Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Dissident <qqqq@7600.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Position statement - Charles Casey's wife was no better thanaprostitute.
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:11:17 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Comcast Online
Lines: 63
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <40789B87.7020604@7600.net>
References: <c58g9k$nck$0@pita.alt.net> <opfg709ojtjhhg6l3ebiened499kapaibo@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1081645877 65461 128.100.83.246 (11 Apr 2004 01:11:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 01:11:17 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.169.240
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:3191
Charles C. wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 09:54:01 +0000 (UTC), "Uncle Davey"
> <noway@jose.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If Charles Casey's wife was only good to him and a wife to him when he was
>>well and able to provide, and then divorced him and had him put out on the
>>street when he was unwell, then she was no better than a hooker, and the
>>elders who enabled her to do it, they were like her pimps.
>>
>>And you can quote me on that.
>>
>>Uncle Davey
>>
>
>
> If my children read this post just how the hell do you think that they
> will feel? This is the most thoughtless action you have ever taken. No
> matter what she has done _*OUR*_ children do not deserve to read
> statements like this one. I don't give a flying fuck how you attempt
> to justify this you are one sick fucking troll with the brain capacity
> equal to a pile of dog shit.
>
> You need help. There isn't a moral bone in your body. God damn I can't
> believe how fucking low you can go. How the hell do you look at
> yourself in the mirror? Get help you sick fuck.
This is typical behavior for religious people. Rather than
argue an issue on the merits, they hold up their children
as a shield, make a special pleading based on that, and demand
special rights. I've seen it a thousand times as a gay man.
"We can't allow homosexuals to have legal relationships,
because *children* might hear of their existence and then
instantly convert to godless faggotry". I for one will continue
to publicly air the merits of issues based on *all* claims,
factual and otherwise, and let the chips fall where they
may, and will not suppress, silence, or censor points of
view because of what anyone's *children* may happen to hear.
You are well within your rights to argue back against Davey
on the basis that his accusations against you or your wife
are unsupported by the facts, or that they are not factual
at all, being rather ad hominem in nature. But to attempt to
curtail discussion based on the likelihood that continuing
it will embarass you in front of your children - well, that
one could be used to good effect by all the religious creationists
who have confidently taught their children the myth of Biblical
inerrancy, and wish to suppress any public discussion to the
contrary lest it lead to embarassment for them in front of
their children.
I am no Davey supporter, having seen him far too often
on the other side of issues from myself, but I have a
particular hot button when children are inserted into
a discussion to curtail it, having seen this tactic
used repeatedly by conservatives as a way of not having
to make a substantive defense of issues where they have
an unswayable emotional attachment to one way of thinking.
That is why I react here.
Saying that, I have to ask a practical question: do your
children actually read talk.origins?
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 |
|