" Even if I were as “keen” as you had attempted to portray me as in your last post to me (yes, your most recent post was unfortunately timed), what difference would it make?"

It makes a lot of difference because it would expose you as the fraud that you really are. You insist on everyone keeping emotion out of debates and arguing only with reason and yet here you are using words like hate and calling out hatred in those who simply disagree with your view.

You will deny all that of course because that is what you do. It is impossible to have a reasonable debate with you because your aim is to defend not your arguments but your insecurity as a person. Your whole identity is tied up with the illusion that you are a great scholar and thinker. Such is the urgency of that need to protect that illusion that you have become extremely skilled and clever at avoiding arguments put before you. You are by far the most clever person on this forum because you need to be. You desperately need to be.

You twist words and the meanings of sentences. You avoid straight forward questions by changing the subject. You try and bamboozle posters when a simple straight forward point is all that is necessary. You talk down to people and patronise them. You lecture them and belittle them for not keeping up with your great intellect. I think most people would feel like I do - extremely frustrated because they never feel like they have penetrated beyond that defensiveness and no matter how hard they try it is ultimately futile. You are not interested in the truth of anything much. The only thing that interests you is maintaining the illusion of your intellectual stature.

I would suggest to other forum members that they not waste any more time on engaging with you. That is the approach I will be taking. That wall you have around you is impenetrable.

phanto,

Well, it looks like you dipped out on that one then.

<<… it would expose you as the fraud that you really are.>>

Perhaps you can find another way to expose my alleged fraudulence?

Although, even if your suspicion (that I had singled-out that one question for no good reason) was right, that still wouldn’t suggest any fraud on my behalf. Just a lack of thought, or perhaps purpose, in my actions.

<<…yet here you are using words like hate and calling out hatred in those who simply disagree with your view.>>

Hate is a real feeling, but the use of the word can be emotive, which is why I sought to justify my use of it.

<<You will deny all that of course because that is what you do.>>

Or maybe because you’re wrong. Again, always with the most unflattering interpretation.

<<You are by far the most clever person on this forum because you need to be.>>

You mean "cleverest".

I’ll take that as a compliment, though you are yet to demonstrate that I need to be. All you have done is make assertions. Some examples demonstrating your claims wouldn’t go astray.

<<You twist words and the meanings of sentences. You avoid straight forward questions by changing the subject. You try and bamboozle posters when a simple straight forward point is all that is necessary. You talk down to people and patronise them.>>

Really? Could you provide an example of me doing any of these? I can understand why it must feel that way to you. The last one there I will admit I’ve done from time to time, but only when someone has well and truly shown themselves to be a complete fool.

<<You lecture [people] and belittle them...>>

And what do you think you’re doing right now?

<<I think most people would feel like I do - extremely frustrated because they never feel like they have penetrated beyond that defensiveness...>>

Yes, evidence and reasoned argument are invaluable tools. Did it ever occur to you that maybe you’re just wrong?

AJ,

Whatev.

But I've become a convert: I'm opposed to a Plebiscite now, until a very clear result can be predicted. Postpone it for five years, ten years, twenty years (when I'll be long gone) or longer, until Prime Minister Wyatt Roy puts it on. Or his daughter.

After all, if it was held in the next year or two but failed to produce what the homosexual lobby wanted, it would be off again for about as long. Better to wait, don't you think ? I'd give that caution my full support.

Joe

The advantage of homosexual marriage is in a divorce, which I believe they do not generally last more than 5 years, is the property settlement. Those of the hetero community that have been through divorce know how amicably they are resolved and how much the solicitors garner from the settlement.

Give them the term marriage and hetero couples the term committed family covenant.

I don't know why some posters bother arguing with AJ Philips. He is an ideologue who is never going to listen to you. He is convinced that he is right, and you are all wrong (as he thinks I am wrong). So be it, if he wants it that way. But, all you are doing is giving him more, and more, and more 'reason' to carry on with the same old same old. He needs an audience, and some of you are willing victims. I have not read any of his tedious posts since I told him that I would no longer indulge him. He is entitled to present his opinions as much as he wants; but how many times do you respond to the bloke before you realise that you are wasting your time? He wants to argue: it's his thing - you are his playthings. He doesn't care about any subject much. He just has a contrary, argumentative personality.

If I had what he apparently calls a life, I would go to bed and stay there.

Joe,

If in the unlikely event that the ’no’ vote wins, it would probably just be brought in by a future government in the next term or two anyway. I agree with mhaze that same-sex marriage is inevitable. Although, I’m not sure why you hope to be dead before it happens. I’ve heard a lot of doom and gloom predictions, but nothing of any substance.

It’s funny, though, isn’t it? On the one hand, those against same-sex marriage claim that same-sex couples already have the same rights as married couples; then, on the other hand, the sky will apparently fall in if they're allow to marry.

A part of me does want a plebiscite though, it would stick it to those who insist that the polls are all rigged and that it will fail, and it will demonstrate a spectacular level of hypocrisy on the government’s behalf when most of them vote against the majority of the country after having accused the opposition of being anti-democracy in opposing the plebiscite in the first place.

--

ttbn,

Thanks for demonstrating that ad hominem is all you guys really have, at the end of the day. Not a meaningful thing to say in response to of any my arguments. Just personal attacks.

<<He is an ideologue who is never going to listen to you.>>

I have listened plenty. I even respond to others line-by-line so as to not leave anything unaddressed and avoid misinterpreting or misrepresenting anyone, so how you could claim this is beyond belief.

As was the case with phanto, you are (unsurprisingly) unable to provide a single example for any of your accusations. Just more character assassination.

Pretty ordinary, really.