by Indy » Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:00 pm
Bauce let's lay it out here.
#1 says "You hate white people!" Certainly not an argument, but an accusation.
I say: LOL, I AM white--how do you explain that?
#2 then chimes in: it's totally possible for white people to hate white people.
Mmmmmkay.
Actually what all this is is a diversion. When #1 was called out for ceaseless bitching about colored folk with a cell phone and why are you ignoring the major-league thieves who have stolen billions/trillions from us--that was all of course totally ignored (because they have no comeback) and they cooked up the whole "you hate white people!" diversion.
The accusation was made that I hate white people. I asked for evidence of this. #2 simply said it's possible. That's not evidence. It's possible #2 is a child molester. But until I have evidence, that claim is baseless.
Pretty simple stuff, really. Unfortunately, in #1's echo chamber, they're told that simply labeling somebody is an effective counter-argument. And he clearly believes it.
It's also telling that #2 didn't go after #1 for making a baseless accusation, but rather attempted to provide him a blanket rationalization--why, this wasn't a baseless accusation because it's "possible" for a white man to hate white people. Aka he played the apologist. Aka he took sides. Aka with the guy attacking me.
Really, this ain't exactly complex. But I will say again: time to get back on-topic. Four pages of posting about me reeks of the PP days. Nobody wants it. It's not making you guys look good.