Did Kevin Really Make his position "Crystal Clear"?

[Dionysus]

Please vote above

Consider the following exchange between Kevin and I in this thread:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In it, I addressed what I read to be a very sweeping statement and asked for some level of clarity. Ultimately, I found the answers to be unsatisfying and felt they avoided the issue, to the extent that I felt compelled to give Kevin a neg rep (something I very rarely do). He countered with what I felt was nothing more than a revenge rep. But I bring in here nonetheless becauseI'm bored The spotty thread drama has run its course I want to be sure I was OK with the neg rep I gaveIf the results of this thread are compelling against my position, then I will pos-rep Kevin at my first opportunity. I'm not too big to be wrong.

[TheSparrow]

Actually that's a tough one.
I understand you being upset about Kevin's original post as its pretty ignorant and inflammatory in terms of its language and terminology-ie Gay cancer and such, and kinda cheap in trying to appeal to emotional yuck factor in making a point. Don't know if a neg rep is appropriate or not, but probably. However his neg about not saying 'in america' is kinda silly in my view. I read all his posts and yours, and 'in america' is not necessarily implied. A simple "I meant America" post would have been better.

[Dionysus]

Actually, I wasn’t upset at all about the language in the post in question. My point of contention is that the post did not imply at all that he was referring to "America", but he claims that this implication was "crystal clear". We have diametrically opposing views of the statement, and this is what I've submitted for everyone's consideration.

[TheSparrow]

In my opinion, its possible to infer, in hindsight, that he implied America, but it was most certainly NOT crystal clear, especially since he only mentioned America in a later paragraph, and on a different sub-topic.

IF you took the phrase " It was called gay cancer, by doctors who dealt with the early cases, for a reason" and then researched that the term 'gay cancer' was strictly an American term, then you could reason that the statement meant 'In America'. That hardly makes it "Crystal Clear".

[GoldPhoenix]

Absolutely not.


He's being completely disingenuous with that argument (as I pointed out in my neg rep to him, he's not running around calling AIDS by a simultaneously valid title, "Black Cancer" because it started in Africa and it would be just as valid). What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's not good for the goose, you don't dare try to apply it to the gander, or you're violating the Laws of Thought.

And no where did he attempt to state only in America, unless his sole reason for us to think that he was only talking about America was because he said "gay cancer" and not "gay/black cancer".

[Dionysus]

Please note that I've edited out my own vote (although my name still appears). It's unfair to include my own since my position is obvious.

[Aspoestertjie]

Sigh... men and their testosterone....

Lets look at this for a second.

In Kevin's first, second and third post (post#26) he debated about homosexuality that caused the HIV virus to spread and made no mention of "in America".

In post #26 Kevin for the first time mention in a reply to AJFXW "in America".

In post #27 Dio for the first time replied with a post of "Africa" and Kevin neg repped him for ignoring his "crystal clear" indication of "in America".

I don't think Kevin was "crystal clear" about "in America". However from his post reply to AJFXW I got the impression he was referring to America.

I will say that the whole thing is a misunderstanding and is caused by the inability to proper communicate or express thoughts in writing. ;)

[CC]

It appears that he was over-reaching a bit. Had he included the words "in America" then he would have made a clearer statement. I went away with the feeling that he probably meant "in America", only he never clearly stated such.