Political conversations with teens in Leftist homes vs. Political conversations with teens in Conservative homes. What do they sound like?

[Curried Goats]

I can read, smart guy.

And everyone can read that what I was responding to was this:

Should we teach children cannibalism is a natural practice and encourage them to participate?

Little pussy boy.

 

[DukeU]

And everyone can read that what I was responding to was this:



Little pussy boy.

Yes, they can, smart guy.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, they can, smart guy.

And you feel free to be the pussy pretending it's about anything other than cannibalism.

Pretend and make believe are all you soft Sad Boys are good for these days.

 

[DukeU]

And you feel free to be the pussy pretending it's about anything other than cannibalism.

Pretend and make believe are all you soft Sad Boys are good for these days.

And you feel free to pretend something that happens in nature actually means we should teach it to children.

 

[Curried Goats]

And you feel free to pretend something that happens in nature actually means we should teach it to children.

That's just your dumb hick strawman argument. My actual argument was that homosexuality is natural. You're free to teach your Bingo children whatever you like but it's just a fact that homosexuality is perfectly natural, Sad Boy.

 

[DukeU]

That's just your dumb hick strawman argument. My actual argument was that homosexuality is natural. You're free to teach your Bingo children whatever you like but it's just a fact that homosexuality is perfectly natural, Sad Boy.

And should be discouraged.

We should help these people with their mental illness, not encourage and enable it.

 

[Curried Goats]

And should be discouraged.

Why exactly? Still waiting on why you think their natural same sex attraction should be discouraged.

We should help these people with their mental illness, not encourage and enable it.

What mental illness?

 

[DukeU]

Why exactly? Still waiting on why you think their natural same sex attraction should be discouraged.

Should we go through this again...........

I'll type slower.


S o m e p e o p l e a r e a t t r a c t e d t o a n i m a l s.

Should we encourage it???

 

[Curried Goats]

Should we go through this again...........

I'll type slower.


S o m e p e o p l e a r e a t t r a c t e d t o a n i m a l s.

Should we encourage it???

I don't think slowing it down is going to help your dumb hick ass understand homosexuality and beastiality aren't the same thing. Are you making an argument about homosexuality or beastiality you fucking coward?

 

[BrokeLoser]

I taught my kids that their working lives will be spent in an ugly godforsaken rat race. Simply make the best of it and use your skills against your employer. Let them know you are willing to walk off the job for a better one even when most needed. I taught them to create their own customs and traditions rather than the ones they are told to follow.

That’s so fucking cool…You’re such a badass!!
Do they look like this?

 

[DukeU]

I don't think slowing it down is going to help your dumb hick ass understand homosexuality and beastiality aren't the same thing. Are you making an argument about homosexuality or beastiality you fucking coward?

They are both naturally occurring and by your logic perfectly acceptable.

 

[Curried Goats]

They are both naturally occurring and by your logic perfectly acceptable.

That's not my logic you dipshit. That's simply your red neck understanding of my argument. What's acceptable to you is entirely subjective, that homosexuality is natural is simply a fact.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It's relevant to why I'm questioning you.

That's just it, why you're asking me is not relevant.

You asked guy, why are dismissing the answer?

Because the question and the answer are both irrelevant. See below.

Was your question why, rhetorical?

Was your question relevant? No. Why? Because IM2 did not claim BrokeLoser was a bigot or even that the OP was bigoted. He asked BrokeLoser if he taught his daughters bigotry.

His question was premised only on BrokeLoser saying he didn't discuss issues of gay rights and transgenders and whatnot when discussing politics with his daughters. The OP did not suggest in any way that he teaches them bigotry but IM2 apparently assumed that by mere virtue of not discussing gay rights when discussing politics, he must be teaching them bigotry by default. That's why I asked IM2 how he arrived at his conclusion.

Is that not a question? When you say you asked him is that not you admitting to questioning him? Do you understand what a question is?

Jesus fucking Christ. When I said you were wrong, I did not mean you were wrong that I asked him a question. I meant you were wrong that I questioned the accuracy of IM2's claim, which I did not and he did not do anyway.

IM2 made no claim, he asked BrokeLoser if he teaches his daughters bigotry. My question to him was how he arrived at that conclusion.

I'm not being dishonest.

You brought up the word "faggots" which was not used in the OP that IM2 initially responded to.

Being dishonest would be me and IM2 pretending as if we haven't had these arguments with Loser or that we didn't understand where he was coming from.

Irrelevant. The word was not used in the OP and that's what IM2 responded to and his response prompted my question to him.

If the word "faggots" had been used in the OP then I would not have bothered asking IM2 how he arrived at his conclusion. Understand?

Then again, even if he had, it still does not mean he teaches his daughters bigotry. We might reasonably assume he's a bigot but that says nothing about what he says to them.

If you want to claim ignorance of Loser's bigoted positions then you're only speaking for yourself. I'll accept your ignorance as an excuse.

Leave your personal feelings about BrokeLoser out of this. I don't know BrokeLoser from Adam and I'm not familiar with his positions so I'm not excusing anything.

Which is a commment. A question is a type of comment.

No, it is not. A comment is "an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude", according to Webster's.

In what way do you imagine me to be bitching?

