I'll bite the bait this time.
Maybe I like to give people a chance to explain themselves? XD Also, how many times have I pointed you to that very line of that very post? Many, many times, lol.
And believe me, I wasn't needed at all to make you seem incoherent. You do that well enough on your own.
The problem you have in reading is that you see words and maybe concepts together but you can't put them together. You inferred "double standard" from my post, you wrote it, and attributed my pointing it (how many times I used that concept) to my adhering to it. And when I simply wrote "indeed" I sensed someone might misunderstand it but I made the assumption
that it was pretty evident (so I thought
) that I was merely pointing at the putting together of those two originally independent realities ("standards", since that's how people less intelligent than what I assumed you were conceive it) as something "double", and not saying that it must be and remain so.
Things are different in America in Nigeria: anything is possible in Nigeria, or at least to a lesser degree than they are said to be in the USA. Just like you are not supposed to torture people you are not supposed to arrest goats. It's not that it's ok to do it anywhere else, Nigeria or Spain, but that things are different and in America they pride themselves in being more reasonable: that's what I pointed. Are you telling me it is not so? Am I saying by that that people could or should never see things according to the same American standards, or that there are not American people who are as stupid like the Nigerian cops (that's precisely what I posted in this thread in response to another JUBber).How is it so hard to understand that?
Is it so difficult to understand the difference between "that's how things are" and "that's how things are because they should be and remain so"?
Policemen in America are supposed to act differently, if not, what difference would it make living in America or under the arbitrary rule of any other regime? When everywhere people followed the same standards everywhere would be America, or China, or the Islam or whatever. And pointing that is totally different from making the wild assumption you made that it means stating that there is a sort of double standard to be preserved.
This may be a digression but I consider worthwhile consider here the implications of the development above. In fact, if some standard had to be preserved, it would mean things could be otherwise, and that would be the best argument against trying to perpetuate a supposed natural state of things. But for that same reason, you can't count on some natural truth and justice to impose itself because that "itself" is impossible, it makes no sense without men, and you can choose adhering eternally to a rule without trying to make any sense of it as trying to keep thinking FROM the rule towards something not state by that rule.
If you understand that you don't need to suppose that I've been writing all this because I have a problem in declaring myself a racist, misogyne, self-hating fag or whatever or an advocate of double standards or whatever because I don't: I don't advocate any of that not because it's supposed to be wrong, but simply because I see no sense in it.
We can keep posting if you want, but it's enough that my case remains there to be read and understood by real thinking people
Well, maybe you can come back in a few years and try again.
It's okay though, there was literally nothing you could have said in your position, you had backed yourself into a corner in that one. 
Especially since you were the one who had made the assumption. The irony there is undeniably hilarious.
