"Even a cute cuddly dog can get mean and take a bite out of a person if provoked. Likewise, it’s the mitigating factors that dictate under what circumstances you might be classified as a violent person. All we can say is that under those same set of circumstances you might get violent. Under normal circumstances you could be as cute as that cuddly dog."
I see that his apology over the Turkel deception was short-lived. Now he's reverted to self-justification.
For some reason, Loftus is very fond of canine metaphors. And there’s a certain propriety in canine metaphors. For example, the Bible uses a canine metaphor to describe apostates like Loftus. Cf. 2 Pet 2:22.
“Every once-in-a-while I get drug down in the mire when I can’t tolerate what others say about me, and I respond in kind. But it takes quite a lot to push me in that direction, I think.”
Is that a fact? David Wood, for one, was pretty nice to Loftus. That didn’t inhibit Loftus from turning abusive as soon as he starting to lose the argument.
“All I’ve ever wanted was a reasonable discussion of the ideas that separate us, and that’s still what I want.”
No, all he wants is a platform from which to serve up his wormy warmed over arguments for the umpteenth time.
“Anyone who reads what I write on a daily basis can plainly see for themselves that’s what I want.”
Once again, just pay a visit to the combox over at problemofevil.org and see for yourself how he conducts himself.
"What I find interesting is the hypocrisy of this. Some Christians can taunt, demean, ridicule me, and be dishonest with me by gerrymandering what I write all of the time and plaster it all over the web. When I finally get fed up with it and respond in kind they take a snapshot of me and plaster that all over the web too, as if this is what characterizes who I am. There’s even a video on YouTube claiming I’m a lying homosexual. The only thing bad about it is that it’s a lie! But I don’t see any condemnation of that video or of it’s creator from fellow Christians. Why not? Do Christians hold other Christians to a lower standard than they hold us atheists to? That would be amusing to me, if so."
I agree that we should not engage in defamation of character.
1. He's assuming that we're all acquainted with the YouTube video. But why make that assumption?
Why presume that Christians are surfing the web to keep up to date with what someone said about Loftus? I can understand why he would care about that sort of thing, but why should anyone else spend his time that way? It's none of my business one way or the other.
2. I'm in no position to comment on Loftus' sexual orientation one way or the other. How do I know if he's heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual?
3. Why would he be offended at the insinuation that he's homosexual? As an atheist, he doesn't believe that sodomy is immoral.
Indeed, one of his politically correct objections to the Bible is that Scripture is “homophobic.”
Here's another case, of many, in which Loftus instinctively reacts in a way contrary to his stated creed.
4. Moreover, after his cover was blown in the Turkel incident, why should we not suspect that Loftus is behind the YouTube video as well? Accusing himself for propagandistic purposes so that he can then attack the Christians for allegedly resorting to character assassination.
For all I know, he used that same tactic to shut down the Discomfiter.
"I have to understand that they feel personally attacked by the simple fact that this very blog exists."
Aside from the fact that he's projecting, if you suffer from a persecution complex, then you shouldn't operate a blog devoted to attacking the Christian faith. For you thereby invite a counterattack.
Loftus whimpers a lot. Maybe he needs a tummy rub or a pat on the head. Maybe he needs to be dewormed. That’s a common affliction among puppy dogs.