In the way you attribute incorrect text to the OP (that being "faggots") and the way you question me about what I think bigotry is. What I think bigotry is is irrelevant. In fact, whether or not BrokeLoser is a bigot is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not he teaches bigotry to his daughters.

I enjoy his ignorance as well as the fact that he passes it on to his children.

So why bother asking questions about it?

Same difference. Bigots teach their children bigotry.

Irrelevant, subjective and a red herring. What bigots, as a group, teach their kids is not the issue. The issue for me was how IM2 arrived at his conclusion from what the OP said.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's just it, why you're asking me is not relevant.

Its relevant to my curiosity which is why I asked. That's.... kind of how that works....

People ask questions for there relevance to them, not you.

Because the question and the answer are both irrelevant. See below.

To you. Not to me, the person asking the question. Do you understand how questions work my guy? You seem confused. Is that why you asked a question for an answer you don't appear to have wanted?

Was your question relevant? No. Why? Because IM2 did not claim BrokeLoser was a bigot or even that the OP was bigoted. He asked BrokeLoser if he taught his daughters bigotry.

Again, the no here is just your subjective opinion. I'm the one who asked the question because the answer is of relevance to me.

His question was premised only on BrokeLoser saying he didn't discuss issues of gay rights and transgenders and whatnot when discussing politics with his daughters.

How do you know? How do you know he's also not also bringing with him his previous experiences with Loser to the conversation?

The OP did not suggest in any way that he teaches them bigotry but IM2 apparently assumed that by mere virtue of not discussing gay rights when discussing politics, he must be teaching them bigotry by default. That's why I asked IM2 how he arrived at his conclusion.

He suggests it by being a bigot himself. Teach I don't think you should assume to mean to instruct as if you were in a classroom. Bigots teach their children bigotry by simply exposing them to their own.

Jesus fucking Christ. When I said you were wrong, I did not mean you were wrong that I asked him a question. I meant you were wrong that I questioned the accuracy of IM2's claim, which I did not and he did not do anyway.

IM2 made no claim, he asked BrokeLoser if he teaches his daughters bigotry. My question to him was how he arrived at that conclusion.

I read IM2's question as being largely rhetorical. We're both well aware of who Loser is as person.

You brought up the word "faggots" which was not used in the OP that IM2 initially responded to.

I did. I asked you a question about whether you think someone who calls gay people faggots is a bigot. I didn't claim he said it in the OP, I was merely seeking your opinion on the matter.

Irrelevant. The word was not used in the OP and that's what IM2 responded to and his response prompted my question to him.

I never said it was used in the OP. It's just a word that he has used and did use in this thread to describe gay people and so I was curious if you thought people who used that word to describe people were bigots. You really don't understand the point of a question do you? You're just that dumb I guess....

If the word "faggots" had been used in the OP then I would not have bothered asking IM2 how he arrived at his conclusion. Understand?

Because you think people who use the word faggot to describe gay people are bigots? Did you have to act like such a big bitch about answering that question?

Why do you make replying to you so unnecessarily tedious? I'm high right now so it's mostly amusing but Jesus christ you can turn a simple answer into page long bitch fest.

Then again, even if he had, it still does not mean he teaches his daughters bigotry. We might reasonably assume he's a bigot but that says nothing about what he says to them.

That's the things about bigots or alcoholics or wife beaters... that's who you are. You can't help but be an example of that to your children.

Leave your personal feelings about BrokeLoser out of this. I don't know BrokeLoser from Adam and I'm not familiar with his positions so I'm not excusing anything.

I don't have to leave my personal feelings out of shit. My opinion of Loser is based on my feelings about him and his beliefs.

No, it is not. A comment is "an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude", according to Webster's.

I don't care about that defintion. Comment in this instance means whatever I want it to mean seeing as how I'm the one who used it. In this case I was referring to your reply to this thread.

In the way you attribute incorrect text to the OP (that being "faggots")

I didn't attribute that to the OP but go on....

and the way you question me about what I think bigotry is. What I think bigotry is is irrelevant. In fact, whether or not BrokeLoser is a bigot is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not he teaches bigotry to his daughters.

Isn't relevant to who, you? Or do imagine yourself in a position to tell me what's relevant to me? My questions are relevant to me, hence why I ask them. Again you seem confused about the nature of questions....

So why bother asking questions about it?

Because the expressed views of morons and bigots are entertaining to me.

Irrelevant, subjective and a red herring. What bigots, as a group, teach their kids is not the issue. The issue for me was how IM2 arrived at his conclusion from what the OP said.

I don't care about what's relevant to your curiosity. I asks questions for me. That's their relevance you Clown.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Its relevant to my curiosity which is why I asked. That's.... kind of how that works....

It's not relevant to my response to IM2. I could write you an essay on what bigotry looks like to me but it won't address the question as to how IM2 concluded from the text of the OP that BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters.

People ask questions for there relevance to them, not you.

I didn't say anything about relevance to me. I'm talking about relevance to the particular three-post exchange between the OP, IM2 and myself.

To you. Not to me, the person asking the question. Do you understand how questions work my guy? You seem confused. Is that why you asked a question for an answer you don't appear to have wanted?

The issue is not whether BrokeLoser is a bigot or not, it's about whether he teaches it to his daughters. What I consider bigotry is irrelevant to that question and to the question of how IM2 arrived at this conclusion. Dumbass.

