he said that the taint is equal which implies that the cause of the taint is morally equal
No i said it was as tainted i made no mention of the reason and the statement did not allude to moral equivalence merely the fact both symbols no longer represent what they once are are equally tainted in that respect
He directly equated the level of moral taint on a Livestrong band with that of Nazi use of the swastika.
Had i said they were equally morally tainted you would have a point but i did not say that.
Have you considered the possibility that statements can have interpretations and ramficaions other than those intended by the writer?
yes yu can indeed misinterpret what I mean or argue i expressed what i meant poorly you however want to argue i said something i did not
It is in fact closer to the literal meaning than what JY intended it to mean.
I am perfectly capable of saying what i meant as i have had to do many times on this thread to those who
Whatever the interntion, he told a Jewish person that they're being "over sensitive" by reacting to mentions of the swastika
Firstly I did not say anything to them after they said they were Jewish so nothing i typed was to a Jewish person simply a poster. I never said anything about their sensitivity one way or the other- that is just utterly false
there you go it was londonerinoz and I am am offended by your slur.
if I inadvertently offended someone with a throwaway remark, I'd quietly apologise, instead of steaming in and accusing them of over-sensitivity. But I'm reasonable that way.
I explained that i had not said what they thought so I cannot apologise for saying something they think i said when I did not say it. I clarified what I meant [ a not unreasonable position supported by most posters on this thread]
FWIW my first reply included this
Sorry if that was unclear.
Thanks for the flaming, the false claims- indeed you are
reasonable that way
Awaits apology !