You sir are the ultimate hypocrite. Who had an entire argument, called people stupid, etc. over the meaning of sentences, paragraphs, context, semantics, etc.? You did.
Um, check back, that sounds a lot like what you did here as well. Pot, let me introduce you to kettle.
You tried to rake DDD over the coals on that very subject. You felt like you were teaching him a lesson in English. You acted like a superior being and that you were indeed the expert.
Once again, sounds a lot like you trying to tell me I contradicted myself when I didn't. You tried to give me a lesson in logic and attempted to act and sound superior, even questioning my ability to do my job. Hyprocrite.
I merely pointed out a contradiction and I wasn't mean about it at first, I simply asked which side of the contradiction you truly believed. Then, in your rage, you took it down this path.
You pointed out what you THOUGHT was a contradiction, then when I replied to explain myself, You took it down this path instead of just saying "Oh, sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying." This was your doing for attempting to push the issue that I contradicted myself when I didn't. My whole part in this is defending myself to your false claims at attacking my credibility.
I have clearly shown that you are not the expert you think you are.
Um, no. All you have done is show an inability to read and comprehend. And a real zeal for attacking people on subjects you claim to not even want to go into. I have repeated defended my position and all you can say is "you're wrong." Nice arguing style noob.
In doing so, it brings your credibility on this subject and other subjects into question. How could I possibly agree with your facts when you have contradicted yourself on some of the fundamental concepts of this entire debate.
Well, since I have yet to contradict myself, it is your loss.
You can't decide whether sexual orientation includes homosexuality or not. One day you state that it does and the next day you state that it doesn't.
Once again proving you can't read. It has nothing to do with whether or not sexual orientation includes homosexuality. It is that I don't buy into what you call "sexual orientation" at all, and therefore NOTHING is a part of it. I have acquiesced that according to your definition of sexual orientation that homosexuality and heterosexuality fall under that umbrella, but I have not made claims that under my belief system, that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Wake up man and quit continuously putting words in my mouth.
You can't do that and expect to have your opinion taken seriously. So, it wasn't to simply show your mistakes, it was to show your mistakes, which in turn weakens your arguments and ultimately strengthens the opposing position.
Well it isn't high on my list of goals to have someone as blatantly ignorant as yourself to take my opinion seriously. You ignore all the relevant parts of the debate and repeat yourself over and over on irrelevant things. You find contradictions where they don't exist and then refuse to listen to any explanation from the one from whom you claim there to be a contradiction. That is bad form and bad logic.
Being a lawyer, you must understand that technique.
Well since you seem to be an expert on lawyers, you tell me.