Again, the no here is just your subjective opinion. I'm the one who asked the question because the answer is of relevance to me.

Again, the issue was never about the bigotry or lack thereof displayed in the OP. The issue was the seeming assumption by IM2 that the OP poster taught bigotry to his daughters. Understand?

Does BrokeLoser teach bigotry to his daughters? I don't know and neither does IM2 and neither do you. But IM2 seems to assume that he does simply because BrokeLoser said he didn't discuss gay rights when talking about politics with his daughters.

That is why your question was irrelevant.

How do you know?

It's right there in the text of the OP and IM2's response, dumbass.

How do you know he's also not also bringing with him his previous experiences with Loser to the conversation?

I don't know and I don't care. Anything IM2 brought with him regarding past experiences with BrokeLoser are subjective opinions and so are irrelevant to his apparent conclusion that the OP teaches bigotry to his daughters based on the text of the OP.

He suggests it by being a bigot himself.

The supposed bigotry of BrokeLoser is entirely subjective opinion on your part so it is irrelevant.

Teach I don't think you should assume to mean to instruct as if you were in a classroom. Bigots teach their children bigotry by simply exposing them to their own.

Negative. The OP was specifically in the context of direct political discussions with his daughters. Ergo, the assumption by IM2 was that in these discussions, BrokeLoser teaches bigoted views by direct instruction (ex.: "homosexuality is an abomination"). What they may learn passively by observing their father's conduct and hearing his rhetoric is not the question here.

I read IM2's question as being largely rhetorical. We're both well aware of who Loser is as person.

I don't give a shit. Again, your opinions of BrokeLoser are subjective and are irrelevant to the exchange.

I did. I asked you a question about whether you think someone who calls gay people faggots is a bigot. I didn't claim he said it in the OP, I was merely seeking your opinion on the matter.

Then that means you assumed I knew that BrokeLoser refers to gays as "faggots". I didn't and I don't. That was presumption on your part.

I never said it was used in the OP. It's just a word that he has used and did use in this thread to describe gay people and so I was curious if you thought people who used that word to describe people were bigots. You really don't understand the point of a question do you? You're just that dumb I guess....

Anything he said later has no bearing on the wording of the OP, IM2's response to that OP or my response to IM2.

Because you think people who use the word faggot to describe gay people are bigots? Did you have to act like such a big bitch about answering that question?

Did you have to be a big bitch about asking a question based on your personal opinion of the OP poster and a word that was not used in the exchange I responded to?

You're the one bringing your personal feelings into this, not me.

Why do you make replying to you so unnecessarily tedious? I'm high right now so it's mostly amusing but Jesus christ you can turn a simple answer into page long bitch fest.

I guess that explains all the emojis.

Apparently you can't express yourself worth a shit either stoned or sober and being high doesn't stop you from bitching.

You do understand that you have a choice not to respond, right? If you know this then this is just useless whining. A "bitch fest" if you will.

That's the things about bigots or alcoholics or wife beaters... that's who you are. You can't help but be an example of that to your children.

Subjective conjecture and irrelevant. This does not prove he teaches his daughters bigotry.

I don't have to leave my personal feelings out of shit. My opinion of Loser is based on my feelings about him and his beliefs.

Which are, again, irrelevant to this exchange about the OP, IM2's response to the OP and my response to IM2.

I don't care about that defintion. Comment in this instance means whatever I want it to mean seeing as how I'm the one who used it. In this case I was referring to your reply to this thread.

So this time you're choosing to ignore the common understanding?

I didn't attribute that to the OP but go on....

Since the exchange we're discussing did not have that word and the question is him teaching bigotry to his daughters, why bring it up? What relevance does his saying "faggots" later have to do with IM2's conclusion from the OP that BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters?

Isn't relevant to who, you?

To the topic of the exchange, dumbass.

Or do imagine yourself in a position to tell me what's relevant to me?

Your question is only relevant to your personal feelings about BrokeLoser and your own interactions with him. That particular exchange involved BrokeLoser, IM2 and myself. Not you. Therefore, I am in a position to tell you that it is not relevant to IM2's question to the OP or my question to IM2.

My questions are relevant to me, hence why I ask them. Again you seem confused about the nature of questions....

You seem confused about what questions are relevant to the discussion. Questions about what I consider bigotry are irrelevant because my question to IM2 was not about whether he thinks BrokeLoser is a bigot or not, it was about why he thinks BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters and how he arrived at this conclusion from the text of the OP.

Are you seriously not getting this?

Because the expressed views of morons and bigots are entertaining to me.

You're just repeating yourself. If it's all just entertainment to you then why are you asking me what bigotry is to me? Why do you care?

I don't care about what's relevant to your curiosity.

Then why did you respond to my curiosity of IM2's question to the OP?

I asks questions for me. That's their relevance you Clown.

It's not relevant to the topic of the exchange you clown.

 

[Curried Goats]

It's not relevant to my response to IM2. I could write you an essay on what bigotry looks like to me but it won't address the question as to how IM2 concluded from the text of the OP that BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters.

Buddy, I get to decide the relevance of my questions. That's how subjectivity and questions work....

It was your response that made me question whether you understood what bigotry was. Hence my question.

I didn't say anything about relevance to me. I'm talking about relevance to the particular three-post exchange between the OP, IM2 and myself.

