| > > > |
> > > > It goes both ways : You see nothing wrong with Guggenheim's words just maybe because you are a BND supporter and you like the current direction ...
> > >
> > > Oh, give me a break...you can't put all the eggs in the same basket HB...I see nothing wrong with the statement myself and the fact that I like the current direction has absolutely no effect on my position in regard to that statement...the whole darn thing has been blown out of proportion once again...and I think Ned Leeds Jr's will tell you the same thing...
> > Perhaps you could put into words how you interpret this statement so that there is nothing wrong with it. All I am seeing from Guggenheim's apologists here is lots of accusations against those who disagree with OMD being a good idea (they're "haters", they're "confused", they "make false assumptions" etc.) with nothing to back these accusations up.
> The difference between myself and other posters on this board - and I'm not saying it includes you - is that I don't personally get offended by what these guys say in interviews, even if it's making weird statements about sexual orientation. Perhaps that's why I fail to see the wrongness of his statement. Also, the fact that his statement just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me obviously affects my interpretation of said statement, and makes me conclude that there is nothing wrong with it. Notwithstanding which side of the BND fence fellow posters are, I have made no comments - as far as I know, feel free to correct me - that dub the BND haters as confused, or as making false assumption. As I said in other posts, none of us really know what the heck Guggenheim's statement was all about, because it just seems to make very little sense. In reality, IMO, we are all confused or making false assumptions.
Well, I'd say you're making a huge assumption about a lot of people when you say it sets you apart that you don't get personally offended. Just because you don't name those who you think feel personally offended...
To say that because the statement does not make sense, therefore there is nothing wrong with it - simply makes no sense. Since when do irrational hatreds and prejudices have to make sense to be considered wrong.
Well, you certainly accused people just now and in the post before that of making false assumptions (in the previous one you mostly phrased it in your disapproval of people's reactions to Guggenheim's statement and exhorting them not to make assumptions)...
| > |
> > > Guggenheim said a comment that offended people and he probably shouldn't have said it. End of story. You can twist it in any way you want but until he defends himself, if he feels the need to do so, I think none of us should be making assumptions about him, or accused him of being homophobic. Nor should any of us assume that because we don't see anything wrong with his statement that we too are homophobic. Just saying anyways.
> > Well, what reason could Guggenheim have had to make the statement he did? I really only see two possibilities, either he is a homophobe himself or he is trying to exploit the homophobia of which he suspects a lot of Spider-Man fans by associating support of Spider-Man's marriage and dislike of the new direction with this controversial but unrelated issue. Neither scenario would be flattering. (I don't think that he is accusing them of being hypocrites for not supporting gay marriage, a third, but distant option).
> Granted, it was a stupid statement to make. Even more so, the purpose of it is rather muddy. Nobody really knows what the hell he's talking about. If he can offer an explanation and come out of it unscathed by offended fans then more power to him, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
This really just goes to show what I said. The argument is that because he made made a bad statement (introducing irrelevant topics, non-sequitur, falsely equating living together with civil unions etc.) he sould be given a free pass.
| > |
> > The defense of Mr. Guggenheim's gaffe seems to depend on the assumption that he, a professional writer and, I gather, a former lawyer, talks without thinking. Do his defenders want people to think that poor widdle Mr. G. was driven to incoherence and illogic by the statements of those nasty nay-sayers?