing to you, eh Seth?

I mean really. To quote someone who once wrote something, "Fuck me, do actually read what you write sometimes?"

Yes I do, and you'll be further embarrased if you keep up with this line of reasoning.

[Seth]

It's unpleasant, but that sensation is self-generated, and is not proximately caused by lack of association. You, for example, are not "forced" by the lack of association on the part of some Sherpa in Tibet not associating with you, are you? You only feel the moral implications of shunning when those doing so are of emotional value to you. You desire their company, and you dislike having that company withdrawn from you. That's your problem, it's not an assertion of force by others.

I maintain that 'harm' is a better word than 'force' per se.

Anyway, I've detected that you are going down the line of reasoning that it's solely the responsibility of the person who feels emotional/mental harm. I.e. you are suggesting that it is the person's fault that they are emotionally harmed by what someone else does to them. This is clearly wrong, and hinges on the mistaken belief that we have free-will and total cognitive control over our behaviour and emotions. Neither of these is correct. Most of our emotional response (and in reality most of our behavioural responses) are controlled subconsciously. Saying it's the fault of the person who is being mentally harmed that they are harmed, is about as silly as saying that it is the fault of the person who is being bruised that they are bruised after being physically punched.

What a load of irrational bollocks.

I'm afraid not Seth. It's scientifically verifiable. Not like your penchant for religious guff.

Sorry, still a big fail. Unless you believe in telepathy and mind control.

Your emotions may be controlled subconsciously, but who gives a flying fuck, it's YOUR subconscious, not mine.

Fail. "YOUR subconscious" is an oxymoron. You do realise that, right? There is no "you" at subconscious levels. "You" is equivalent to consciousness. "YOU" have no control presently over what you subconscious comes up with. "YOU" can certainly undergo cognitive exercises to condition some of your behaviours, but that happens after the fact, not at the time of the 'harm'.

Not my problem if your subconscious hates you. Take it up with your psychotherapist.

That your subconscious is not under YOUR control DOES NOT MEAN that it's under MY control. Geeze.

Strawman fail. Never said that.

Yes, you did, and I quote: "Saying it's the fault of the person who is being mentally harmed that they are harmed, is about as silly as saying that it is the fault of the person who is being bruised that they are bruised after being physically punched."

Your "bruise" analogy is utterly fallacious because in order for a bruise to happen, the person has to be punched. The question is WHO does the punching.

And for the 'mental' bruise to happen some on has to mentally punch someone else (i.e. act or speak to them in a way that causes them emotional distress or harm).

Nonsense. Your mind may interpret anything anyone says as "bruising." That is a defect in your mind, not the fault or responsibility of the speaker.

The correct construction would be that it's not MY fault if you suffer a bruise because YOU punched yourself in the eye because of something I DIDN'T DO to you, like meeting your selfish expectations of association against my will.

Stop strawmanning or i'll report you. I'm not sure for what, but there must be a rule around here to stop people from constantly misrepresenting their opponents position.

Go fuck yourself, I'll say whatever it pleases me to say. I'm not representing your position at all, I'm DEBUNKING it by correcting your fallacious analogy.

[Seth]

Absolutely. Seth's version of libertarianism asserts that 'harm' can only be inflicted via physical force. That's clearly nonsense.

Force and fraud. How is not associating with someone an exercise in either force or fraud. For "shunning" to be using force against someone would require some sort of premise that claims that the individual being shunned has some prevailing right to associate with others against their will in voluntarily social or economic transactions. Is that what you're suggesting?

Ok, sorry. I think I jumped the gun a bit there. I'm all for groups of individuals (individually or as a group) refusing to patronise a company or organisation if it doesn't meet their personal standards of ethics. I was thinking you were talking about the private school's right to "shun" gay students.

A private school is a "group of individuals" acting privately to provide schooling...

No they're not. They are acting commercially.

Are they? Private clubs exchange money, but they may exclude whomever they please. The pertinent legal question is whether or not the school is a "place of public accommodation," which means it must be open to the general public. If a place of business is open to the general public, then the proprietor may not discriminate based on protected class criteria. But if it's not open to the general public, which seems to fit the definition of "private school," then such regulations do not apply, at least here in the US.

If a private school doesn't want to accept gays, then gays can find, or form, their own school that meets their ideological and social expectations. The same applies to every other variety of social, ideological, personal, religious, or educational preference. If you can't find a school that fits you, find another school, or create one.

Disagree. Society is more than just a bunch of individuals doing their own things.

