You can put things in sentences and compare them. You can put things in sentences and not compare them. Grouping and comparing are not the same thing.
And if you really want to you could argue that the OP WAS comparing them- as groups/individuals who have rights that deserved to be protected.
As with figuring out when to use I and when to use me, reducing the complexity may help:
Because the point of the issue seems to be people with opinions, this seems, to me, to imply quite clearly that “you” is an asshole with an opinion and is being grouped with all the other assholes with opinions.
I wouldn’t have taken it as an insult if it been directed at me and I don’t think he called another poster an “asshole” any more than he called Carrot Top a member of the Klan.
A warning seems a bit excessive.
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists,” Robertson said. “We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
In that case, the point is pretty clearly that all these people need to hear God’s news because they’re acting immorally, right? Folks can find it offensive because they think that homosexuals aren’t acting immorally.
In my quote, the point is that all these people get legal protection despite the fact that “I disagree with what” they “say.”
Here’s why they appeared in my sentence, to overanalyze it to death:
You: there because “you” is the subject of the Voltaire fauxquote that I’m explaining.
The Klan: there because they’re the subject of the most famous case in which unpopular opinions are protected.
Mr. Robertson: there because he’s the subject of the thread.
The Revolutionary Maoist Youth League: there because I didn’t want to be accused of thinking that only conservatives have ugly opinions.
Carrot Top: there as a joke.
Rush Limbaugh: there to show that someone I’ve frequently inveighed against myself gets protected opinions
Every asshole with an opinion: there to show that you can’t come up with someone whose opinion I’ll consider free of legal protection.
The last part isn’t there to reflect on the first part. I see in retrospect how it might come across that way, but plenty of people read it the way it’s intended.
My longstanding policy, if someone says something ambiguous, is either to interpret it charitably, or to seek clarification. If I fail to follow my own advice, that’s a failure, but I think it’s a pretty solid principle for conversation.
On consideration, I agree with this. I read the post with an implied “other” that is not actually there.
Warning rescinded.
[ /Moderating ]
Edit: Thanks, tom–I appreciate it!
Good move, Tom.
I agree. If we are to assume the comparison is being made, I think we would also have to assume that Carrot Top is also being accused of being a Revolutionary Maoist and a Klansman, etc.
And God bless all woolly-minded numskulls, bumbling incompetents, well-meaning impotent hand-wringers, power-drunk self-appointed tin gods and SDMB moderators. 
Good move mod. Seems pretty obvious to me. Every Klansman, Communist, GLAAD member, prop comic, insurance salesman, astronaut, or moderator probably does things that in retrospect they regret.
Belated Xmas miracle!
You and international child sex traffickers have a thankless job to do, and you do it with enthusiasm. Thanks for your hard work.
You mean “thankless jobs,” right?
Right?
Yes, and by putting someone on the same list as someone else, you are implying their similarity. If you do not wish to imply this, you need to add disclaimers. A list of people is assumed to be similar unless stated otherwise.
Sometimes the ignorance of how conversations actually work on this board astounds me. You have a guy trying to argue that the way a lawyer reads laws has jack shit with how normal people speak. (Not that a lawyer shouldn’t know this technique, since most of their job is convincing a bunch of normal people. You’re job is to try to trick them into agreeing with you. )
It’s a rhetorical technique. If only I hadn’t sworn off being so hostile, I’d intentionally use this all over the board now, just like Vinyl Turnip did. He took one sentence to completely disprove the logic used here. And this is supposed to be a messageboard made up of smart people.
No, you’d assume that he’s an asshole, since that’s the only characteristic explicitly named. That’s how the brain works.
If I were to say “Mangetout and homophobes both make bad arguments,” would you not think I was implying you were as bad as homophobes? It’s not ambiguous. It may be a mistake, and I could see giving the poster a mulligan if he’s been good up to this point, but putting someone on a list clearly implies their similarity.
The ignorance on this issue really does astound me. I just don’t get how anyone can argue in good faith that the implication was not there. To me, it seems like you are parsing language like a robot. Or at least someone who is completely unaware of basic rhetorical techniques.
No, what you did was imply that homosexuality was similar to the rest of those, since the bad things are the majority. In fact, that’s exactly the type of language I’ve seen used by homophobes. Heck, that’s exactly why people were mad at Phil Robertson, as he put homosexuality on a list with bestiality.
I mean, I can’t imagine that sentence being followed by “We accept that those other things are wrong, even though their perpetrators say they can’t control them. Why should homosexuality be any different?” I can’t think of any other context where that sentence would even arise.
First off, it’s “You, the Klan, the Revoloutionary Maoist Youth League, Carrot Top, or any asshole may read whatever book you like without fear of prosecution.” Second, yes, that would be insulting. Not horribly so, because the word asshole comes off as flippant in this context, but yes, still insulting.
But at least you are consistent with this type of literal interpretation of things. I disagree with you, of course, but at least it doesn’t make me feel like I woke up in the Twilight Zone, where everyone on the Dope was replaced with people I don’t know.
I’m astonished you’re astounded.
