[Inlinked]

I thought both your "arguments" were petty and slightly offensive. To say basically: 'Just Google my rebuttal' is not worthy of a reply. You could have just skipped my sincere request for reasoning opposite to my own.

Without volunteering too much entropy: I myself have a high-school diploma and my sister is gay.

You are perfectly fine to read "partner" there, though that may not convey the fact that they were not married (which would arguably have made it slightly better).

[metaphorm]

you're responding to the wrong poster. but seriously, you need to learn to educate yourself when you want to engage with an issue with some depth. others have pointed out to you the various ways in which you are ignorant. it's not anyone else's job to inform you.

if you want to just admit that you're not well informed on the issue and move on, that's fine. but you're coming in here with a strongly held and deeply controversial opinion, which you have expressed with language that is filled to the brim with weasel words, assumptions, and ad hominem attacks. expect to be challenged when you express yourself like that.

[Inlinked]

I do not think my opinion on this matter is deeply controversial, it is just that opponents of a Snowden pardon wisely keep their mouths shut.

I also think that my request for views opposing my current view shows my flexibility on this matter. If someone can show convincing arguments against my view, I am perfectly willing to adapt and concede.

You did not. You told me to go research the "facts", while you took your "facts" the same as I did mine: By researching sources on the internet. It is weak to say that someone with an opposing view must have this view because he/she is ill-informed.

The so-called 'ad hominem attacks' are likely the result of my poor mastery of the english language, combined with an assumption of bad faith on your part.