butters
High on a Hill
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 85,870
and don't forget he then tries to use byron's name (again) with the slippery 'but he was saying the same things i was in that thread!' the fact that byron suggested the states should step back and allow the uk to step up to the plate (not a position i agreed with - help is help and people should help people no matter where they're from) IS NOT the same as byron saying the devastated populace was subhuman. if he had, i would have been on his case at the time. he didn't. therefore aj attempts to slur byron's character with this deliberately open-to-inference line.I just caught this little gem. So, to recap:
- You accept the definition of subhuman provided by butters.
- So yes, by your admission, the words you used are the literal definition of subhuman. Not only that - per your post, they are the most common usage associated with the word.
- You are defending that by insisting that what you meant to say is that all residents of Haiti are less moral and below the level of "normal" humans (because their lives suck and it's their fault).
- In the context of the original thread, which you are so insistent is a key to understanding your words, you used that as an excuse not to express even a small amount of remorse over the death and destruction of the lives of thousands of people (choosing instead to accuse and ridicule those who did) while you were arguing that the US should not send aid.
- So putting this all together, you did technically call Haitians subhuman, but what you meant was that RESIDENTS of Haiti (completely different thing than "Haitians," okay???) (oh and aka "slaves") are not normal humans and do not deserve help.
Wow, you're a great guy. Please keep going. Can I fetch you a bigger shovel?