‘Anti-theist Propaganda Oh, yeah, we’re “famous” because you posted about our page on your blog that maybe 5 people read. You’ve really made us look bad.’
First, that’s a false statement. Second, you’re admitting that you don’t believe I caused you any harm. Third, you did no research to substantiate that claim. As for causing “damage” to the reputation of my website…well, that remains to be seen. (See ‘Libel’)
‘See, what you don’t understand is there’s a f#cking huge difference between “ridicule or criticism”, and accusing people who don’t support mass murder and genocide of supporting mass murder and genocide.’
I didn’t accuse you of supporting mass murder and genocide. Show me, where exactly I accused you of supporting mass murder and genocide. The point that I was/am LABORING to make is that there is no “magic cure” for all the world’s problems. I was using satire to poke fun at the claim that, and I quote, “religion sucks” and that, and I’m paraphrasing here…”the next step in human evolution will occur when religion is done away with”. The extreme example I used, Pol Pot, was intended as exactly that: an extreme example to show that your “theory” is absurd. Now, if YOU take that in a radically different way than what I intended, that’s not MY problem…that’s YOUR misinterpretation.
‘If I went onto your blog and started accusing you of being a Nazi or a kiddy fiddler, that wouldn’t be ridicule or criticism, it would be stupidity and slander. Same goes for the bullsh1t you’ve been posting here.’
You’re implying, again, that I accused you of what you said I accused you of as quoted above. And I believe I have already answered that incorrect suggestion. Also, slander is spoken…the correct term for what you’re accusing me of is “libel”…which I explain above, regarding your comments directed at my website.
‘So you’ve gone from claiming you were trying to “educate people about Pol Pot” to claiming that your posts were “a joke”.
Get your story straight.’
I was trying to do both, as described above. It’s called “satire”.
‘I’m just saying for someone who wants people to think they were just kidding all along, you sure did come on pretty strong about Pol Pot being an example of antitheism being taken to its logical extreme and all of us being guilty by association.’
“Wants people to think?” No, you see that implies that I WASN’T being satirical IN ANY WAY, in your opinion, and that I believe the logical conclusion to antitheism is mass murder and genocide. Which I do not. Therefore, your statement is false. If you BELIEVE that the logical extreme of antitheism is mass murder and genocide, then that’s not MY problem…and it’s not MY fault if my satire makes you feel “guilty”, if it does…I mean, what you’re saying here is that you believe I think all antitheists are supporters of genocide and mass murder…at least, that’s the impression that I get. And my response to that, quite frankly, is go FCK yourself.
‘You’re playing with semantics, and I’m not biting.’
Semantics (n): The study of the relationship between words and their meanings.
Are you saying I should use words without regard to their meanings? Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of using words?
‘As for how many readers you had, I simply made
a subjective evaluation of your site design and content, and thought “surely there couldn’t be more than five people who would put up with this on a regular basis”. wink’
Do you know the only difference between this “joking” comment and my supposedly “libelous” ones? There’s a wink-smilie at the end of it.
So, if I had put a wink-smilie on my first post, everything would be hunky-dory?
And a “subjective evaluation” is NOT “adequate research”.
-Puppy >.< Yip!