A Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad"

[Syriusly]

I don't know what 'you people' you think that I am, unless it's people who don't find anything particularly wrong with homosexuality. I am certainly not part of the left, demonic or otherwise. I sometimes find religious objections to homosexuality to be, if not hypocritical, at least strange when those same people are not so opposed to various other types of sin. However, I'm not raging at anyone for deviating from any dogma.

Using clearly insulting words while making what seem to be hostile posts (go suck a dick, ****** or things to that effect) may not sound like more than a difference in vocabulary to you. It seems deeper than that to me.

Which does nothing to refute what I said. I won't waste half a second trying to appease implacable Leftists.

Did I, at any point, ask you to?

You asked Conservative65 to.

Did I? I only remember giving my opinion on the attitudes I think he has projected in this thread and asking for clarification on things he said. I don't remember telling him or asking him to do differently (although I'll grant that it may have been implied).

. Trying to gain the approval of the Left is like trying to sweep a dirt floor. If I think someone is a ******, I'm going to say so. And there are too many faggots right here in this forum to ignore.

Of course you will.

If you think someone is a n*gger you will call him a n*gger.
If you think someone is a c*nt, you will call her a c*nt
If you think someone is a k*ke, you will call her a k*ke.

that is what bigots do.

 

[Syriusly]

Conservatives desire to teach hatred of homosexuals to children- and luckily we have been largely successful at stopping them.

As a Conservative I teach my children that HOMOSEXUALITY is wrong. YOU twist it to call it hate of the person.

If your children did something wrong, did you hate them or did you just dislike what they did?

I completely understand the difference between hating a person and hating something about them or something they do. However, when you throw around epithets like ****** as you have in this thread, it strongly suggests more than simply 'hating the sin'.

Don't confuse politically incorrect terms with hate. That would be a good example of you implying something incorrectly. I'm not politically correct in person and damn sure won't change for this site.

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You know something? Just having a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is received as hate and bigotry by you people.t.

LOL....just calling someone a n*gger or c*nt or a f*ggot is what is received as hate and bigotry by me.

You are a bigot whose life is filled full of hate.

You just happen to focus your hate on homosexuals.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

As a Conservative I teach my children that HOMOSEXUALITY is wrong. YOU twist it to call it hate of the person.

If your children did something wrong, did you hate them or did you just dislike what they did?

I completely understand the difference between hating a person and hating something about them or something they do. However, when you throw around epithets like ****** as you have in this thread, it strongly suggests more than simply 'hating the sin'.

Don't confuse politically incorrect terms with hate. That would be a good example of you implying something incorrectly. I'm not politically correct in person and damn sure won't change for this site.

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You know something? Just having a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is received as hate and bigotry by you people.t.

LOL....just calling someone a n*gger or c*nt or a f*ggot is what is received as hate and bigotry by me.

You are a bigot whose life is filled full of hate.

You just happen to focus your hate on homosexuals.

You're one of the faggots.

 

[sealybobo]

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You know something? Just having a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is received as hate and bigotry by you people. It's time we realized there's no pleasing the demonic Left so I, and other Christians as well, have stopped trying. I don't give a triple flying Fahrvergnügen what you people find offensive since you rage at even the slightest deviation from your lock step brainwashed dogma. You're not worth the effort.

And no ones joining a cult with your message. But as an athiest I love your honesty. Fastest growing population in america is athiests. And while Muslims are breedind I dont see their grandkids being devout in 2 generations. Church memberships going down. There use to be 20 now 10 churches. One day maybe only 1

The god of good and knowledge.

Yes, I'm sure you jack off listening to John Lennon's "Imagine". I'm sure you look forward to the day you're in charge again so you can resume killing millions of people to show how fucked up religion is.

This planet is overpopulated with humans. We need planned parenthood for anyone who doesnt want a child. You guys seem to like it that the poor keep breeding workers and consumers. IUD should be 100% free for any woman that doesnt want a child. Simply take it out when you want to have kids and its 98% effective over 10 years. Condoms and pills can't say that.

Abortion shouldn't be so common. Cover IUD in obamacare. If not you are causing abortions when people who can't have kids get knocked up.

I wish the poor would quit breeding. It's more for the rest of us to be forced to feed.

