If you can admit he was stupid, not lying, then we're good. — AmadeusD

How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie.

she wasn't even hired — AmadeusD

I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well.

its not lying or any other kind of bigotry. — AmadeusD

Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.”

Very, extremely, disagreed. — AmadeusD

So you’re as callous as Kirk.

How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie. — praxis

Yeah, that's absolutely true but we do not assume someone is lying at face value - in this case, particularly because he was clearly bent to believe shit that couldn't possibly be well supported. But, his beliefs are not my thing to comment on the motivations for, if you see what I mean.

I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well. — praxis

Of course; I am aware. That isn't what Kirk, or I was talking about. Man. This is getting tough.

Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.” — praxis

No. That is a purposeful activity. Something done directly to Kirk, including throughout your posts. Again, getting tough lol.

So you’re as callous as Kirk. — praxis

No. You just have an opinion derived from false understandings of what's been said, ignorance of my actual experience (which I've laid out) and ignorance of the views of plenty of trans people (the wrong kind of trans? LOL).

I think probably this has run it's course but thank you for remaining entirely civil these last few exchanges. Appreciate it.

So you’re as callous as Kirk.
— praxis

No. — AmadeusD

The following sounds rather callous to me.

I simply couldn't give a shit. — AmadeusD

Yes, to you. And I understand that. It doesn't sound like anything particularly interesting to me. I also explained myself with reference to psychology, personal experience and the general set of values I would apply to the situation. We simply differ on those.

You don't care about plenty of things I find extremely important. I don't find those situations to be you expressing callousness - I find we have different values and operate along different sets of information which largely, isn't our faults.

Calling someone a name (an actual name, not an epithet) they don't like/want to be called is trivial. You disagree. That's fine.

Charlie Kirk deadnamed deliberately and in a demeaning way and it functioned socially like an epithet. His audience loved it though and cheered appreciatively.

You don't give a shit – that's why we've been arguing this for weeks. :lol:

I extremely disagree, but that is also why we've been arguing for weeks.

This is why i said I think it's run its course. You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness, but could simply be wrong, and I'm understanding that you see things in ways I cannot fault, but I think are wrong. Can't see us getting further.

You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness — AmadeusD

I don't know what you're doing, so many of your statements are contradictory. The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.

Kirk catered to his audience, and they enjoyed him deadnaming and claiming that Thomas was an abomination to God. Like you, I imagine that Kirk also didn't give a shit. He was being their culture warrior and putting bread and butter on the table.

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks. — praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. This isn't something I picked up on as important. I responded to your sticking on it for so long. I saw the comment as i currently see it, more or less when I first saw the clip. Never seemed interesting. There's no contradiction in my responding to you banging on about a single thing he said one time which you misinterpreted.

As to the remainder, you've literally just done it again. I've addressed all of this, extremely clearly, and it is now pretty much unavoidable to conclude that you're just wanting to pain people certain ways, facts be damned. Again, thank you for remaining civil.

Facts be damned? What facts have I damned?

Speaking of facts…

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.
— praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. — AmadeusD

I just reviewed our posts in this thread. A month ago I posted the disgusting Kirk quote—not responding to you but someone else—and you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks?