Not at all, because none of his words since his op has anything to do with my interpretation of what his OP was saying.
But it DOES have to do with your assessment of my post, now doesn't it? Because it turned out my post WAS an accurate representation of his thought process and it most certainly was not dishonest.
My interpretation of his stance in his OP was based on his actual stance.
Except, as we came to see later in the thread, it wasn't. It was the stance he wanted people to think he was taking (and maybe even thought he was taking), but it wasn't his actual stance. His actual stance was EXACTLY what I said it was.
I was right and you were not. I wonder why you are working so hard to not admit that.
Yours was based on your desire to stereotype folks, by ignoring his actual claim on the matter (his view on how to determine what speech should be allowed) and instead focusing on his partisan aside and simply assigning him the view you think fit the stereotype you pegged him as.
You mean the view he later came to acknowledge, correct?
What he came to say later doesn't change the reasonableness of my original interpretation
I'll grant you leeway with your interpretation, for I can believe it is perhaps what he thought he meant. But, as we found out later, it really wasn't what he actually wanted, it was just another in a long line of whining about "progressives" and free speech, a topic on this forum almost as old as Hillary's e-mails or the Bush recession.
No, my issue with your post wasn't about your interpretation, but rather your false accusation of dishonesty in mine. And we know it was a false accusation because my post was proven correct. In that case, what he came later to say DOES change the reasonableness of your post, when it comes to the part of your post where you insulted mine.
Which is why I said I believe you owe me an apology.
nor the shallowness of yours.
Mine wasn't shallow at all. It was accurate. And your seeming insinuation I accidentally fell into the correct response to this thread is just nonsense, for reasons I mentioned in my last post to you.
In terms of overall accuracy of his views, you are correct.
Which means you were wrong when you said, "it looks incredibly dishonest".
So will you apologize for YOUR stereotyping which caused your shallow reply?
Congratulations, your stereotyping proved to be more accurate than taking him for his word.
I didn't stereotype him, I read his post, saw the code words and made an informed post based on that. I didn't luck into it, as you are seemingly trying to suggest.
Reminds me of a South Park episode. Cartman wants to start a band. He tells Token to go get the bass out of his basement and play it. Token tells him to he doesn't own a bass and can't play. Cartman tells him he's black, yes he does and yes he can. And sure enough, Token had a bass and could play it.
Great episode. Faith + 1.
Cartman had no logic to back his argument up other than his bigoted stereotype that Token was black, therefore of course.
Cartman turned out right and Token was wrong. Didn't make Cartman any less of a stereotyping asshole, or Tokens confusion at Cartmans request any less reasonable.
While I appreciate the fact you are a fan of one of my favorite episodes of South Park, there's a key difference in this situation and South Park. In this situation, I had actual evidence of his opinion based on his words. Cartman used unrelated and arbitrary factors to come to his conclusion...I used the poster's words. It's a big difference.
So you lazily stereotyped someone in your head and pidgeon holed them
Bless your heart, you sure are trying your best to distract from how you were wrong. I guess an apology is too much to ask, eh?
It wasn't lazy, it was informed and insightful. I even told you the words which tipped me off to his intention, long before his intention was out in the open. For you to insinuate I lucked into a correct guess is...how did you put it? "Actually, it looks incredibly dishonest."
Yes, that's it.
His "progressive" comment had zero context in his OP
Exactly. That's exactly my point. There was absolutely ZERO reason for it to be included...unless he was making the argument I correctly noted he was making. There's almost no other reason for the comment, except merely to regurgitate the same nonsense which gets pushed on this forum all the time.
Rather than try to insult me for having the insight for noticing it, how about you just admit you missed the clue (or mistakenly ignored it) and apologize to me for being wrong?