Is it? Perhaps in slave states like socialism, but in free societies, that's exactly what it is, subject to respecting the equal rights of others in the exercise of your own.

[Lozzer]

Which gay stud in question?

[pErvinalia]

It's unpleasant, but that sensation is self-generated, and is not proximately caused by lack of association. You, for example, are not "forced" by the lack of association on the part of some Sherpa in Tibet not associating with you, are you? You only feel the moral implications of shunning when those doing so are of emotional value to you. You desire their company, and you dislike having that company withdrawn from you. That's your problem, it's not an assertion of force by others.

I maintain that 'harm' is a better word than 'force' per se.

Anyway, I've detected that you are going down the line of reasoning that it's solely the responsibility of the person who feels emotional/mental harm. I.e. you are suggesting that it is the person's fault that they are emotionally harmed by what someone else does to them. This is clearly wrong, and hinges on the mistaken belief that we have free-will and total cognitive control over our behaviour and emotions. Neither of these is correct. Most of our emotional response (and in reality most of our behavioural responses) are controlled subconsciously. Saying it's the fault of the person who is being mentally harmed that they are harmed, is about as silly as saying that it is the fault of the person who is being bruised that they are bruised after being physically punched.

What a load of irrational bollocks.

I'm afraid not Seth. It's scientifically verifiable. Not like your penchant for religious guff.

Sorry, still a big fail. Unless you believe in telepathy and mind control.

What the hell are you talking about? Do yourself a favour and read a psychology text book.

Your emotions may be controlled subconsciously, but who gives a flying fuck, it's YOUR subconscious, not mine.

Fail. "YOUR subconscious" is an oxymoron. You do realise that, right? There is no "you" at subconscious levels. "You" is equivalent to consciousness. "YOU" have no control presently over what you subconscious comes up with. "YOU" can certainly undergo cognitive exercises to condition some of your behaviours, but that happens after the fact, not at the time of the 'harm'.

Not my problem if your subconscious hates you. Take it up with your psychotherapist.

[my bold]. Oxymoron. You really don't understand the first thing about the brain and mind, do you Seth?

That your subconscious is not under YOUR control DOES NOT MEAN that it's under MY control. Geeze.

Strawman fail. Never said that.

Yes, you did, and I quote: "Saying it's the fault of the person who is being mentally harmed that they are harmed, is about as silly as saying that it is the fault of the person who is being bruised that they are bruised after being physically punched."[/quote]

Where does it say in that sentence that my subconscious is under your control? You're losing the plot.

And by the way, the analogy that i gave is absolutely solid, as both bruising and emotional harm are physical effects that follow causes.

Your "bruise" analogy is utterly fallacious because in order for a bruise to happen, the person has to be punched. The question is WHO does the punching.

And for the 'mental' bruise to happen some on has to mentally punch someone else (i.e. act or speak to them in a way that causes them emotional distress or harm).

Nonsense. Your mind may interpret anything anyone says as "bruising." That is a defect in your mind, not the fault or responsibility of the speaker.

Once again, you have no clue what you are talking about. "Your mind" is CONSCIOUS. What happens subconsciously is not in your mind's present control. There is no free-will in subconscious processing. It is all strict physical cause and effect. EXACTLY the same as the strict physical cause and effect that leads to bruising after being punched.

The correct construction would be that it's not MY fault if you suffer a bruise because YOU punched yourself in the eye because of something I DIDN'T DO to you, like meeting your selfish expectations of association against my will.

Stop strawmanning or i'll report you. I'm not sure for what, but there must be a rule around here to stop people from constantly misrepresenting their opponents position.

Go fuck yourself,

I beg your pardon?!?

I'll say whatever it pleases me to say.

Well you can do that, but if you want to a) be taken seriously, and/or b) not be reported, then you should stop lying about what other people have said.

I'm not representing your position at all, I'm DEBUNKING it by correcting your fallacious analogy.

No you're not, you are lying. You said "your selfish expectations of association against my will". Nowhere have I said that, and in fact I have even specifically addressed that point where I stated that I have no problem with people personally associating with (or not) whoever they want.

[Seth]

Not my problem if your subconscious hates you. Take it up with your psychotherapist.

[my bold]. Oxymoron. You really don't understand the first thing about the brain and mind, do you Seth?

The only medical fact that's pertinent to this discussion is that your subconscious resided inside your brain inside your skull. Therefore, I have absolutely no physical control over it, or moral responsibility for what goes on inside your head. Period.

