I agree, but the fact remains that some are incapable of debating and grasping analogies, comparisons etc. which are often a staple of any debate. You see how I mentioned Tim Tebow and the religi-lous jumped all over me without even talking the time to consider the point I was making. The bikini thing is laughable as well. Paula Deen is a schill anyway. Look at the whole diabetes thing: She promotes unhealthy southern food all her life, gets diagnosed with diabetes, goes on a diet, offers a half-hearted 'only in moderation' mea culpa, and then signs a lucrative deal with a pharmaceutical company. Her food makes people fat and she makes money off the treatment of diabetes. What a scam. You folks can have her.
Offense, even if intended, can only be taken and never given. A ethical person is still guilty of a violation of another if the offense is expected but not taken. Thus, the expectation of offense is all that should truly matter to an ethical person.
When one uses the word "and" between two groups, they are verbally separating those groups. So, only you inferred that polentardmafia1 was suggesting the two were one in the same. It would be that same as making a comment something like, "The men and women are going out tonight," and you believing that the speaker was implying that the men *are* the women.
Except for the "and" connected "heathens way of life" which is not a similar and/or excluded group. How about something like this discussion is about men and the concervative view? That uses "and" while leaving the connection between the two very probable, which would be the reason for someone to ask for clarification. Now to return you to your previously scheduled discussion already in progress. I believe the business conservatives were just going to mention the right of the sponsors to do what ever they felt placed them and their product in the best light with consumers, unless they were willing to impact their stockholders for support of Ms. Paula.
