Well said!<quoted text>
It's the dishonesty. Adam is honest about his bigotry and hatred. He's human scum, but he tells us all that.
Dr. Shrink clearly has a mental disorder. He is barely passable in English and he hates atheists, so he comes here to vent in the best way he can. I guess that's better than my Korean, and my French, but I don't rant and rave at people in those languages, either.
You engage the discussion, but not with honest debate. If I were to interpret your actions as honest, and I cannot see that now, then you merely pour out your beliefs and don't focus on your discussor's points. What the other person has to say is irrelevant to you, as long as you can "prove" that you're "right." And that includes altering what you said, using distractions such as red herrings and straw man positions (though you've largely ceased the latter), and used to include quote mining - but you changed, since that's pretty obvious here.
The thing is, your quote mining is revealing about how and what you focus on in discussion. You read posts searching for something to grab onto, not for the argument that is presented. Once you get anything, you pump it up and use it as your centerpiece - the very essence of your red herrings. You additionally don't back up your assertions (never provide evidence) and selectively refuse to accept other's evidence.
Just now you plagiarized in an attempt to demonstrate that you know what the technical terms I'm using mean. Given your argument "same sex sexual behavior is not a human universal" followed by the posting of a Sociobiologist's list of human universals, concretely demonstrates that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Sociobiologists, as you demonstrably fail to understand, are deeply concerned with the evolution of homosexuality (and not SSSB, b/c their theoretical framework is poor) as they see that as a human universal - it's hidden in their "67 human universals" but they don't go out and say it.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter why you're engaging the way you engage. It's fruitless, intellectually lazy and dishonest.
What is the point in someone like myself engaging with someone like you? I seek to combat ignorance. You seek to uphold ignorance at all costs through the intellectually indiscriminate re-presentation of your original positions. You don't back them up, you don't support them, you just find new ways - any way you can - to state them.
It's like arguing with insecure dogma.
I will continue to respond though, for sometimes it's needed to show others how approving of ignorance he is.