Go fuck yourself,

I beg your pardon?!?

Was I unclear? Go. Fuck. Yourself. You don't get to tell me what I may or may not write. Ever.

I'll say whatever it pleases me to say.

Well you can do that, but if you want to a) be taken seriously, and/or b) not be reported, then you should stop lying about what other people have said.

Dude, this ain't Ratskep, and it ain't filled with anal-retentive assholes in the Mod department who can't parse sarcasm or an abstract personalization from a personal attack or a lie "about what other people have said." Since you're evidently impaired in your ability to properly parse an argument, here's a little clue for you. When one is engaged in an abstract philosophical argument, one may from time to time use the term "you" in the abstract, debatorial meaning of the word, as a convenient way to avoid the labored sort of depersonalized "one" and "some person" or some other stupid requirement of anal assholes who view anything with the word "you" in it as a personal attack. We're not babies here, we're adults. Now act like one and shut the fuck up about your wounded ego.

The fine Mods here seem to have the capacity to recognize when the use of "you" is intended in the abstract sense, for which I'm eternally grateful. You don't because you've still got that stick up your ass from Ratskep. Withdraw it and loosen up a little fer pete's sake.

As for being taken seriously, I don't take you seriously, and it doesn't bother me in the least if you feel the same way.

I'm not representing your position at all, I'm DEBUNKING it by correcting your fallacious analogy.

No you're not, you are lying. You said "your selfish expectations of association against my will". Nowhere have I said that, and in fact I have even specifically addressed that point where I stated that I have no problem with people personally associating with (or not) whoever they want.

Get a grip. It's an abstract assignment to begin with, and it's also a statement of my personal opinion about the implicit demand for association that existed in your original statement, which is implied by the fact that you have the idiotic notion that refusing to associate with someone you don't like is using "force" against them. It's an asinine position to take, and it's all the more asinine when you get your panties in a wad over an abstract use of "you."

Grow up, whydontcha?

[Cunt]

Get a grip. It's an abstract assignment to begin with, and it's also a statement of my personal opinion about the implicit demand for association that existed in your original statement, which is implied by the fact that you have the idiotic notion

I wonder if you should maybe report yourself and check if this has wandered off the 'play nice' path.
I mean, if you are going to go on about what the mods do or think, you might want to try this as a 'walk the walk' sort of method.

that refusing to associate with someone you don't like is using "force" against them.

I did earlier say that 'public opprobium' (you may have used a different phrase) was indeed force. I stand by it with stomach-wrenching examples if you need them.

In short, that public mod is one reason that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have historically been treated worse than criminals. Locked into institutions, sterilized against their will, held for life with no sentence and often no crime having been committed.

That isn't the stomach wrenching part.

All because of a 'good old' shunning.

[pErvinalia]

Not my problem if your subconscious hates you. Take it up with your psychotherapist.

[my bold]. Oxymoron. You really don't understand the first thing about the brain and mind, do you Seth?

The only medical fact that's pertinent to this discussion is that your subconscious resided inside your brain inside your skull. Therefore, I have absolutely no physical control over it, or moral responsibility for what goes on inside your head. Period.

So? You have no physical control over the blood vessels and soft tissue under someones skin who you punch. There is no difference Seth. Your physical actions as a hypothetical attacker is what causes a physical and mental response in the person being attacked.

Go fuck yourself,

I beg your pardon?!?

Was I unclear? Go. Fuck. Yourself. You don't get to tell me what I may or may not write. Ever.

I'm holding back until I get mod clarification on this.

I'll say whatever it pleases me to say.

Well you can do that, but if you want to a) be taken seriously, and/or b) not be reported, then you should stop lying about what other people have said.

Dude, this ain't Ratskep, and it ain't filled with anal-retentive assholes in the Mod department who can't parse sarcasm or an abstract personalization from a personal attack or a lie "about what other people have said." Since you're evidently impaired in your ability to properly parse an argument, here's a little clue for you. When one is engaged in an abstract philosophical argument, one may from time to time use the term "you" in the abstract, debatorial meaning of the word, as a convenient way to avoid the labored sort of depersonalized "one" and "some person" or some other stupid requirement of anal assholes who view anything with the word "you" in it as a personal attack. We're not babies here, we're adults. Now act like one and shut the fuck up about your wounded ego.

The fine Mods here seem to have the capacity to recognize when the use of "you" is intended in the abstract sense, for which I'm eternally grateful. You don't because you've still got that stick up your ass from Ratskep. Withdraw it and loosen up a little fer pete's sake.

