JustWonders wrote:
Setana - I have only recently discovered A2K , and although I've felt compelled to post on occasion, it's generally to state a fact or point out an opposite, yet valid, point of view. It's interesting to me that even when pointing out a simple fact, many here find it necessary to reply with personal comments towards the poster in support of their own viewpoints. I replied to your "sweeping generality" feeling somewhat secure that you were one of the few that avoid this type of discourse. I was wrong.
There is no personal observation about you implicit in that unless you are indeed one of those who considers it proper to interfer in the rights of others. This is definitely a "if the shoe fits" kind of thing, so if you are offended, ask yourself from what that stems. When i "get my back up" i do, intentionally, through out condemnations of classes of intolerant people--i am always interested to note when people respond to such generalities by taking personal offense. It says a lot about the person taking offense.
Quote:I've no doubts from reading through many of your posts that you are intellectually superior to me. However, the fact that a person is intelligent does not automatically make him or her superior to those who are less intelligent.
This is a completely unwarranted assumption on your part. I have no opinion on the subject of your intelligence, and have no interest in the subject either, for that matter. I've not seen enough of what you write to form an opinion, and wouldn't be likely to do so in any event. When people are plainly inarticulate, wantonly misspell or misuse words, and otherwise display a lack of command of the language, i will take note of that. As it happens, i've not seen that in the few posts of yours which i have read. See above the "shoe fits" comment.
I do not waste a moment of life in the consideration of the relative "superiority" of persons. However, i do understand the people are frequently given to finding reasons to take offense. Far be it from me to deprive you of your entertainment
Quote:I see now that you're just another of the really smart (albeit socially clueless) people who have found their niche on A2K. I get the impression you think it would be much better if we'd all shut up and listen to you and let you help us to see the error of our idiotic ways.[/qtuote]
I've not suggested to anyone anything about a relative statement of my intelligence. As for socially clueless, it appears that you are not immune from the impulse you impute to me of insulting others when challenged on your ideas. Your impressions are a subject of not the least interest to me, because it is evidence of your having chosen to see something in what i write for which you don't have direct evidence; although, of course, such a statement gives you what you consider adequate reason for the follow:
And you call me Boss? Bite me
[/quote]
Boss is an appellation which i apply without distinction, and which ought not to be taken as indicative of any perceived relationship. I wonder if you see the irony in leveling charges against me for having made personal remarks, and then ending your petulant tirade with this? Perhaps. Either way, it is immaterial to me.
When i was born, black people and white people were legally prohibited from marrying one another in the majority of states. Little black children and little white children did not attend the same schools, until the Supremes, in
Brown v. Board of Education, articulated the principle that separate is not equal. Women were formally and blantantly excluded from many organizations, and were actively excluded from many professions, and from law schools and medical schools. In many states then, an allegation of adultery was considered grounds for justifiable homicide if a man shot his wife. In Eisenhower's America, i don't doubt that many people would have responded that god was in his heaven and all was right with the world. You have cited a statistic that 62% of the population oppose gay marriage--i would point out to you that absent a description of the sample polled, and the full text of the questions asked, this is a meaningless figure. But i don't dispute that the majority of people oppose gay marriage; i will point out that polls don't poll children, and in ten or fifteen years, the majority of adults may well have an entirely different opinion. When i pointed out that the majority of the population now favors a woman's right to an abortion, your reply is "just barely." This may change with time as well, and in either direction. Your "just barely" reply, however, is freighted with an implication that there is no significance, or little significance to the circumstance. The point i was making is that people's attitudes change with time--and attitudes toward abortion are a striking example. As the elderly die off, and the youthful become adults, social attitudes change, and the net effect is one in a direction of more tolerance.
If you are not one of those bent on interferring in the lives of others, then you have no reason to take offense at what i wrote. If you are, then i'm glad to have offended you. Have a nice life.
