[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: God gets turned on by the foreskin!?!

Written by Gar at 28 Feb 2003 15:30:27:

As an answer to: Re: God gets turned on by the foreskin!?! written by Leo at 28 Feb 2003 01:13:35:

>>First I read your bizarre response to Paul B, and I thought you couldn't possibly say anything stupider, and here you prove me wrong. "Eroticize" means "to make erotic" and "erotic" is dealing with sexual desire. The foreskin is inherently erotic because it is where the majority of the sexually oriented nerves are located in the male body. By whatever process or being the foreskin was made, it was made erotic.
>Are you angry at aj because he made you look stupid because of your comments?
Your premise is entirely wrong - he did not make me look stuoid, only himself. I am annoyed with AJ in that he insists on posting so persistently to pester people with vacant and utterly irrational accusations and interpretations which are so far from what was posted as to be totally unhinged. On occasion someone's comment needs clarification, but this was certainly not one of them. he just made up a bizarre and offensive meaning really quite unrelated to my post except in the vaguest of ways because he has completely ceased to have any interest in holding intelligent discussion. The warnings to go see doctors (although I think they are overdone, as they are often given for people with non-medical problems) and the warnings to be cautious about what you read on the internet (again overdone, because they are made so pointedly about certain people) are fine. But when he starts trying to interact with any of the other regulars here, he simply refuses to hold an honest discussion. An honest discussion involves making a fair effort to understand what another has said, and then responding to it. It may require clarifications of meaning at times, and one is certainly free to disagree. But AJ has ceased any pretense of doing so and simply makes up meanings unrelated to the words used, then declares himself a victor because he has splattered them with mud. A good example is the exchange above between Paul and AJ about Paul's use of the term "sexual mutilation": everyone, including AJ, knew Paul meant mutilation of the sexual organs, but AJ accused Paul of saying circ was a mutilation peformed for sexual gratification; then when Paul extremely patiently specified the meaning as "mutilation of sexual organs," AJ declared tht Paul had just been wrong about his use of the term "sexual mutilation". In fact nthe natural undestanding of the phrase is mutilation of the sexual organs: AJ's 'interpretation' was a dishonest and stilted approach to try to smear Paul.

Frankly, I was going to compare AJ to a swarm of biting flies, but I decided that was unfair to the biting flies: they have a purpose and are more rational in what they are doing.


Answers: