Wow, your response has nothign to do with the thread and then again you ask me to explain what I ALREADY EXPLAINED IN MY LAST POST... You are hopeless.

Ummmm...

Actualy, I want you to explain it for the first time. You said "he was wrong." You didn't offer any sort of evidence of this. Hell, you didn't even offer any sort of basis for your opinion that he was wrong. My response had everything to do with the post I quoted, it was an attempt to show you that saying "he wasn't looked down on" without offering any support for it is completely worthless as an argument. Clearly I have to dumb it down a bit so I'll try this:

If you say he was wrong, then you need to give us some proof, or at least a reason why you would know better than him when it happened to him. If you dont do this, then your statement is 100% worthless, just like the one I made above about your beliefs.

Your best bet, assuming your goal is to further the Christian arguments in the threads you have posted in, is to leave the posting to those who can debate on a post middle-school level.

Nothing about this thread has anything to do with christain arguements.

Nothing you have posted has anything to do with previous post.

Nothing in this thread has anything do with christainity.

Everything you need to know is already posted. If you can't understand try reading them again or asking your nearest junior higher to explain the post to you.

correct,

incorrect, as it says in the post you quoted "If you say he was wrong, then you need to give us some proof, or at least a reason why you would know better than him when it happened to him. If you dont do this, then your statement is 100% worthless, just like the one I made above about your beliefs." As in, I only made the statement to try and illustrate to you why it is worthless.

Every post you have responded to in this thread relates to Christians discriminating against the poster in question. Christians have something to do with Christianity.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to show me where you posted anything that resembles a basis for you to say What i "need to know" is a) why you think that and b) why what you think has any weight whatsoever since you have no first-hand knowledge of the situation, and 100% of your 2nd-hand knowledge is in direct contradiction to your statement.

In the simplest terms I can think of: Why was he wrong and how do you know?

edit: referring back to your terrible gay pride analogy is insufficient (that means not enough) because in addition to being a bad analogy, it is an analogy in which you feebly try to explain why he may have gotten looked at, which is not the same as being looked down on

you werent there

he was....

why do you feel better qualified to talk about the situation than him?

good luck