(September 14, 2012 at 9:52 pm)A Theist Wrote: You're wrong and you're in denial. Schultz is just as guilty. The term has a particular social stigma attached to it. Schultz is just as guilty as Limbaugh when he used the term 'slut' to defame and disgrace Laura Ingrham on air.
I think we've long past the point where we should agree to disagree here because I can't seem to pound it through your thick skull that defamation of character is worse than having a potty mouth (and the context is clear that Schultz was describing Ingram's political activity, not her personal sexual activity). Fortunately, I believe that I've made my point clearly to any who choose to observe our exchange. I trust it will be as clear to them as it is to me that you're desperate to absolve Rush Limbaugh by trying to paint him as a victim of a double-standard. I've patiently tried to explain why it's not so but you are brain-washed and unable to have a rational conversation.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