As for being taken seriously, I don't take you seriously, and it doesn't bother me in the least if you feel the same way.

I'm not representing your position at all, I'm DEBUNKING it by correcting your fallacious analogy.

No you're not, you are lying. You said "your selfish expectations of association against my will". Nowhere have I said that, and in fact I have even specifically addressed that point where I stated that I have no problem with people personally associating with (or not) whoever they want.

Get a grip. It's an abstract assignment to begin with, and it's also a statement of my personal opinion about the implicit demand for association that existed in your original statement, which is implied by the fact that you have the idiotic notion that refusing to associate with someone you don't like is using "force" against them. It's an asinine position to take, and it's all the more asinine when you get your panties in a wad over an abstract use of "you."

I've got no idea what all this semantic wriggling is about. You clearly misrepresented my argument, and I ask that you stop doing it. Everyone else can see that you misrepresented it. There's no point in continuing to do it. You're also getting awfully abusive and personal. I'd be interested to see whether this fits into the rules over here.

[Seth]

Get a grip. It's an abstract assignment to begin with, and it's also a statement of my personal opinion about the implicit demand for association that existed in your original statement, which is implied by the fact that you have the idiotic notion

I wonder if you should maybe report yourself and check if this has wandered off the 'play nice' path.
I mean, if you are going to go on about what the mods do or think, you might want to try this as a 'walk the walk' sort of method.

that refusing to associate with someone you don't like is using "force" against them.

I did earlier say that 'public opprobium' (you may have used a different phrase) was indeed force. I stand by it with stomach-wrenching examples if you need them.

In short, that public mod is one reason that people with intellectual and developmental disabilities have historically been treated worse than criminals. Locked into institutions, sterilized against their will, held for life with no sentence and often no crime having been committed.

That isn't the stomach wrenching part.

All because of a 'good old' shunning.

Strawman. And red herring. That practice ended decades ago in favor of throwing them out of institutions onto the streets, where they have to fend for themselves. They weren't "shunned," they were institutionalized because society either didn't want to deal with them or they legitimately felt that they could not function in society, which in many cases was true. The quality of SOME institutions was indefensible, but that doesn't support your assertion that shunning someone is an application of force.

In any event, nobody can prevent someone from being a bigot or prevent them from ignoring the plight of the mentally ill or anyone else...except the good people of a community who can shun such behavior.

It works both ways, and the whole point of shunning someone, in the Libertarian sense of things, is to use the effect of an entire community refusing to associate with someone who is acting in anti-social ways to encourage the malefactor to behave in socially appropriate ways. A racist bigot who abuses blacks can and should be shunned by the community. They should not only refuse to associate with him, but they should refuse to TRADE with him, or permit him to use their private property. The bigot who cannot buy a sandwich or a tank of gas because his neighbors refuse to sell it to him, who is refused entry into private social events, who is an invisible non-person will suffer the consequences of his bigotry, and the community will not have to condone or support such bigoted behavior in any way.

Can it be misused? Of course, like anything else can be. But the vast majority of people in any community are people of good will and honorable intention, and using shunning appropriately to encourage good social behavior without the use of force is perfectly appropriate.

You may erect boogy-men made of straw if you like, but it's all straw all the time.

In no way can a refusal to associate with someone be construed as initiating force. Period. Does it result in the person feeling alone and left out? Of course, that's the whole point. But nobody has a right to demand that other people give of their personal time for the satisfaction of some emotional need of others.

[Seth]

Not my problem if your subconscious hates you. Take it up with your psychotherapist.

[my bold]. Oxymoron. You really don't understand the first thing about the brain and mind, do you Seth?

The only medical fact that's pertinent to this discussion is that your subconscious resided inside your brain inside your skull. Therefore, I have absolutely no physical control over it, or moral responsibility for what goes on inside your head. Period.

So? You have no physical control over the blood vessels and soft tissue under someones skin who you punch. There is no difference Seth. Your physical actions as a hypothetical attacker is what causes a physical and mental response in the person being attacked.

Again, not doing something to someone is not doing something to someone. Refusing to associate with someone is not doing anything to them, it's simply refusing to associate with them. If that causes them emotional stress, that's not something that another person can control in the slightest. You continue to try to falsely equate non-action with action, and it's idiotic.

