[Cultural Jihad]

I've always wondered if those who infer unspoken "issues" in others aren't simply projecting their own.

"You must be one of those pre-verts I am always being so supportive of!" Sort of like trying to claim that Joe Hadenuf is an illegal alien, while Sabertooth is a Baathist stooge. How does one counter such idle conjecture and speculation? "No, I'm not!" and then the other side can counter with a "Yes, you are!" and then a "No, I'm not!" followed by a "Yes, you are!" and this passes for debate somehow.

Apparently it's not easy trying to support the advocacy for the protection of perversion and death; the use of ad hominem is much easier for the lazy, calloused, and inured mind.

[breakem]

"Apparently it's not easy trying to support the advocacy for the protection of perversion and death; the use of ad hominem is much easier for the lazy, calloused, and inured mind."

Your self-indictment would be humorous if I thought you did it on pourpose. Calling someone a supporter of perversion and death and then characterizing ad hominems the way you did: priceless!

[Luis Gonzalez]

CJ, what a pantload you are!

If ad hominems are the tools of the lazy, you must be the poster child for the Sloth Society of America.

After all, you called me here by leveling an unsolicited ad hominem attack at me.

[ArGee]

"No, I'm not!" and then the other side can counter with a "Yes, you are!" and then a "No, I'm not!" followed by a "Yes, you are!" and this passes for debate somehow.

I'd like to buy an argument, please.

Shalom.