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 08:02:54 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Comcast Online
Lines: 113
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <4078FBF7.3020505@7600.net>
References: <c58g9k$nck$0@pita.alt.net> <opfg709ojtjhhg6l3ebiened499kapaibo@4ax.com> <40789B87.7020604@7600.net> <ff22d5bc.0404102158.2c573846@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1081670574 74119 128.100.83.246 (11 Apr 2004 08:02:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:02:54 +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:3208
Charles C. wrote:
> Dissident <qqqq@7600.net> wrote in message news:<40789B87.7020604@7600.net>...
>
>>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?
>
>
> If you think that I am holding my children up as a shield in a fundie
> type maneuver then you need to figure out just what is actually going
> on here and why. I am not going to type 6 pages for every person that
> sees this and feels like commenting on it. If you are that curious you
> can take the time to figure it out. If the title of this thread in
> talk.origins with Davey involved doesn't give you a clue then I am at
> a loss for words.
As I said, I am no Davey supporter, having seen his arguing
tactics in many other threads. But I ask again, are your
children likely to read talk.origins, and if they do, are
they not of an age that they are able to understand both
intellectually and emotionally the free-for-all nature of
Usenet debate, and that it can lead even so far as the name-
calling that Davey has engaged in. I firmly believe that,
if you are truly correct in your assessment that they would
be particularly devastated by Davey's claim about your wife,
then while I am in no way defending the specific merits of
him saying what he did, I think the more basic problem is
that your children are too young to be reading Usenet, since
this sort of thing, and worse, can and will continue to crop
up. It is still a matter of separate issues: if what Davey
has said is unforgivable, then confine it to that and to
*your* outrage; if your children's response is an issue
then it is a separate one and truly brings into question
whether they should be reading Usenet at all. While they
might, by some metric, be "safe" in talk.origins but not
in one of the erotic binaries groups, it is an entirely
unedited free-speech zone.
Frankly, I have been the target in other groups of the most
vitriolic ad hominem and, my favorite, armchair psychologizing -
a Usenet favorite, why even discuss a poster's points of
discussion if you can simply assert he must be "a self-
hating fill-in-the-blank" for even having that point of
view - and have learned that it is going to happen, this
is Usenet, there is nothing you can do about it, and just
as with politicians who question each other's patriotism
because that is easier than actually debating whether a
specific foreign policy will lead to the desired outcome,
it does little good to even point out it is happening.
I usually just ignore it now. It's easier that way. I'd
seriously suggest you do the same.
|
| 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 |
|