How do you you know whether that exchange is relevant to my question and me? Again, you only get to decide what's relevant to you.

The issue is not whether BrokeLoser is a bigot or not, it's about whether he teaches it to his daughters. What I consider bigotry is irrelevant to that question and to the question of how IM2 arrived at this conclusion. Dumbass.

I don't know what issue you're referring to. I ask questions on behalf of my own issues....

Again, the issue was never about the bigotry or lack thereof displayed in the OP. The issue was the seeming assumption by IM2 that the OP poster taught bigotry to his daughters. Understand?

I understand that may be you issue but I didn't ask my questions on behalf of your issue....

Why are you so weird?

Does BrokeLoser teach bigotry to his daughters? I don't know and neither does IM2 and neither do you. But IM2 seems to assume that he does simply because BrokeLoser said he didn't discuss gay rights when talking about politics with his daughters.

I don't know the particulars of how IM2 came to his conclusion but my conclusion is that bigots display bigotry and the people around them see this bigotry and this is what I take education to mean.

That is why your question was irrelevant.

To you. Not to me. You still have trouble understanding subjectivity it seems.

It's right there in the text of the OP and IM2's response, dumbass.

No it isn't. You just assumed his question was premised by only what was in the OP and not also IM2's previous experiences with him.

I don't know and I don't care. Anything IM2 brought with him regarding past experiences with BrokeLoser are subjective opinions and so are irrelevant to his apparent conclusion that the OP teaches bigotry to his daughters based on the text of the OP.

These are subjective determinations. If past experiences are subjective opinions then so too are current and future ones. The only difference here is the frame of reference for when they occurred. If he formed an opinion based on this interaction that would also just be an opinion and if he used it in his next interaction it would be a past experience. This is also why I asked you what you thought a bigot was. If that was an objective question then I wouldnt need to ask but I was asking for your opinion.

The supposed bigotry of BrokeLoser is entirely subjective opinion on your part so it is irrelevant.

When is it not an opinion other than when a bigot or racist confesses to being one? When you asked IM2 your original question you were also essentially asking him how he arrived at that opinion and now opinion is irrelevant to you.

Negative. The OP was specifically in the context of direct political discussions with his daughters. Ergo, the assumption by IM2 was that in these discussions, BrokeLoser teaches bigoted views by direct instruction (ex.: "homosexuality is an abomination"). What they may learn passively by observing their father's conduct and hearing his rhetoric is not the question here.

I don't know that that was his assumption. Seems like you're making an assumption there.

I don't give a shit. Again, your opinions of BrokeLoser are subjective and are irrelevant to the exchange.

Your idea of what's relevant to what is also subjective.

Then that means you assumed I knew that BrokeLoser refers to gays as "faggots". I didn't and I don't. That was presumption on your part.

No it doesn't. It implies that Loser refers to gays as faggots.

Anything he said later has no bearing on the wording of the OP, IM2's response to that OP or my response to IM2.

Who's saying it did?

Did you have to be a big bitch about asking a question based on your personal opinion of the OP poster and a word that was not used in the exchange I responded to?

What's bitchy about curiosity?

You're the one bringing your personal feelings into this, not me.

And what's wrong with that? If you have no personal feelings on bigotry that's cool with me I don't know why you're being weird about it...

I guess that explains all the emojis.

Apparently you can't express yourself worth a shit either stoned or sober and being high doesn't stop you from bitching.

How is that apparent? I express myself just fine. You're the one who seems confused about the nature of questions....

You do understand that you have a choice not to respond, right? If you know this then this is just useless whining. A "bitch fest" if you will.

I'm responding because this is amusing to me.

Subjective conjecture and irrelevant. This does not prove he teaches his daughters bigotry.

Its not conjecture that bigots display bigotry, its in the name. Whats conjecture is his daughters would never have been witness to it at all growing up.

Which are, again, irrelevant to this exchange about the OP, IM2's response to the OP and my response to IM2.

Irrelevant to you. Im not stopping you from asking anyone questions relevant to you my guy. I ask questions that are relevant to me. Its so weird how I have to keep explaining this to you....

So this time you're choosing to ignore the common understanding?

I'm not making any assumptions one way or another about what would be a common understanding to others. As far as my opinion is concerned comment fits that defintion just fine. Your opinion may vary. That's how opinions work.

Since the exchange we're discussing did not have that word and the question is him teaching bigotry to his daughters, why bring it up? What relevance does his saying "faggots" later have to do with IM2's conclusion from the OP that BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters?

Because Loser is the type of person who calls gay people faggots. That's why I brought it up. It's really rather straight forward.

To the topic of the exchange, dumbass.

How are you deciding what's relevant to the topic as if its a person. It doesn't have a perspective you dumbass. You really don't understand that when you call something irrelevant that your only expressing its irrelevance to yourself!?! You think you're speaking on behalf of the topic?!?

I might of underestimated how much of a moron you really are and that's saying something. My estimation of you wasn't very high to begin with...

Your question is only relevant to your personal feelings about BrokeLoser and your own interactions with him. That particular exchange involved BrokeLoser, IM2 and myself. Not you. Therefore, I am in a position to tell you that it is not relevant to IM2's question to the OP or my question to IM2.

No... you're still only in a position to tell me my questions are irrelevant to you. You only speak for yourself here.

You seem confused about what questions are relevant to the discussion. Questions about what I consider bigotry are irrelevant because my question to IM2 was not about whether he thinks BrokeLoser is a bigot or not, it was about why he thinks BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters and how he arrived at this conclusion from the text of the OP.

No buddy... you're confused.

Are you seriously not getting this?

You're just repeating yourself. If it's all just entertainment to you then why are you asking me what bigotry is to me? Why do you care?

Because I want to know if you're of the opinion that people who call gays faggots are bigots. Why do I need to explain the purposes of questions to you like you're a stunted child?

Then why did you respond to my curiosity of IM2's question to the OP?

Out of curiosity.

It's not relevant to the topic of the exchange you clown.

It's relevant to my curiosity you moron.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Buddy, I get to decide the relevance of my questions. That's how subjectivity and questions work....

It was your response that made me question whether you understood what bigotry was. Hence my question.

We're not talking about what bigotry is, we're talking about BrokeLoser teaching it to his daughters. Tell me how my perspective on bigotry is relevant to IM2 assuming BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters.

How do you you know whether that exchange is relevant to my question and me? Again, you only get to decide what's relevant to you.

You have that backwards. The question is whether your question is relevant to the exchange, not the other way around.

I don't know what issue you're referring to. I ask questions on behalf of my own issues....

I understand that may be you issue but I didn't ask my questions on behalf of your issue....

Why are you so weird?

So what IS your issue?

I don't know the particulars of how IM2 came to his conclusion

Neither do I which is why I ASKED HIM.

but my conclusion is that bigots display bigotry and the people around them see this bigotry and this is what I take education to mean.

Irrelevant. Your conclusion is subjective and based on your past experiences with (alleged) bigots. It has nothing to do with why IM2 came to his conclusion in this discussion and in that exchange.

IM2 probably came with his own baggage of hate for BrokeLoser but that's irrelevant too. My question was how he arrived at his conclusion based on the text of the OP. The text of the OP only said that he doesn't discuss gay rights when discussing politics with his daughters. I would like to know how this means he actively teaches them bigotry.

To you. Not to me. You still have trouble understanding subjectivity it seems.

So quit fucking around and tell my why it's relevant to you.

No it isn't. You just assumed his question was premised by only what was in the OP and not also IM2's previous experiences with him.

Well that's a stupid goddamn thing to say. My assumption was based on what was actually said in this discussion. I can't make an assumption based on something I'm not even aware of. Idiot.

These are subjective determinations.

Hence, my use of the word "apparent". Did you miss that?

If past experiences are subjective opinions then so too are current and future ones. The only difference here is the frame of reference for when they occurred. If he formed an opinion based on this interaction that would also just be an opinion and if he used it in his next interaction it would be a past experience.

What the fuck are you talking about opinions for? Nobody's suggesting that anything that was said between them here or in the past was anything other than opinion.

This is also why I asked you what you thought a bigot was. If that was an objective question then I wouldnt need to ask but I was asking for your opinion.

Then your question was based on your assumption that I knew anything about the relationship between the two of them. Why would you assume I knew anything about that and what would that assumption be based on?

When is it not an opinion other than when a bigot or racist confesses to being one?

Are you assuming I know that BrokeLoser confessed to being a bigot?

When you asked IM2 your original question you were also essentially asking him how he arrived at that opinion and now opinion is irrelevant to you.

Don't try to make this out like I'm being ambivalent about opinions you disingenuous harpy. I asked for a specific opinion from a specific poster from a specific exchange. I did not ask for your general opinion about BrokeLoser from previous experiences outside of this discussion. I think they are irrelevant and I was not interested in them.

I don't know that that was his assumption. Seems like you're making an assumption there.

Wrong. I specifically used the words "seems" and "apparently" a number of times before this. But you ignored that, didn't you?

Your idea of what's relevant to what is also subjective.

No it doesn't. It implies that Loser refers to gays as faggots.

Your assumption was that I knew this, dumbass.

Who's saying it did?

If you thought it had no bearing on what was said in the OP then why did you bring it up?

What's bitchy about curiosity?

Nothing. What's bitchy is the reason for your curiosity.

And what's wrong with that?

You tell me. You're the one always bitching at me about feelings in the other discussion.

If you have no personal feelings on bigotry that's cool with me I don't know why you're being weird about it...

What gave you the idea I don't have personal feelings about bigotry?

How is that apparent?

All the emojis, dumbass. I said this already.

I express myself just fine. You're the one who seems confused about the nature of questions....

More conflation and deflection. This is not about the nature of questions and you know it. This is about the question you asked.

I'm responding because this is amusing to me.

While at the same time complaining that it's tedious.

Its not conjecture that bigots display bigotry, its in the name.

It's conjecture that BrokeLoser does.

Whats conjecture is his daughters would never have been witness to it at all growing up.

It's conjecture that they were witness to it.

Irrelevant to you. Im not stopping you from asking anyone questions relevant to you my guy. I ask questions that are relevant to me. Its so weird how I have to keep explaining this to you....

More conflation and deflection. I understand your question is relevant to you. I just don't know why you think it's relevant to the specific exchange between BrokeLoser, IM2 and myself.

I'm not making any assumptions one way or another about what would be a common understanding to others.