I've got no idea what all this semantic wriggling is about. You clearly misrepresented my argument, and I ask that you stop doing it. Everyone else can see that you misrepresented it. There's no point in continuing to do it. You're also getting awfully abusive and personal. I'd be interested to see whether this fits into the rules over here.

[pErvinalia]

Not my problem if your subconscious hates you. Take it up with your psychotherapist.

[my bold]. Oxymoron. You really don't understand the first thing about the brain and mind, do you Seth?

The only medical fact that's pertinent to this discussion is that your subconscious resided inside your brain inside your skull. Therefore, I have absolutely no physical control over it, or moral responsibility for what goes on inside your head. Period.

So? You have no physical control over the blood vessels and soft tissue under someones skin who you punch. There is no difference Seth. Your physical actions as a hypothetical attacker is what causes a physical and mental response in the person being attacked.

Again, not doing something to someone is not doing something to someone. Refusing to associate with someone is not doing anything to them, it's simply refusing to associate with them. If that causes them emotional stress, that's not something that another person can control in the slightest. You continue to try to falsely equate non-action with action, and it's idiotic.

Ok, i've lost track of what started this particular debate, but I am referring to the positive action of excluding a gay student. He isn't having nothing done to him. He is being excluded because of his sexual preference.

[pErvinalia]

It works both ways, and the whole point of shunning someone, in the Libertarian sense of things, is to use the effect of an entire community refusing to associate with someone who is acting in anti-social ways to encourage the malefactor to behave in socially appropriate ways. A racist bigot who abuses blacks can and should be shunned by the community. They should not only refuse to associate with him, but they should refuse to TRADE with him, or permit him to use their private property. The bigot who cannot buy a sandwich or a tank of gas because his neighbors refuse to sell it to him, who is refused entry into private social events, who is an invisible non-person will suffer the consequences of his bigotry, and the community will not have to condone or support such bigoted behavior in any way.

Why is it that private property is so venerated in your version of libertarianism but a minimal set of human rights that would protect against bigotry is so anathema?

[Pappa]

Not my problem if your subconscious hates you. Take it up with your psychotherapist.

[my bold]. Oxymoron. You really don't understand the first thing about the brain and mind, do you Seth?

The only medical fact that's pertinent to this discussion is that your subconscious resided inside your brain inside your skull. Therefore, I have absolutely no physical control over it, or moral responsibility for what goes on inside your head. Period.

Go fuck yourself,

I beg your pardon?!?

Was I unclear? Go. Fuck. Yourself. You don't get to tell me what I may or may not write. Ever.

I'll say whatever it pleases me to say.

Well you can do that, but if you want to a) be taken seriously, and/or b) not be reported, then you should stop lying about what other people have said.

Dude, this ain't Ratskep, and it ain't filled with anal-retentive assholes in the Mod department who can't parse sarcasm or an abstract personalization from a personal attack or a lie "about what other people have said." Since you're evidently impaired in your ability to properly parse an argument, here's a little clue for you. When one is engaged in an abstract philosophical argument, one may from time to time use the term "you" in the abstract, debatorial meaning of the word, as a convenient way to avoid the labored sort of depersonalized "one" and "some person" or some other stupid requirement of anal assholes who view anything with the word "you" in it as a personal attack. We're not babies here, we're adults. Now act like one and shut the fuck up about your wounded ego.

The fine Mods here seem to have the capacity to recognize when the use of "you" is intended in the abstract sense, for which I'm eternally grateful. You don't because you've still got that stick up your ass from Ratskep. Withdraw it and loosen up a little fer pete's sake.

As for being taken seriously, I don't take you seriously, and it doesn't bother me in the least if you feel the same way.

I'm not representing your position at all, I'm DEBUNKING it by correcting your fallacious analogy.

No you're not, you are lying. You said "your selfish expectations of association against my will". Nowhere have I said that, and in fact I have even specifically addressed that point where I stated that I have no problem with people personally associating with (or not) whoever they want.

Get a grip. It's an abstract assignment to begin with, and it's also a statement of my personal opinion about the implicit demand for association that existed in your original statement, which is implied by the fact that you have the idiotic notion that refusing to associate with someone you don't like is using "force" against them. It's an asinine position to take, and it's all the more asinine when you get your panties in a wad over an abstract use of "you."

Grow up, whydontcha?

Seth, please refrain from personal attacks on other members, they are against the rules: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#personal

Also, while we understand that you wish to 'fight fire with fire' , doing so may put you in breach of the rules and eventually result in suspension(s). If you notice any personal attacks against you, please report them using the post report feature.