A homo at the trainstation thread for Connor

On 6 Nov, 04:41, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

oups.com...

snip
Everybody knows why you used the word homo, the sole reason was to
insult me, and the only person who would use the word as an insult is
a homophobe. Simple logic LaCourse. Inescapable inexorable, and no
irony involved.
snip
MC

Flawed logic. If someones aim is to insult another, the most effective
means is to use terms that are known to be extremely offensive to the target
of the insult. It doesn't matter whether the insulter personally finds those
terms objectionable to themselves in order to have maximum effect on the
target of the insult. Your reasoning only holds true if the insulter has no
knowledge of what the target finds offensive, and thus must rely on the
assumption that things the insulter would find offensive have the same
effect on the target. That is not the case here, as you have made it
abundantly clear how offensive you find the terms used.

Bob Weinberger

An interesting and apparently correct analysis. But it ignores a
couple of other factors. He is simply not clever enough to go through
the logical process you have so clearly defined.

He is not capable of detecting the logic as flawed,and therefore he
believed it.

His response confirmed my analysis, which was my objective. He tried
to backpedal, he would not have done so had my analysis been
incorrect. he did so because it was correct and he felt guilty.

MC

Unfortunately, he now knows that the logic is indeed flawed, which
gives him another opportunity to backpedal. It remains to be seen what
he will do.

Also, as I know he is in fact a homophobe, the little bit of flawed
logic would have convinced him, and maybe shut him up for a while.

I have no idea what he will do now. It is very very difficult to
predict what a fool will do, and when or even if it will dawn on him
that he is causing himself far more problems than he is causing me.
Not to mention the newsgroup itself.

MC

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:52:42 -0800, Mike
wrote:

On 6 Nov, 04:41, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:
"Mike" wrote in message

oups.com...

snip
Everybody knows why you used the word homo, the sole reason was to
insult me, and the only person who would use the word as an insult is
a homophobe. Simple logic LaCourse. Inescapable inexorable, and no
irony involved.
snip
MC

Flawed logic. If someones aim is to insult another, the most effective
means is to use terms that are known to be extremely offensive to the target
of the insult. It doesn't matter whether the insulter personally finds those
terms objectionable to themselves in order to have maximum effect on the
target of the insult. Your reasoning only holds true if the insulter has no
knowledge of what the target finds offensive, and thus must rely on the
assumption that things the insulter would find offensive have the same
effect on the target. That is not the case here, as you have made it
abundantly clear how offensive you find the terms used.

Bob Weinberger

An interesting and apparently correct analysis. But it ignores a
couple of other factors. He is simply not clever enough to go through
the logical process you have so clearly defined.

He wouldn't have needed to do so.

He is not capable of detecting the logic as flawed,and therefore he
believed it.

Even assuming you are correct in your assessment of Dave - but heck,
you're not clever enough to go through the logical process that's been
clearly defined or capable of detecting your own flawed logic - neither
he or anyone else would need to go through any "logic exercise" to
determine that you said you don't like homosexuals because, well, you
said you didn't like homosexuals. Moreover, your initial reaction to
the whole subject simply, um, greased up the rails for the trainwreck de
jour.

In any event, Dave could be a rabid homophobe or the president of GLAAD
and it would have no effect, bearing or materiality whatsoever on you
being a homophobe. Goering calling Himmler a Nazi would not have turned
them both into nappy-headed libertarian homo hos....

His response confirmed my analysis, which was my objective. He tried
to backpedal, he would not have done so had my analysis been
incorrect. he did so because it was correct and he felt guilty.

Yo, Doktor Schadenfreud! Your epicene epicaricacy is peeking out from
under your leiderschaftslos lederhosen...

Golly, I hope this helps,
Dickie

MC