Quote: Uschi said: That's what I was saying. This is the core of the disagreement between us and it's going to be a stalemate. I can't prove to you that I'm right, you can't prove to me that you're right. The end.
First: It's not the core of our disagreement. I think you've just tricked yourself into believing that since you got the argument all scattered.
Second: Simply because you can not get past the barrier of notable intent on the part of sodomy practitioners, that doesn't mean your defensive proclamation of "Stalemate!" holds water.
Quote: By the way, just because someone addersses something you already mentioned does not mean they did not read your first post regarding said subject. A lot of the stuff you posted as arguments seems retarded and close-minded to me so I can see why someone might want to still challange you. Just because you state what makes sense to you doesn't mean anyone else has to agree. You aren't convincing to everyone just beacuse it makes a lot of sense in your head.
So essentially they don't like my "retarded and close-minded" arguments I made earlier but they now address them even though they already know I have a stance on them that they can approach and scrutinize me from?
Please don't lecture me on what's "retarded". They've obviously ignored what I wrote cuz' they didn't address it right away.
Quote: Uschi said: Or, instead of a knee-jerk response like that, you might consider adressing the issue from a new angle. Try a different approach. Your sore sphincter isn't cutting it for anyone.
A "new angle"? He wants me to show him why I feel my consistent point holds bearing, but the fact of the matter is, he can read up on it within pages prior. Please to note how his comments evolved from scrutinizing me about the abuse of the rectum and turned to the danger of sodomy's wide-spread casual use--Which, again, was already covered. Plus, I've addressed your arguments in more ways than simply from the "sphincter approach".
He's not asking me to cover "new angles", just re-state past posts.
Stop asking me to repeat myself and continue to re-summarize arguments I've thoroughly stated simply because you decide you don't want to read what I have to say--Not only because you can't be bothered to read that much (apparently), but also because I'm "retarded". If you don't like what I say, then don't respond to me. You're only continuing to contradict yourself that way. Same goes to Jim who calls me young and ignorant. Same goes to Klinton who continually said he was leaving the argument but came back for my sake.
