Quote:
Originally Posted by haertig
You should go back and research the posts where the very person I was responding to has ridiculed me as being sexist and obtuse - because I said "hysterical media reports" in a different thread when referring to sensationalist journalism. Nothing to do with sexism.
|
Except that I haven't been reading the discussion and monitoring for behavior because (1) that isn't my job and (2) present bad behavior isn't justified by someone else's past bad behavior if in fact it really was bad.
I've only been reading the posts after mine and noted that you went from arguing your case to casting aspersions on someone's character, which is a different subject from someone objecting to usage with potentially sexist connotations. You might find both to be the same, but I do not. For one thing, usage involves the implications of language and is not a matter of character. For another, bad usage can involve good faith.
Quote:
|
Both the sexist and anti-disabled zingers came in out of left field. No known reason for them, other than to insult.
|
If you can think of "no known reason" for anyone to have mentioned usage, then isn't it projection to conclude that people intended to insult you?
Quote:
|
And in your world, this must all be OK to throw around insults and false accusations like that. I guess that's a fine thing to do. But if I mention that I lose respect for someone when they do things like that, well, that's not fine.
|
The us/them dichotomy in your ad hominem about my unknown motivations and opinions is disconcerting. I can't be a well-meaning member letting you know that perhaps you shouldn't be attacking people in the service of making an argument. I have to be a person with a "world" and orientation that is not only different from yours, but exists to pass judgments on you that are hypocritical and partisan. I couldn't possibly be trying to move the conversation away from personal attacks so that we could discuss your actual points, could I? Apparently, people from my "world" wouldn't be interested in listening to you.
Quote:
|
Your logic is incomprehensible to me.
|
Apparently, the logic you project onto my words is incomprehensible, but my intended point and attendant logic is inaudible, since you have not heard me and assume I'm attacking you personally.
I only pointed out that the subject is lively enough. I'm now pointing out that this thread could get shut down if it continues to veer into the personal.
In fact, I've wanted to post evidence that the creators of the vaccine/autism scare were former UK physicians who have not only been discredited but had their licenses revoked; one of them claimed to "cure" autism with a formula that had to be made from his own bone marrow. But I have refrained from posting that bit because (1) it could veer into territory deemed political even though it's only reporting on the science and (2) we've hit an impasse.
I'm just trying to get through the impasse so that we can discuss COVID vaccines without making it personal. People who disagree can still remain friends.
And I'm glad that you were vaccinated against COVID-19, BTW. I wish you no ill -- least of all, that one!