Well, I like your avatar. Done! You’re the good twin.
– Frog-Aku’s flaming eyebrows rise in acceptance of your acknowledgement –
I have had my suspicions about you for pretty much that reason, actually…
In truth, I’m immediately suspicious of anyone with a join date after 2019. But those 2019’ers? Salt of the Dope.
I never knew that people suspected I had an evil twin!
I did vaguely get the idea though (although I totally missed a possible insinuation in an old ATMB post) that some people considered that I was an old banned poster that had done a largely successful effort to rehabilitate themselves and sock up.
(I’m not for the record)
But, even as a ‘newish’ poster, I tend to look at a newer posters profile with suspicion if there are few reads, and a lot of new topics, especially if they’re provocative. I have had a few threads that might qualify, but I read far, far more than I post.
But back to the point of the thread, we should totally make a Troll/Sock version of the “You might be a Redneck” routine… and then link to it from this thread when it comes up in the wild as it were.
I hereby support the “You might be a bridge dweller if…”. For example, Cartooniverse is being a racist douche nozzle in BigT’s excellent ATMB thread, so he might be a troll.
I don’t know if he’s a troll, to be honest. I’m damn sure he’s an asshole.
Jay_z never was really on my radar before, but they’ve put out a couple of stinkers. Nostalgically pining for the days of discrimination, and I don’t even know what the comparison they were trying to make between an inexperienced lover and homosexuality.
Of course, in that same thread, Crane then I think compared homosexuality to beastiality.
He wasn’t. He was responding directly to a post from puzzlegal about how one reacts to finding out one’s lover has black family members, i.e. is part black. If he was comparing an inexperienced lover to anything, it was to an existing lover you discovered was part black. It was not a good argument just stupid “what-aboutism”, but it had nothing to do with homosexuality.
Crane did not attempt to say that they were comparable in any way except that a person might react to either with “reasoned avoidance.” He didn’t say or imply that the reasons have to be the same.
I did misspeak there that it was about homosexuality rather than miscegenation. But you are right, it was a very bad argument, just an attempt at whataboutism, which I found found to be an extremely dishonest and disingenuous method of argumentation.
Then I don’t understand why he would bring it up as a comparison, if he didn’t think that there was anything the same.
Perhaps a bit of reductio ad absurdem. That is, it would be absurd to accuse someone of bigotry for refusing to participate in bestiality. It would be unreasonable to accuse someone of bigotry for refusing to participate in homosexual activity. One would (I hope) be revolted by the prospect of bestiality, but simply uninterested in homosexuality.
What thread is that?
Great Debates, Do sexual preferences make one a bigot?
Aah, the one that got revived after months for no good reason by Biffster…missed that others had posted.
Some Furries are inclusive:
What do furries have to do with bestiality?
That’s not an actual question. It’s pointing out the obvious that liking anthropomorphic animals is not the same thing as fucking real animals. And that, obviously, pretending they are the same would as offensive as saying it about gay people or anyone else.
How about you just stop with this stuff you don’t care to understand?
Did you read the article?
I did. “Anthropomorphic animals” do not necessarily equate to “beasts”, ergo sexual attraction to anthropomorphic animals and/or sexual arousal by fantasizing about being anthropomorphic animals does not necessarily equate to bestiality.
I was careful to say some, not all.
IME,* it would be more accurate to say “hardly any”.
*Message boards and a mailing list which no longer exist. One guy into bestiality somehow got on the mailing list and got chased out right quick.
‘Some’ is the logical quantifier for unknowns. It’s either ‘some’ or ‘all’.