Toni Lavis, did you ingest something which induced the putrid state of mind which produced your last post?
You have a comprehension problem, which explains some of the stupidity of your posts. I introduced the parallel lines as an example of an axiom, you tried to make it an off topic point of discussion.
You must be aware of your deficiency, but you assert stupid nonsense because you are frustrated by the fact that you cannot think straight, and in standard lefty form, lash out with baseless, unjustifiable insults, as if your ridiculous assertions could have any effect. other than demonstrating how cornered and foolish you feel..

//putrid state of mind//

//the stupidity of your posts//

//You must be aware of your deficiency//

//you assert stupid nonsense//

//you cannot think straight//

Ace :)

I love it when they go all rabid and start attacking your intellect. It's fun to watch and when you can goad them into attacking your intellect rather than refuting your arguments, that's a win.

//lash out with baseless, unjustifiable insults, as if your ridiculous assertions could have any effect//

And not a trace of irony...

Life is good :)

//What I meant was that there is no way of proving whether or not what they say they feel is truly what they are feeling. So yes you can challenge but it is pointless unless you can prove it whereas the expression of an opinion is there for all to hear.//

Thankyou for the clarification.

//It does not matter either way.//

No, I suppose not.

Now, back to topic:

Leo, I notice that in the middle of your little tantrum you forgot to answer my question:

If you don't dislike them, why do you insult them by calling them perverts?

//One more time for AJ and his ilk//

Oh for heaven's sake... we're getting reruns now? Jesus, if I want reruns I'll watch Red Dwarf for the umpteenth time. At least I know they'll be quality reruns.

I'm assuming I'm one of the ilk here, given that I wasn't convinced by your prognostication the first time round. What on earth leads you to imagine it will be any more convincing the second time round?

But since it is the silly season and apparently we're doing reruns, I guess I might as well jump on the bandwagon and quote one my previous posts.

//It's a bit sad really - all the time and effort that people pour into repeating fallacies over and over again in the hope that they'll magically transmute into valid arguments if they're repeated enough could be so much better spent going back to the drawing board and formulating a new, valid argument. But they just don't want to - can't be bothered, I guess.

It's their loss. If they could be bothered to formulate a valid argument, they might find that they gain a bit more traction in the debate.//

Toni Lavis says they:” start attacking your intellect.”
I would have to find it first. It would be like treading on a cockroach..
I did not consider your question to be serious. You say:” why do you insult them by calling them perverts?
Why do you think it is an insult when they go to so much trouble to ensure that everyone knows they are perverts. Try to explain that.
I am truthfully describing them, not insulting them. Apply your tiny intellect to that.

Phanto again proves that he has no substantive basis to argue from and keeps up the distractions. This time resorting to a weak attempt to ascribe some sort of guilt to me. Really? Deplorable desperation at its worst.

Leo Lane keeps reinforcing his homophobia and inability to put forth anything but denigrating comments.

It's all getting rather tedious really as the anti same-sex marriage brigade clearly demonstrate they have no arguments and in denial of reality.

o sung wu,

Of course no one seriously thinks they’re always right all of the time. Well, most anyway. I’m not so sure about Leo.

<<No, most ordinary folk don't think they're always correct, 'all' the time.>>

But people do tend to think they're right when they express a belief. That's why they believe it. If you think that I speak as though I think I'm always right all of the time, then that is your own subjective interpretation. I don’t think I’ve said anything to suggest that. I’ll admit I’m very confident on certain topics, but that’s only because I’ve tested and refined my opinions on them over and over again.

<<It's abundantly clear, you know very little about policing or the operational functions of detectives per se. Probably because this strata of law-enforcement is yet to realistically appear on the radar, of the science of criminology?>>

I think I have demonstrated otherwise. Modern policing methods and approaches are based heavily on criminological theory. We’ve even discussed some aspects of it. And like I've said several times before, there are quite a few criminologists who are former/retired police. So if what you said were correct, then that would be fixed real quick. On the contrary, however, they never seem to have any complaints.

<<Would you be better suited somewhere else ...>>

Maybe, but I still enjoy OLO and learn from others here.

--

Leo Lane,

Every time you’re cornered, you resort to abuse. “Village idiot” and “idiot boy”. They could at least be witty.

<<If they are homosexuals they are perverts.>>

Wow. So that’s all you’ve got: they are because they just are.

<<What evidence is required?>>

Gee, I dunno. How about we start with evidence that they’re perverts?

<<Do you think you have asked a trick question?>>

No, but it is a question that I knew you wouldn’t be able to answer if I pre-empted the fallacious Appeal to Nature.

<<It is just a stupid, pointless question, idiot boy.>>

Asking someone to justify a claim is never stupid or pointless, and you’ve just helped me to demonstrate why.