As for free contraception, I'll repeat what I've said to others when it comes to what a woman does with her body. If she chooses to do something with it, don't care what it is as long as she pays for it. It's not anyone's place to fund anything related to a choice she makes with her body especially when she says no one else has a say in what it is. I'm willing to give her then choice. She should return the favor and pay for it herself.

How can someone who is told that the choice of what a woman does with her body be blamed when she makes a choice. Typical blame someone else mentality of the left. I wish those on the left would have more abortions and get their stupidity out of the gene pool.

We as a society will pay for birth control because its cheaper and better than welfare. Your libertarian mind can't comprehend I know.

 

[sealybobo]

I completely understand the difference between hating a person and hating something about them or something they do. However, when you throw around epithets like ****** as you have in this thread, it strongly suggests more than simply 'hating the sin'.

Don't confuse politically incorrect terms with hate. That would be a good example of you implying something incorrectly. I'm not politically correct in person and damn sure won't change for this site.

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You know something? Just having a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is received as hate and bigotry by you people. It's time we realized there's no pleasing the demonic Left so I, and other Christians as well, have stopped trying. I don't give a triple flying Fahrvergnügen what you people find offensive since you rage at even the slightest deviation from your lock step brainwashed dogma. You're not worth the effort.

And no ones joining a cult with your message. But as an athiest I love your honesty. Fastest growing population in america is athiests. And while Muslims are breedind I dont see their grandkids being devout in 2 generations. Church memberships going down. There use to be 20 now 10 churches. One day maybe only 1

The god of good and knowledge.

Fasting growing group in hell is atheists, too. While I know you don't believe there is one. That's OK. Like anything else, it's not a requirement for it to be true.

Most people in hell are Christians who thought they had a ticket to heaven just because they believed a story but didn't live good lives.

 

[Conservative65]

You know something? Just having a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is received as hate and bigotry by you people. It's time we realized there's no pleasing the demonic Left so I, and other Christians as well, have stopped trying. I don't give a triple flying Fahrvergnügen what you people find offensive since you rage at even the slightest deviation from your lock step brainwashed dogma. You're not worth the effort.

And no ones joining a cult with your message. But as an athiest I love your honesty. Fastest growing population in america is athiests. And while Muslims are breedind I dont see their grandkids being devout in 2 generations. Church memberships going down. There use to be 20 now 10 churches. One day maybe only 1

The god of good and knowledge.

Yes, I'm sure you jack off listening to John Lennon's "Imagine". I'm sure you look forward to the day you're in charge again so you can resume killing millions of people to show how fucked up religion is.

This planet is overpopulated with humans. We need planned parenthood for anyone who doesnt want a child. You guys seem to like it that the poor keep breeding workers and consumers. IUD should be 100% free for any woman that doesnt want a child. Simply take it out when you want to have kids and its 98% effective over 10 years. Condoms and pills can't say that.

Abortion shouldn't be so common. Cover IUD in obamacare. If not you are causing abortions when people who can't have kids get knocked up.

I wish the poor would quit breeding. It's more for the rest of us to be forced to feed.

As for free contraception, I'll repeat what I've said to others when it comes to what a woman does with her body. If she chooses to do something with it, don't care what it is as long as she pays for it. It's not anyone's place to fund anything related to a choice she makes with her body especially when she says no one else has a say in what it is. I'm willing to give her then choice. She should return the favor and pay for it herself.

How can someone who is told that the choice of what a woman does with her body be blamed when she makes a choice. Typical blame someone else mentality of the left. I wish those on the left would have more abortions and get their stupidity out of the gene pool.

We as a society will pay for birth control because its cheaper and better than welfare. Your libertarian mind can't comprehend I know.

We, as society, shouldn't pay for anything related to a choice a woman makes with her body especially when she says the choice is solely hers. It's not about an ideology but good sense. You're a fool. You're told that woman can make choices but you have to pay for it and you say OK. I say give her the choice, let her pay for her choice, and if she can't, do without regardless of the consequences. Mine isn't a Libertarian mindset. It's one of personal responsibility. I know you can't comprehend that.

 

[Conservative65]

Don't confuse politically incorrect terms with hate. That would be a good example of you implying something incorrectly. I'm not politically correct in person and damn sure won't change for this site.