Didn't say you did. I said you're ignoring it.

As far as my opinion is concerned comment fits that defintion just fine. Your opinion may vary. That's how opinions work.

Except, comments don't work as interrogatives or vice versa.

Because Loser is the type of person who calls gay people faggots. That's why I brought it up. It's really rather straight forward.

I don't give a shit what you think the kind of person he is. Answer the question: What relevance does his saying "faggots" later have to do with IM2's conclusion from the OP that BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters?

How are you deciding what's relevant to the topic as if its a person. It doesn't have a perspective you dumbass. You really don't understand that when you call something irrelevant that your only expressing its irrelevance to yourself!?! You think you're speaking on behalf of the topic?!?

I'm speaking on behalf of MY question to IM2.

I might of underestimated how much of a moron you really are and that's saying something. My estimation of you wasn't very high to begin with...

It's "I might HAVE underestimated..." you moron.

No... you're still only in a position to tell me my questions are irrelevant to you. You only speak for yourself here.

So again, tell me why it's relevant to you.

No buddy... you're confused.

About what?

Because I want to know if you're of the opinion that people who call gays faggots are bigots. Why do I need to explain the purposes of questions to you like you're a stunted child?

Why do I need to keep explaining to you that this word was not used in the OP, which is what IM2 responded to? If he did not refer to gays as faggots in the OP then how would I know that he calls gays "faggots"?

You keep trying to make this about BrokeLoser being a bigot but that was never the issue. Even if he IS a bigot, it is still not the issue. The issue is, and always has been, the apparent assumption that he teaches bigotry to his daughters.

Out of curiosity.

You already said you don't care about what's relevant to my curiosity. If you don't care about what's relevant to my curiosity then why are you curious about my curiosity?

You're talking in circles again.

It's relevant to my curiosity you moron.

I don't care about that.

 

[Curried Goats]

We're not talking about what bigotry is, we're talking about BrokeLoser teaching it to his daughters. Tell me how my perspective on bigotry is relevant to IM2 assuming BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters.

Why do I need to tell you that? The relevance of my question was my curiosity about how you discern bigotry.

You have that backwards. The question is whether your question is relevant to the exchange, not the other way around.

The exchange doesn't care about relevance. It isn't a thing with a conscience. You're the one who cares and you're being a hilarious bitch about it by making an argument that the exchange found it irrelevant....

So what IS your issue?

I don't so much have an issue as I do questions about your ability to discern bigotry.

Neither do I which is why I ASKED HIM.

And I don't know what you think a bigot is, hence why I asked you. Funny how you seem to understand the gist of questions when they're your own.....

Irrelevant. Your conclusion is subjective and based on your past experiences with (alleged) bigots. It has nothing to do with why IM2 came to his conclusion in this discussion and in that exchange.

I never claimed it wasn't subjective guy. Who is or isn't a bigot in anyone estimation is inherently subjective.

IM2 probably came with his own baggage of hate for BrokeLoser but that's irrelevant too.

What's wrong with hating bigots?

My question was how he arrived at his conclusion based on the text of the OP. The text of the OP only said that he doesn't discuss gay rights when discussing politics with his daughters. I would like to know how this means he actively teaches them bigotry.

And also that he couldn't imagine discussing with his children the importance of tolerance or inclusion or to be accepting gay rights. That seems pretty bigoted to me. The implication there is that gay rights aren't important and that he hasn't taught his children how to behave tolerably to people of the LGTBQ community. That's his job as a parent. Children aren't born knowing how to respectfully engage with others. You have to educate them on tolerance and inclusion. Not doing so is allowing intolerance to reign through neglect.

So quit fucking around and tell my why it's relevant to you.

Curiosity.

Well that's a stupid goddamn thing to say. My assumption was based on what was actually said in this discussion. I can't make an assumption based on something I'm not even aware of. Idiot.

I don't know what you are or not aware of.

Hence, my use of the word "apparent". Did you miss that?

I honestly don't remember and don't really care enough to look.

What the fuck are you talking about opinions for? Nobody's suggesting that anything that was said between them here or in the past was anything other than opinion.

What do you mean no one is talking opinions? The entire OP was his opinion....

Then your question was based on your assumption that I knew anything about the relationship between the two of them. Why would you assume I knew anything about that and what would that assumption be based on?

I didn't assume you were aware of any particular interaction between the two it just shouldn't come as a surprise that they've interacted before or that IM2's opinion of Loser isn't necessarily going to based on this singular interaction like you know..... all relationships.

Are you assuming I know that BrokeLoser confessed to being a bigot?

No, I'm saying all determinations that someone is a bigot or a racist or an asshole or a swell guy are inherently subjective. They're opinions about people.

Don't try to make this out like I'm being ambivalent about opinions you disingenuous harpy. I asked for a specific opinion from a specific poster from a specific exchange. I did not ask for your general opinion about BrokeLoser from previous experiences outside of this discussion. I think they are irrelevant and I was not interested in them.

So it's okay to talk about opinions now?

Why are you so angry?

Wrong. I specifically used the words "seems" and "apparently" a number of times before this. But you ignored that, didn't you?

Whether you used the word seems doesn't mean you didn't seemingly make an assumption.

Your assumption was that I knew this, dumbass.

