Come on, phanto....

I'll rephrase the question, shall I?

Are you intending to demonise these people for "going to the media" as you have the young person bullied at school whom you've been critiquing these last few days?

Some evidence of bullying happens on every sporting field as a form of intimidation of the opponent. It is a part of realizing the World is a place of conflict. Just enter a workplace under pressure to perform deadlines, the scenes are not all love and roses. It helps to identify ones values and friends. Otherwise we are forced to think the same as the least assertive person.

Poirot:

“Are you intending to demonise these people for "going to the media" as you have the young person bullied at school whom you've been critiquing these last few days?”

But you have already established that I demonised him for no other reason than that he was homosexual. I said he had no need to go to the media (which is hardly ‘demonising’) and that was one of my reasons for criticising him. The other reason was his manipulation. So why would I be interested in this other case?

If you say I was only motivated by homophobia then why would I be interested in a case where there was no homophobia to be had?

Either my motivation was homophobia or it was to point out the unnecessary course of action of going to the media. You cannot have it both ways.

phanto,

"If you say I was only motivated by homophobia then why would I be interested in a case where there was no homophobia to be had?"

Precisely!

Which would explain why your zig-zagging all over the place at to avoid the crux of my point at present.

"Either my motivation was homophobia or it was to point out the unnecessary course of action of going to the media. You cannot have it both ways."

My contention is that your motivation was homophobia.

You have strenuously denied that.

If that's the case, why aren't you criticising the parents in my posted article for "going to the media"?

Poirot:

“My contention is that your motivation was homophobia”

Well why would I be interested in this other case?

It is not about what I say but about what you believe to be true. If you believe it to be true that my motivation was homophobia then what does it matter what I say it is because if I say my motivation is something other than homophobia you do not accept it – as far as you are concerned I am lying.

So if I am lying about my motivation why would you want to know the answer to a hypothetical question? You are saying “given that your motivation in the first case was to point out the wrong of going to the media will you also act according to the same motivation in the second case” Your question is based on the premise that my true motivation was to point out the wrong of going to the media and yet you truly believe that my motivation was homophobia. So which of the truths are you adhering to?

I don’t see the point in contriving a hypothetical question. I cannot have two opposing motivations at the same time so one of them must be true and the other false.

Imagine a male stripping naked, claiming to be female walks into the same toilet where Penny Wong goes. I am sure she is going say hello steve, I mean Eve. Yep young girls will be raped all so about 0.0001 per cent will feel comfortable. Obviously like homosexuality that number will increase as public money to brainwash and promote increases.