EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Ok, besides your usual arrogant response it's quite obvious that you can't put yourself in anybody else’s position and be open to other points of view.
Ok, besides your usual intellectually insecure response, it's quite obvious that all you can do is base big ideas off your own personal experiences. Don't paint me with your brush as I can see other's points of view, but that doesn't mean they're correct. Retreat to intellectual relativism if it makes you feel better.
$1:
Unfortunately you can't tell me about my experiences in 1991 while you were in the grade 2 debating club.
Nope, but I can tell you that homophobia was alive and well in 1991 despite your rationalizations.
$1:
I experienced the era as a mature adult and you obviously didn't, I do believe that I am entitled to post comments on my own personal experiences during the 1990's. You can obviously read a very prominent paper written by some professor you worship to apprise yourself of another point of view.
Argumentative fallacy aside, no one's questioning your personal experiences, i've only had reservations that they are somehow justified or socially permissible the time. You've done squat to address that.
$1:
Please do spare me the usual long winded and verbose responses.
I'll post what i want and you're free to ignore it.
$1:
Yes we all know you went to university and that you are a very clever chap, you don't need to vomit a dictionary onto your every post to impress us mere plebs.
Again with the banal insults and intellectual insecurity. Perhaps you could focus on the points instead of making this into somehow personal whine fit
$1:
As usual you make this a personal pissing contest about how you know so much more than us mere mortals.
This smells of projection and your reek of it. Try again.
$1:
Try a little humility in your approach and maybe people would take you more seriously. At the moment you just come across as a strutting, arrogant know-it-all bore. Not at all pleasant really and quite a waste of effort to debate with. You don’t even try to see anybody else’s viewpoint.
Perhaps you should try to stop whining about your own intellectual shortcomings and retreating to dime store psychology in a pitiful attempt to address your own issues. You've erred in assessing past social mores, misinterpreted my position, created conclusions and then hypocritically accused me of personally investing in this while you drone on and on about my alleged shortcomings. In short, each and every time you find yourself beyond your intellectual tether you resort to these kind of tactics. Perhaps, like your original worldview, you're wrong. But, hey, I'll remember your passive endorsement of intellectual relativism from here on in.
$1:
You ever gone for a personality profile? You should try it and maybe you’ll wake up to how you are coming across to others.
I'm good, but thanks for assuming YOUR personal assessment counts for something. Who's arrogant now? Hypocrisy at its finest.
When everything is said and done - homophobia was alive and well in 1991. Despite the fact that some may have harbored those perspectives and have since reassessed their validity, doesn't change the fact they were, in fact, bigoted (you'll notice that Eyebrock refuses to explain how Holocaust Scholars condemn Nazis homophobia in the 1930s and 40s, but it's permissiable in 1991 Canada.). Perhaps Eyebrock can present his statue of limitations regarding racism, Antisemitism, homophobia, xenophobia and sexism? I'd love to know when it's acceptable to hold people accountable for socially regressive ideas and actions. Perhaps instead of resorting to personal slurs, he can enlighten us with his information?
CKA Super Elite 