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You know something? Just having a disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle is received as hate and bigotry by you people. It's time we realized there's no pleasing the demonic Left so I, and other Christians as well, have stopped trying. I don't give a triple flying Fahrvergnügen what you people find offensive since you rage at even the slightest deviation from your lock step brainwashed dogma. You're not worth the effort.

And no ones joining a cult with your message. But as an athiest I love your honesty. Fastest growing population in america is athiests. And while Muslims are breedind I dont see their grandkids being devout in 2 generations. Church memberships going down. There use to be 20 now 10 churches. One day maybe only 1

The god of good and knowledge.

Fasting growing group in hell is atheists, too. While I know you don't believe there is one. That's OK. Like anything else, it's not a requirement for it to be true.

Most people in hell are Christians who thought they had a ticket to heaven just because they believed a story but didn't live good lives.

Most people in hell were those who thought that all it took was being "good" by their standard without doing the one thing that God's word says it takes to get to heaven. You can't buy your way into heaven and there is not enough good you could do in a hundred lifetimes to earn it.

 

[Silhouette]

Looks like Conservative is derailing the topic again with religion. "Sealybobo" is playing the antagonist this time. Will this routine ever end? And how much bandwidth is it chewing up?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Looks like Conservative is derailing the topic again with religion. "Sealybobo" is playing the antagonist this time. Will this routine ever end? And how much bandwidth is it chewing up?

You do this a lot, hitting allies with friendly fire. WTF is wrong with you?

Asshole.

 

[Montrovant]

I completely understand the difference between hating a person and hating something about them or something they do. However, when you throw around epithets like ****** as you have in this thread, it strongly suggests more than simply 'hating the sin'.

Don't confuse politically incorrect terms with hate. That would be a good example of you implying something incorrectly. I'm not politically correct in person and damn sure won't change for this site.

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You are incorrectly making an implication. The receiver is the one that implies what he/she thinks the sender is saying. The sender can only say it.

The problem is you think I should change the words I use based on how others feel about them. Since I don't work for them, what they think doesn't matter. No one has a right not to be offended and if they get offended by the words I use, it's their problem. I don't have to please them and that's what you seem to be asking me to do.

To imply is to say something indirectly. I felt you were implying something. I may be wrong about that. It is not implying to think someone else is saying something indirectly, however.

Yes, I tend to think that being polite, showing a modicum of courtesy, is a good thing. It makes life run a bit more smoothly. You're obviously perfectly able to throw around the word ****** all you want, and to claim that doing so is just a figure of speech and not a derogatory word or insult if you want as well. I'm able to think it indicates you have a particular hatred for gays. I'm also able to think it is not merely some figure of speech but a deliberate attempt to insult and garner a reaction when you do it so frequently and with venom. Of course no one has a right not to be offended. That doesn't mean I think I should do my best to offend everyone whenever I can. Do you think you should?

For you to say I was implying something meant you had to look at it that way. I don't imply. I'll say what I need to say. If someone views it incorrectly, they implied a meaning that wasn't made. It's obvious I hold no punches.

If someone considers something an insult or offensive, that's their problem. You can think what you want but that's YOU implying. If I hated gays, I'd come out and say it directly.

I can't offend anyone. If they are offended, it's because THEY were offended. All I did was say it. You don't have the ability to offend me. If I am offended at something, which is rare, if ever, it's because I GET offended not that you offend me. I don't believe it's possible for you to offend me.

This is just a definitional argument, but again, to imply is to say something indirectly. While I may have read more into your statements than is there, while I may have seen an implication that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean I am implying that meaning. It means I am inaccurately reading an implication which isn't there. It's just the nature of the definition.

When you say I asked you not to say certain things because I told you I don't like them, that would be me implying something.

 

[Conservative65]

Don't confuse politically incorrect terms with hate. That would be a good example of you implying something incorrectly. I'm not politically correct in person and damn sure won't change for this site.

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You are incorrectly making an implication. The receiver is the one that implies what he/she thinks the sender is saying. The sender can only say it.

The problem is you think I should change the words I use based on how others feel about them. Since I don't work for them, what they think doesn't matter. No one has a right not to be offended and if they get offended by the words I use, it's their problem. I don't have to please them and that's what you seem to be asking me to do.

To imply is to say something indirectly. I felt you were implying something. I may be wrong about that. It is not implying to think someone else is saying something indirectly, however.

Yes, I tend to think that being polite, showing a modicum of courtesy, is a good thing. It makes life run a bit more smoothly. You're obviously perfectly able to throw around the word ****** all you want, and to claim that doing so is just a figure of speech and not a derogatory word or insult if you want as well. I'm able to think it indicates you have a particular hatred for gays. I'm also able to think it is not merely some figure of speech but a deliberate attempt to insult and garner a reaction when you do it so frequently and with venom. Of course no one has a right not to be offended. That doesn't mean I think I should do my best to offend everyone whenever I can. Do you think you should?

For you to say I was implying something meant you had to look at it that way. I don't imply. I'll say what I need to say. If someone views it incorrectly, they implied a meaning that wasn't made. It's obvious I hold no punches.

If someone considers something an insult or offensive, that's their problem. You can think what you want but that's YOU implying. If I hated gays, I'd come out and say it directly.

I can't offend anyone. If they are offended, it's because THEY were offended. All I did was say it. You don't have the ability to offend me. If I am offended at something, which is rare, if ever, it's because I GET offended not that you offend me. I don't believe it's possible for you to offend me.

This is just a definitional argument, but again, to imply is to say something indirectly. While I may have read more into your statements than is there, while I may have seen an implication that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean I am implying that meaning. It means I am inaccurately reading an implication which isn't there. It's just the nature of the definition.

When you say I asked you not to say certain things because I told you I don't like them, that would be me implying something.

You reading into what I said based on whatever biases you may have is the very definition of implication.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't know what 'you people' you think that I am, unless it's people who don't find anything particularly wrong with homosexuality. I am certainly not part of the left, demonic or otherwise. I sometimes find religious objections to homosexuality to be, if not hypocritical, at least strange when those same people are not so opposed to various other types of sin. However, I'm not raging at anyone for deviating from any dogma.

Using clearly insulting words while making what seem to be hostile posts (go suck a dick, ****** or things to that effect) may not sound like more than a difference in vocabulary to you. It seems deeper than that to me.

Which does nothing to refute what I said. I won't waste half a second trying to appease implacable Leftists.

Did I, at any point, ask you to?

You asked Conservative65 to.

Did I? I only remember giving my opinion on the attitudes I think he has projected in this thread and asking for clarification on things he said. I don't remember telling him or asking him to do differently (although I'll grant that it may have been implied).

Actually you did. You have made it clear that you believe I shouldn't use certain words. That's telling me what I should and shouldn't say not implying it.

No, that IS implying it. Implying is to say something indirectly. Have I said to you, "Don't say these words" or, "I don't want you to say these words"? No, you have taken what I've said and read further meaning into it.

And as far as that goes, sure, I think your use of ****** in this thread is way overdone. I understand how it can be a common, unthinking insult; when I was younger I used it plenty of times. I also think that since we are on a message board and can take as long as we want to type out a post, using ****** as much as you have and as insultingly as you have is an intentional thing, not just an unthinking use of a particular word.

 

[Montrovant]

First, I think you mean I am incorrectly reading an implication in your words. I'm not the one implying something in this case.

Second, I find the argument that using an insult is simply a matter of not being PC fairly weak. If you know a word is looked at as insulting and you proceed to not only use it, but use it often and in conjunction with derogatory or negative statements, that appears as more than just not being PC. That looks like intentional insulting and hostility. I can accept that you may not mean it that way, but it certainly comes off that way.

You are incorrectly making an implication. The receiver is the one that implies what he/she thinks the sender is saying. The sender can only say it.

The problem is you think I should change the words I use based on how others feel about them. Since I don't work for them, what they think doesn't matter. No one has a right not to be offended and if they get offended by the words I use, it's their problem. I don't have to please them and that's what you seem to be asking me to do.

To imply is to say something indirectly. I felt you were implying something. I may be wrong about that. It is not implying to think someone else is saying something indirectly, however.

Yes, I tend to think that being polite, showing a modicum of courtesy, is a good thing. It makes life run a bit more smoothly. You're obviously perfectly able to throw around the word ****** all you want, and to claim that doing so is just a figure of speech and not a derogatory word or insult if you want as well. I'm able to think it indicates you have a particular hatred for gays. I'm also able to think it is not merely some figure of speech but a deliberate attempt to insult and garner a reaction when you do it so frequently and with venom. Of course no one has a right not to be offended. That doesn't mean I think I should do my best to offend everyone whenever I can. Do you think you should?

For you to say I was implying something meant you had to look at it that way. I don't imply. I'll say what I need to say. If someone views it incorrectly, they implied a meaning that wasn't made. It's obvious I hold no punches.

If someone considers something an insult or offensive, that's their problem. You can think what you want but that's YOU implying. If I hated gays, I'd come out and say it directly.

I can't offend anyone. If they are offended, it's because THEY were offended. All I did was say it. You don't have the ability to offend me. If I am offended at something, which is rare, if ever, it's because I GET offended not that you offend me. I don't believe it's possible for you to offend me.

This is just a definitional argument, but again, to imply is to say something indirectly. While I may have read more into your statements than is there, while I may have seen an implication that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean I am implying that meaning. It means I am inaccurately reading an implication which isn't there. It's just the nature of the definition.

When you say I asked you not to say certain things because I told you I don't like them, that would be me implying something.

You reading into what I said based on whatever biases you may have is the very definition of implication.

No, it is not. To imply is to say or express something indirectly. Reading something into words that isn't actually there is not implying.

 

[Conservative65]

Which does nothing to refute what I said. I won't waste half a second trying to appease implacable Leftists.

Did I, at any point, ask you to?

You asked Conservative65 to.

Did I? I only remember giving my opinion on the attitudes I think he has projected in this thread and asking for clarification on things he said. I don't remember telling him or asking him to do differently (although I'll grant that it may have been implied).

Actually you did. You have made it clear that you believe I shouldn't use certain words. That's telling me what I should and shouldn't say not implying it.

No, that IS implying it. Implying is to say something indirectly. Have I said to you, "Don't say these words" or, "I don't want you to say these words"? No, you have taken what I've said and read further meaning into it.

And as far as that goes, sure, I think your use of ****** in this thread is way overdone. I understand how it can be a common, unthinking insult; when I was younger I used it plenty of times. I also think that since we are on a message board and can take as long as we want to type out a post, using ****** as much as you have and as insultingly as you have is an intentional thing, not just an unthinking use of a particular word.

If you read what I post, there is no implication. It's stated clearly. You implied that I meant something I didn't.

You're implying, and incorrectly doing it, again.

I'm not politically correct and don't care whether people like it or not. Sure, I could use the word homosexual but won't simply because someone is offended by my use of ******.

 

[Conservative65]

You are incorrectly making an implication. The receiver is the one that implies what he/she thinks the sender is saying. The sender can only say it.

The problem is you think I should change the words I use based on how others feel about them. Since I don't work for them, what they think doesn't matter. No one has a right not to be offended and if they get offended by the words I use, it's their problem. I don't have to please them and that's what you seem to be asking me to do.

To imply is to say something indirectly. I felt you were implying something. I may be wrong about that. It is not implying to think someone else is saying something indirectly, however.

Yes, I tend to think that being polite, showing a modicum of courtesy, is a good thing. It makes life run a bit more smoothly. You're obviously perfectly able to throw around the word ****** all you want, and to claim that doing so is just a figure of speech and not a derogatory word or insult if you want as well. I'm able to think it indicates you have a particular hatred for gays. I'm also able to think it is not merely some figure of speech but a deliberate attempt to insult and garner a reaction when you do it so frequently and with venom. Of course no one has a right not to be offended. That doesn't mean I think I should do my best to offend everyone whenever I can. Do you think you should?

For you to say I was implying something meant you had to look at it that way. I don't imply. I'll say what I need to say. If someone views it incorrectly, they implied a meaning that wasn't made. It's obvious I hold no punches.

If someone considers something an insult or offensive, that's their problem. You can think what you want but that's YOU implying. If I hated gays, I'd come out and say it directly.

I can't offend anyone. If they are offended, it's because THEY were offended. All I did was say it. You don't have the ability to offend me. If I am offended at something, which is rare, if ever, it's because I GET offended not that you offend me. I don't believe it's possible for you to offend me.

This is just a definitional argument, but again, to imply is to say something indirectly. While I may have read more into your statements than is there, while I may have seen an implication that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean I am implying that meaning. It means I am inaccurately reading an implication which isn't there. It's just the nature of the definition.

When you say I asked you not to say certain things because I told you I don't like them, that would be me implying something.

You reading into what I said based on whatever biases you may have is the very definition of implication.

No, it is not. To imply is to say or express something indirectly. Reading something into words that isn't actually there is not implying.

What someone thinks another person means is implication. Here's how it works. My wife buys a new dress and asks me whether or not I like it. I respond with "it looks good on you". She can take that several ways. She can imply that I don't like it, that I do like it, or that she is the only one that I think would look good in it.

 

[Montrovant]

To imply is to say something indirectly. I felt you were implying something. I may be wrong about that. It is not implying to think someone else is saying something indirectly, however.

Yes, I tend to think that being polite, showing a modicum of courtesy, is a good thing. It makes life run a bit more smoothly. You're obviously perfectly able to throw around the word ****** all you want, and to claim that doing so is just a figure of speech and not a derogatory word or insult if you want as well. I'm able to think it indicates you have a particular hatred for gays. I'm also able to think it is not merely some figure of speech but a deliberate attempt to insult and garner a reaction when you do it so frequently and with venom. Of course no one has a right not to be offended. That doesn't mean I think I should do my best to offend everyone whenever I can. Do you think you should?

For you to say I was implying something meant you had to look at it that way. I don't imply. I'll say what I need to say. If someone views it incorrectly, they implied a meaning that wasn't made. It's obvious I hold no punches.

If someone considers something an insult or offensive, that's their problem. You can think what you want but that's YOU implying. If I hated gays, I'd come out and say it directly.

I can't offend anyone. If they are offended, it's because THEY were offended. All I did was say it. You don't have the ability to offend me. If I am offended at something, which is rare, if ever, it's because I GET offended not that you offend me. I don't believe it's possible for you to offend me.

This is just a definitional argument, but again, to imply is to say something indirectly. While I may have read more into your statements than is there, while I may have seen an implication that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean I am implying that meaning. It means I am inaccurately reading an implication which isn't there. It's just the nature of the definition.

When you say I asked you not to say certain things because I told you I don't like them, that would be me implying something.

You reading into what I said based on whatever biases you may have is the very definition of implication.

No, it is not. To imply is to say or express something indirectly. Reading something into words that isn't actually there is not implying.

What someone thinks another person means is implication. Here's how it works. My wife buys a new dress and asks me whether or not I like it. I respond with "it looks good on you". She can take that several ways. She can imply that I don't like it, that I do like it, or that she is the only one that I think would look good in it.

You are simply incorrect. Here, let me provide a link to the definition of the word :
Imply - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In your example, your wife is not implying anything, she is reading an implication into your statement. The fact that such an implication was not intended does not mean she is implying anything; an implication is something said or expressed, not something read into another's statement.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

There was a bumper sticker I saw several years ago that said "If you live like there's no hell, you better be right".

I love that sticker!

If your children did something wrong, did you hate them or did you just dislike what they did?

Amen to this! Just because we hate what certain people say or do with their time does not mean that we hate them people.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Conservative65]

There was a bumper sticker I saw several years ago that said "If you live like there's no hell, you better be right".

I love that sticker!

If your children did something wrong, did you hate them or did you just dislike what they did?

Amen to this! Just because we hate what certain people say or do with their time does not mean that we hate them people.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

I was checking consistently of those who say we have the person because we dislike homosexuality. They say there is no difference and if we hate the act, we hate the person because the person committed the act. I suspect most, if not all, of them would say that it's easy to distinguish between the wrongful act their child does and the child itself. To that I would ask why they don't believe those who think homosexuality is wrong can do the same when it comes to the person.

.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Sadly its because they don't believe that what they do with their time is wrong. By the way, I left another message about this matter here.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[Silhouette]

I was checking consistently of those who say we have the person because we dislike homosexuality. They say there is no difference and if we hate the act, we hate the person because the person committed the act. I suspect most, if not all, of them would say that it's easy to distinguish between the wrongful act their child does and the child itself. To that I would ask why they don't believe those who think homosexuality is wrong can do the same when it comes to the person.

.

They can and they do, all the time.