Fail. Attacking me instead of dealing with the point, to wit that you can make “any rule” if I am on your property.
How very liberal of you.
>Fail. Attacking me instead of dealing with the point, to wit that you can make “any rule” if I am on your property.
I never made the point that “any rule I make” is valid. In fact, it’s so utterly childish (”Heads I win, tails you lose”/”Nun-uh — I have INVISIBLE super shields that protect me from EVERYTHING and giant cannons that you can’t block or hide from!”) that it deserves just what you received, me saying [in a bit nicer way] “Fine, play your stupid game... but touch me and I’ll break your f——ing face.”
>How very liberal of you.
Ah, see there’s the personal attack.
My argument was that IF you are to actually embrace a “my house my supreme rule” AND declare that [to use your own example] your gay brother-in-law could “have his way” with me as one of those rules THEN it would behoove me to keep away from you as your very rules [wold] show you to be irresponsible (denying that you have ANY responsibility to a guest’s safety) and amoral (that you would unilaterally give that which is not yours, to wit: my sexuality, to someone else).
You may be confusing things with an inaccurate view of how if-then works in language.
“If it’s raining then you’ll get wet.” says nothing about when it *isn’t* raining; and your being wet doesn’t necessarily mean that it is raining as you could have, say, jumped in the ocean. {The only way your being wet says anything about if it’s raining is the case when the ONLY way to get wet is for it to rain; in math this is such an important relationship it’s called “if and only if.”}