> 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.
>
That guy's no supporter of mine, he just gave you a reality check.
Uncle Davey
|
|