Reply With Quote
A library is a collection of books. A book is not a library.
What act?
I still think you're a fake tough guy, tough guy.
You can't even own your own insults.
A library is a collection of books. A book is not a library.
Yes
However there was nothing derogatory stated about the sexual.
So what did you mean by " " in that sentence?
Sure I can. I told you we could go over each of them one at a time. You've yet to discuss any of them.
sexual
Let's just cover it all at once.
So you never used a phobic slur on this site?
Never said someone engaged in sexual acts as an insult?
phobia encompasses a range of negative at udes and feelings toward sexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).[1][2][3] It has been defined as contempt, prejudice, aversion, hatred or antipathy, may be based on irrational fear, and is often related to religious beliefs.[4][5]
phobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual.[1][2][6] Recognized types of phobia include ins utionalized phobia, e.g. religious phobia and state-sponsored phobia, and internalized phobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.
Are you using this definition?
Or do you just mean any word that you can intentionally misrepresent as indicating some form of fear toward Gays?
Are you Gay?
Yeah, I'll reword it since you accepted the earlier definition without much squirming and semantically ting yourself.
So you never used a sexual slur on this site?
Never said someone engaged in sexual acts as an insult?
Make up your mind. Is it sexual or phobic. Those are two completely different things.
I already showed you which version of the definition of " got" I was using. I can basically prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone without an axe to grind here. For example why would I call married couples " gots" for bribing their kids into ivy league colleges? Do you think I meant that these married folks with kids are actually sexuals?
So stick with what you quoted. Do you think any of those are actually phobic in nature?
Again.. are you Gay?
I changed it to sexual slur, meaning derogatory terms for sexuals.
All you have to say is you have never used one on this site and never said someone engaged in sexual acts as an insult.
So you're going to ignore the rest of my post?
Yeah when you address the actual quotes you posted then I will answer that none of those were towards actual sexuals, of if they were it was a coincidence and not related to them actually being sexuals.
So you ask me a question then you want to tell me how I should answer that would allow you to move even closer to labeling me as phobic (something you just tried to do and was thwarted)?
If you're Gay, I can understand why you get offended by someone using the word " got" so freely, but rest assured I do not look down upon you for preferring the touch of same sex hands over those of the opposite sex, nor do I feel disgusted if you mention your Gay partner in conversation. If you're not Gay, then you're just playing a game of semantics, trying to trap me into a corner. You're doing a bang up job. Keep going.
what a ridiculous analogy.
First you argue with Wiki, then with PBS, now with Webster.
You're doing swell Blake. She'll come a runnin' back any day now.
We're addressing all of them at once.
If you never used a sexual slur on this site, that takes care of all of them.
If you say you never said a poster engaged in sexual acts as an insult, that takes care of all of them.
"muh conditions" is yet another derp tactic. It looks jsut as stupid when you use it.
As honest as I am being with you, you are still trying to tailor my responses to suit your narrative. This is why no one takes you seriously and likely you'll pass away without ever having had a real conversation on here.
You keep ignoring my answers and insisting I partake in your inquisition. I will not be pawed at. If you want dialogue you'll have to adjust your angle of attack.
Doesn't seem that way tbh.
All you have to say is you have never used one on this site and never said a poster here engaged in sexual acts as an insult.
If that is, in fact, an honest answer.
That's all I'm going to ask.
Have you ever used a sexual slur on this site or suggested an adult here engaged in sexual acts?
Yes.
Have you?
Then you have no right to question me.
Me and Webster agree:
Synonyms for code
Synonyms: Noun
canon, cons ution, decalogue, law
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../code#synonyms
Lol keep trying, professor.
You just questioned me and I answered, tough guy.
I never expected you to own up to anything.
Such a coward on an anonymous message board.....
Just remember he will never say or suggest you are a sexual as an insult.
.
If code and law are the same things, then all codes are laws.
Are all codes laws?
You came in right in the middle and grabbed a post and tried to make something of it. The discussion was about flag protocol code. Burning the flag is against that code, but it's not against the law.
Also
https://law.justia.com/codes/
Here is says "US Laws, Codes and Statutes"
Why would they use both Law and Codes if they mean the same thing?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