No it wasn't. It was a question. "Do you think someone who uses faggot to describe gays is a bigot?". That isn't even specifically about Loser, it's about anyone who uses faggots as a derogatory term for gays. It includes Loser because he is the type of person to do so but it's isn't specifically about him.

If you thought it had no bearing on what was said in the OP then why did you bring it up?

Curiosity. You really don't understand why people ask you questions?

Nothing. What's bitchy is the reason for your curiosity.

Whats the reason you imagine?

You tell me. You're the one always bitching at me about feelings in the other discussion.

You can't help but think with your emotions. That's a you problem. My only issue with subjective points of view is when they're expressed as objective arguments. Other than that feel free to feel whatever you like.

All the emojis, dumbass. I said this already.

Emojis are me expressing myself. Usually laughter. You having trouble understanding what the laughing emoji means is kind of a YOU problem. Who hurt you?

More conflation and deflection. This is not about the nature of questions and you know it. This is about the question you asked.

What about them?

It's conjecture that BrokeLoser does.


It's conjecture that they were witness to it.

It conjecture that they witnessed their father the bigot? He himself is a bigot. The only way to hide bigotry from them would be for him to hide from them.

More conflation and deflection. I understand your question is relevant to you. I just don't know why you think it's relevant to the specific exchange between BrokeLoser, IM2 and myself.

See admitting to confusion is a clearer response then saying something irrelevant and then relevant. That's just confusing.

Didn't say you did. I said you're ignoring it.


Except, comments don't work as interrogatives or vice versa.

So you feel. I feel differently.

I'm using comment merely to mean your reply to IM2's post. It isn't more complicated than that guy.

I don't give a shit what you think the kind of person he is. Answer the question: What relevance does his saying "faggots" later have to do with IM2's conclusion from the OP that BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters?

Nothing. I never said it did guy, I was just asking.

I'm speaking on behalf of MY question to IM2.

It's "I might HAVE underestimated..." you moron.

It's whatever I want it to be, moron. The nature of language is for it to be subjective.

So again, tell me why it's relevant to you.

Curiosity.

About what?

How you identify bigotry.

Why do I need to keep explaining to you that this word was not used in the OP, which is what IM2 responded to?

Because I never claimed it was. Why do you feel the need to keep explaining something that I was never contesting is the question?

If he did not refer to gays as faggots in the OP then how would I know that he calls gays "faggots"?

Because I was telling you he did in so many words.

You keep trying to make this about BrokeLoser being a bigot but that was never the issue. Even if he IS a bigot, it is still not the issue. The issue is, and always has been, the apparent assumption that he teaches bigotry to his daughters.

That's not an assumption. It's a conclusion born from his admission that he never taught tolerance or inclusion to his children. It's education through neglect. As a parent the job of educating your children how to interact with others is on your. If you're not teaching them to behave with tolerance towards others then essentially what you're teaching them is intolerance.

You already said you don't care about what's relevant to my curiosity. If you don't care about what's relevant to my curiosity then why are you curious about my curiosity?

I'm not. I'm curious how you discern bigotry.

You're talking in circles again.

I don't care about that.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Why do I need to tell you that? The relevance of my question was my curiosity about how you discern bigotry.

If it's only your curiosity then why did you ask me this question in this discussion where it has no relevance?

How I discern bigotry has no relevance to IM2 assuming BrokeLoser teaches his daughters bigotry. The question was pointless in the context of that exchange.
As I said before, I could give you an entire essay on what bigotry means to me but it will not address the question of whether BrokeLoser teaches his daughters bigotry.

The exchange doesn't care about relevance. It isn't a thing with a conscience. You're the one who cares and you're being a hilarious bitch about it by making an argument that the exchange found it irrelevant....

Holy Fucking Shit. You cannot seriously think I'm saying the conversation is sentient..

I don't so much have an issue as I do questions about your ability to discern bigotry.

So why do you question it?

And I don't know what you think a bigot is, hence why I asked you.

Why did you ask?

Funny how you seem to understand the gist of questions when they're your own.....

I don't understand what your question to me has to do with IM2 apparently assuming BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters.

I never claimed it wasn't subjective guy. Who is or isn't a bigot in anyone estimation is inherently subjective.

Irrelevant. It still has nothing to do with why IM2 came to his conclusion in this discussion and in that exchange.

What's wrong with hating bigots?

I just said his hate is irrelevant.

And also that he couldn't imagine discussing with his children the importance of tolerance or inclusion or to be accepting gay rights. That seems pretty bigoted to me.

Opinion.

The implication there is that gay rights aren't important and that he hasn't taught his children how to behave tolerably to people of the LGTBQ community.

It implies nothing but that he doesn't discuss the issue when talking about politics. It's right there in black and white in the OP.

That's his job as a parent. Children aren't born knowing how to respectfully engage with others. You have to educate them on tolerance and inclusion. Not doing so is allowing intolerance to reign through neglect.

Irrelevant. What he may or may not teach his daughters about tolerance is pure conjecture on your part.

Curiosity.

You think my answers will be stupid anyway so what's the point?

I don't know what you are or not aware of.

Which is precisely why bringing up their their previous relationship was a bonehead move on your part.

I honestly don't remember and don't really care enough to look.

So after reading my response where I acknowledge the subjectivity of my response by saying IM2's "...apparent conclusion that the OP teaches bigotry to his daughters...", you immediately forget I acknowledged the subjectivity to tell me it was subjective. Does that about sum it up?

What do you mean no one is talking opinions? The entire OP was his opinion....

I didn't say no one is talking opinions you idiot, I asked why YOU were talking about opinions.

I didn't assume you were aware of any particular interaction between the two it just shouldn't come as a surprise that they've interacted before or that IM2's opinion of Loser isn't necessarily going to based on this singular interaction like you know..... all relationships.

In other words, you assumed that I would assume a prior relationship. Not only did you assume for yourself, you assumed on my behalf. That's a lot of assumption for someone who's always lecturing about objectivism.

No, I'm saying all determinations that someone is a bigot or a racist or an asshole or a swell guy are inherently subjective. They're opinions about people.

But BrokeLoser being or not being a bigot is not the topic. The topic is whether or not he teaches bigotry to his daughters. So why bring that up?

So it's okay to talk about opinions now?

Never said it wasn't.

Why are you so angry?

Why are you choosing to conflate my words to falsely construe that I'm having a problem with opinions?

Whether you used the word seems doesn't mean you didn't seemingly make an assumption.

So then your argument is that you will assume that I assumed even if I did not assume? Do you not see the irony, hypocrisy and absurdity in calling me out for assuming by assuming yourself that I made an assumption?

No it wasn't. It was a question. "Do you think someone who uses faggot to describe gays is a bigot?". That isn't even specifically about Loser, it's about anyone who uses faggots as a derogatory term for gays. It includes Loser because he is the type of person to do so but it's isn't specifically about him.

So then, what bearing does that question have on whether or not BrokeLoser teaches his daughters bigotry?

Curiosity. You really don't understand why people ask you questions?

Okay. So then, even though the topic is about BrokeLoser teaching bigotry to his daughters, you sought to, what, make the topic about my bigotry?

Whats the reason you imagine?

I didn't. That's why I asked, dumbass.

You can't help but think with your emotions. That's a you problem. My only issue with subjective points of view is when they're expressed as objective arguments. Other than that feel free to feel whatever you like.

You brought your subjective feelings about BrokeLoser to the discussion and expressed opinions about him as objective arguments. To wit:

"If you want to claim ignorance of Loser's bigoted positions..."

"..his (BrokeLoser's) bigotry is pretty well documented..."

"He suggests it by being a bigot himself."

Every one of these statements is subjective opinion but you express them as objective, established facts.

Emojis are me expressing myself.

That's not you expressing yourself, it's you using cartoons because you can't express yourself.

Usually laughter. You having trouble understanding what the laughing emoji means is kind of a YOU problem. Who hurt you?

I understand laugh emojis just fine: I understand it means you can't express yourself.

What about them?

They have nothing to do with my question to IM2. I thought I made that clear.

It conjecture that they witnessed their father the bigot?

It is a subjective opinion that he is a bigot, therefore it is conjecture that he teaches bigotry to his daughters.

He himself is a bigot.

Subjective opinion.

The only way to hide bigotry from them would be for him to hide from them.

This is premised on the subjective opinion that he is a bigot.

See admitting to confusion is a clearer response then saying something irrelevant and then relevant. That's just confusing.

Because you don't know what "relevant" means?

So you feel. I feel differently.

Fact.

I'm using comment merely to mean your reply to IM2's post. It isn't more complicated than that guy.

I didn't say or imply it's complicated, I said you were wrong.

Nothing. I never said it did guy, I was just asking.

You were only asking to make it about me and bigotry in order to deflect from the topic of IM2 assuming BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters.

It's whatever I want it to be, moron. The nature of language is for it to be subjective.

Grammatically, "I might OF underestimated..." makes no sense.

You're not the only one to do this by far. I see it all the time and it's because the internet is relatively new to culture and it brought chat, social media, texting, tweeting and discussion forums that require people to write. Problem is, most of them don't read much so they express and spell words and sentences the way they hear them, not the way they see them.

As a result, "I should have..." sounds like "I should of..." so that's how they write it. And "their", "there" and "they're" have become interchangeable.

Curiosity.

So you're admitting it is not relevant to the topic of IM2 assuming BrokeLoser teaches bigotry to his daughters?

How you identify bigotry.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that I'm confused about how I identify bigotry when I haven't answered your question?

Because I never claimed it was. Why do you feel the need to keep explaining something that I was never contesting is the question?

If you know it was not used in the OP and you know that the OP is what IM2 responded to and that I responded to him, why bring it up?

Because I was telling you he did in so many words.

What does that have to do with IM2 assuming he teaches bigotry to his daughters?

That's not an assumption. It's a conclusion born from his admission that he never taught tolerance or inclusion to his children.

That is not what he said you fucking liar. He did not say he never taught them tolerance. He said he didn't discuss these issues with them when talking politics.

It's education through neglect. As a parent the job of educating your children how to interact with others is on your. If you're not teaching them to behave with tolerance towards others then essentially what you're teaching them is intolerance.

This is pure subjective opinion and does not prove in any way that he teaches his daughters bigotry.

I'm not. I'm curious how you discern bigotry.

You already said I'm confused about how I discern bigotry.

You say I'm confused but you say you're curious and any answer I give will be considered stupid by default.

I must say that's quite a dance you have going on.