Quote:
Originally Posted by mrklixx
Then I pointed out that I can agree with part of what someone says, without agreeing with everything they say.
|
And I pointed out that only disagreeing with one person for saying a particular thing, when more than one person did that particular thing makes your disagreement disingenuous.
I was the first person to mention socialism, but it was in a completely different context. I brought up socialism to mock people who bring up socialism under ridiculous pretenses, and lo and behold, timalkin obliges me by bringing up socialism under a ridiculous pretense. I responded by again mocking him for bringing up socialism under a ridiculous pretense (you apparently agree with the ridiculousness). So you were 100% factually correct that I was the first to bring up socialism. Congratulations. You were also apparently 100% factually unable to place the significance or context of my use of the word socialism.
As for "sweeping generalizations," when I see a nuanced argument in favor of keeping the costumes, one that isn't solely based on the assumptions that tradition is automatically in and of itself valid, or one that isn't based on vapid appeals to the innocence of children I'll rescind my "sweeping generalizations".
Until then, you can cry foul all you want about my "sweeping generalizations"-- it don't matter to me.