Kamala blasts Pence for refusing to meet women alone

[_Ceeboo]

Ceeboo,

It sounds to me that you think there is something intrinsically wrong with talking about groups.

No. Talking about groups is quite normal and in some cases can provide very valuable information that can bring perspective and balance to any number of situations/discussions.

Not seeing individuals as individuals and only seeing them as nothing but a member of a group (like you do) is extremely wrong, dangerous and destructive. for what it's worth, it's also an example of clear intolerance and bigotry.

Like your below post:

And there you have it. There is only one relevant question that can be raised or discussed: whether this white, male, evangelical Christian, who is second in line to head the executive branch in our government “of the people, by the people, and for the people, is “Can he do what he wants?”

So saith a fellow white, male, evangelical Christian.

And you have no right to criticize him on a message board.

So saith Ceeboo.

[_Ceeboo]

Sorry,

I don't have the time to answer all of the posts directed at me. I'll simply have to pick and choose.

[_canpakes]

Sorry,

I don't have the time to answer all of the posts directed at me. I'll simply have to pick and choose.

Well, hire some staff. Geez.

[_Ceeboo]

Sorry,

I don't have the time to answer all of the posts directed at me. I'll simply have to pick and choose.

Well, hire some staff. Geez.

I'm trying but it's proving to be rather difficult to find other white, male, evangelical Christians to bring on board. :)

[_Res Ipsa]

Ceeboo,

It sounds to me that you think there is something intrinsically wrong with talking about groups.

No. Talking about groups is quite normal and in some cases can provide very valuable information that can bring perspective and balance to any number of situations/discussions.

Not seeing individuals as individuals and only seeing them as nothing but a member of a group (like you do) is extremely wrong, dangerous and destructive. for what it's worth, it's also an example of clear intolerance and bigotry.

Like your below post:

And there you have it. There is only one relevant question that can be raised or discussed: whether this white, male, evangelical Christian, who is second in line to head the executive branch in our government “of the people, by the people, and for the people, is “Can he do what he wants?”

So saith a fellow white, male, evangelical Christian.

And you have no right to criticize him on a message board.

So saith Ceeboo.

So, pointing out that you will only look at the interest of the person who looks like and believes like you, and then tell the rest of us that we can only consider the interests of the guy who looks and believes like you is bigotry? Ceeboo, you are a living case of the mote and the beam. One of us here is considering only the interests of one person -- and that's you. In fact, I've take the same position that you have with respect to Pence's right to adopt whatever practice he has about eating meals. That's 100% looking at him as a person and considering what he should have the right to do. So when you accuse me of only looking at groups, you are flat out misrepresenting what I am doing. You're reacting to your invented group of "left wing radicals" and not to what I'm typing.

And your accusation of bigotry is shrill and bizarre. Have I suggested that either you or Mike Pence should be treated differently based on your race? No. Have I suggested that you should be treated differently based on your sex? No. Have I suggested that you be treated differently based on religion? No. Pointing out that there are more interests involved that those of the guy who looks and believes like Ceeboo isn't bigotry or intolerance. It's pointing out to Ceeboo that he's being willfully blind to harm that could be done to people who don't necessarily look and believe like Ceeboo. It's as if, after we read the story of the Good Samaritan, you stated that the only issue that could possibly be discussed is whether the first two men had a right to avoid the Samaritan. And then accused anyone who disagreed as being a threat to Israel. Or to put it another way, using the old saying that I have the personal right to swing my fist ends at the point that my fist hits your face, you are claiming that the only issue that can be discussed is the personal right to swing a fist, and that even discussing whether swinging the fist will hit my face is bigoted, intolerant, and will destroy America.

[_Ceeboo]

RI

We need not agree - we have made our positions clear. For me, that's good enough.

in my opinion, your injection of the race, gender and religious beliefs of Pence (and me for that matter) to the discussion says it all. From my view, it's completely irrelevant.

[_canpakes]

In fact, I've take the same position that you have with respect to Pence's right to adopt whatever practice he has about eating meals. That's 100% looking at him as a person and considering what he should have the right to do. So when you accuse me of only looking at groups, you are flat out misrepresenting what I am doing. You're reacting to your invented group of "left wing radicals" and not to what I'm typing.

Strangely, Ceebs missed the same thing in my own opening response to him.

[_Res Ipsa]

RI

We need not agree - we have made our positions clear. For me, that's good enough.

in my opinion, your injection of the race, gender and religious beliefs of Pence (and me for that matter) to the discussion says it all. It should be completely irrelevant.

Of course it's good enough for you launch a barrage of insults and personal attacks and then run away. That's been your MO. You can't defend your insults and accusations. You refuse to listen. You just lob a bunch of grenades and then run away.

No, it's not "good enough" to accuse me of being a bigot and then refuse to back it up. It's not "good enough" for you to accuse me of being complicit in destroying America without backing it up. I mean, Mike Pence is the guy who "injected" gender into the issue, but I'm a threat to America because I talked about gender. How about taking a position and actually sticking with it?

The fact that in the context of this issue, you are willfully shutting your eyes to everyone except the guy who looks and believes as you is completely relevant. You are considering the interests of the guy who happens to be in your tribe and not those who are not. I haven't attacked whites, I haven't attacked me, I haven't attacked religion. Had I done those things, you would have a point. I will fess up to attacking your willful blindness and illustrating it to you in the starkest terms I could think of. That you keep trying to twist that into an attack on your religion is disgusting.

You certainly can make the "private choice" to lob grenades and run. You have that right. But I have every right to criticize your actions as cowardly.

[_canpakes]

I mean, Mike Pence is the guy who "injected" gender into the issue, but I'm a threat to America because I talked about gender.

I was wondering who was going to pick up on that. : )

Thank you.

[_Res Ipsa]

In fact, I've take the same position that you have with respect to Pence's right to adopt whatever practice he has about eating meals. That's 100% looking at him as a person and considering what he should have the right to do. So when you accuse me of only looking at groups, you are flat out misrepresenting what I am doing. You're reacting to your invented group of "left wing radicals" and not to what I'm typing.

Strangely, Ceebs missed the same thing in my own opening response to him.

He's so eager to bash people he disagrees with as "radical leftists" that he doesn't actually read or think about what they actually say. Which, considering his big bugaboo is not considering people as individuals, is bizarre.