Reply #239: So now you're a mind reader? I'm not too invested to back down... I'm just not convinced.

[LooseWilly]

Of course you don't have to apologize for choosing a screen name that is a Nazi acronym— it is a free country.

Likewise, homeless women don't have to apologize for having 15 children— it's a free country.

Those who would try to hold women accountable for their choices, accidental or intentional, should not be surprised, however, to face the prospect that others might be inclined to hold them accountable for their own choices, likewise accidental or intentional.

In case that parallel-drawing is too complicated for you— what I am doing is equating your "choice" to the "choice" made by the woman in the OP's article... and I am saying that you should be held as accountable as she should be. No more, no less.

I am also implying that, to the extent that you would have others judge your "not being aware"/"accidental choice" as being "forgivable" without likewise having the "not aware"/"accidental" actions of the woman in the article likewise "forgivable"— to the extent that you maintain that there should be a double standard you are a hypocrite.

I'll apologize for judging you when you apologize for judging the woman in the article.

As for "where you're coming from"... I am familiar with the thread you linked to, and after all the bragging you did about research at the Hoover Institute, at which institute there are entire rooms devoted to displaying Nazi memorabilia, I have to say I'm not buying the "accidental choice" line... well, any more than you seem to be willing to discount the "obvious knowledge" that having sex makes babies.

Again, why would I give you the benefit of the doubt when you show yourself disinclined to show the same courtesy to others? ("I'm just talking about her female dog, I'm not saying she's a bitch".)

I apologize for nothing. Not yet anyway... but maybe you're the one who's too invested to back down? (You'll notice I didn't presume to accuse you thusly, but rather asked you?... That's the tone one uses when one isn't trying to pretend to the rhetorical "high ground" by employing the tone that is normally reserved for authority figures in an interaction... or, in your case, maybe I should call it pretending to the rhetorical "high horse ground"? ;) )

"Either give it or go hassle someone else."?... Why sir, if I didn't know better, I'd think we were no longer friends :):dunce: