Quote:
|
But you personally made no arguments. All you did in this case was attack, insult and troll. Again, if you won't discuss it reasonably, please stay out of it. This constitutes a personal attack and will no longer be tolerated.
|
Read again, I am personally making the arguement of using his own arguements.
Answer the question put forward in the first post then make that statement again.
You may notice that it avoids the broad brush pitfall you pulled crank up on, which strangley enough is the same broad brush which Sky is using.
The second post clarifies the arguement put forward in the first.
The third is a quick serious of accurate counters and the reference to "zeal" is included to highlight how he is the same as those he says he is against.
Did you get the two references in the 4th and see which of his claims they countered? I was tempted to cross reference to his arguement about PC gone mad, which in reality was a legal ruling to deal with the legacy of the racist policy of honourary white people to further highlight it as a pattern but considered the point stood well enough itself.
The second part of the 4th deals with the very same notion you yourself have pulled him up over, if I recall correctly your arguement can be simply paraphrased as ... how are you and your arguements any different than those people and arguements you are saying are wrong, your intolerance loops to put you in the same category as that which you say must be got rid of.....please correct me if I have mistated on that angle about freedom of speech and intolerance and the self contradictory nature of the arguements put forward.