The Twitter faggot's argument is totally devoid of merit. He is making an argument by analogy. Analogies should only be used to support an argument, not be the argument. He is also using conflation to confuse the reader as explained in the following: When someone says, "I do not like broccoli," he is not stating he does not like the way broccoli looks, smells, or feels. The obvious inference to any listener is that the person ate broccoli at least once. The twitter faggot is using this to make his premise seem reasonable (about someone that never ate broccoli having an opinion on its flavor essentially). Acts of faggotry visually induce revulsion in most straight men. Thus, it is completely reasonable to not like faggot acts, faggot behavior, or faggots in general based merely on visuals or imagination. Thus, persons can form completely logical opinions about faggotry without ever engaging in faggotry. His argument is totally devoid of merit.