The reason to include “you” in the first paragraph, again, is that I was responding to this post, emphasis added:
I was showing that you and everyone else have a legal right that I’ll defend (not to the death, I’m a bit of a coward, but on a messageboard anyway), but not a right to be free from criticism.
The “you” in that context is, again, something of an impersonal “you.” Aldiboronti’s opinions are pretty much unknown to me and were not the subject of the thread, and it’d make no sense for me to be referring specifically to him (?) with that “you.”
Your opening words to aldiboronti were “Buncha bullshit, aldi”. It’s possible that what followed was a continued theme of contempt for him and his words.
Nonetheless, you’ve made valid points, and my assessment has changed somewhat in light of this (FWIW).
Well, yes–the argument he was making, that liberals don’t tolerate bigots and are therefore intolerant, isn’t an argument I have any patience for, and I phrased my disgust with that argument in pretty blunt language, and I agree that the bluntness of my disgust for that argument might color the perception of the disputed passage.
However, I tend to be pretty blunt with my language when it comes to arguments I find logically vapid or based on absurd ideologies (I think you’ve got some familiarity with that bluntness) without resorting to personal insults. The fact that an apparent personal insult appeared in the middle of my post was unintentional. Again, when I talked about fools and assholes with opinions, I was addressing the Voltaire quote and its inapplicability to the Robertson case.