"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Susan Kennedy wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> >
> >>Susan Kennedy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"rick etter" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>=======================
> >>>>Yes, do check it out. You'll find that rattie does indeed fully
support
> >>>
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>pervs of nambla.
> >>>>Nothing invented about that, it's what you say.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Offer proof.
> >>
> >> "I support NAMBLA because it is an
> >> advocacy organization and has a
> >> right to free speech. And I agree
> >> with NAMBLA that age of consent laws
> >> should be abolished, because I am an
> >> anarchist."
> >>
> >> Karen Winter
> >> http://tinyurl.com/33cak
> >>
> >
> > How did you get that to call up a google search?
>
> Basic computer competence. Do you need help?

No, I'm just curious, because the actual url was much longer than that. I
don't think it's as basic as you apparently do. :P

> > There's just one problem. NAMBLA is an advocacy organization, and it
does
> > have the right to free speech, just as much as you or I do.
>
> Not at issue. No one in these groups who has argued
> with Karen has suggested that the group should be
> denied its free speech rights. Karen, being the sleazy
> dishonest sophist she is, has created a sloppy strawman
> argument about it.

So? Anyone with half a brain will then be able to see through it.

> > No, I don't
> > agree with it's aims, but I have ancestors who fought and died for their
> > right to express it..
>
> You sound SO noble, Missus Voltaire.

*chuckle*

> >>She is not an anarchist. That's what she likes to say,
> >>because:
> >>
> >>a) she views it as more stylish than saying she is a
> >>marxist
> >>
> >>b) she believes it deflects attention from her doctrinaire
> >> leftwing statist advocacy
> >>
> >>She is not an anarchist; no one is. ALL of the goals
> >>she publicly supports can ONLY be achieved through
> >>state action, and not just any state, but a
> >>totalitarian state.
> >
> >
> > Well, personally, I don't believe in anarchy, because it would require
the
> > abolishment of all laws,
>
> petitio principii.

No comprende.

> > including those prohibiting murder, rape, torture,
> > etc. Anarchy is just more of the "might makes right" bullshit.
However, if
> > she wants to believe she's an anarchist, why do you have such a
problem with
> > it?
>
> Because I believe exposing her as the doctrinaire
> advocate of totalitarian leftwing government that she
> is is useful in marginalizing and isolating her
> politically.

Thing is, what I see seems more like attacking than exposing. When
you name call it distracts from the argument.

> I have contended here over the years, and have amply
> supported the claim, that belief in "animal rights" is
> a signal, a marker, for extremist leftwing political
> sentiment. I believe leftwing extremists are
> potentially dangerous, and I think one of the best ways
> to render them impotent is to marginalize and isolate
> them. I believe that one of the best ways to
> marginalize and isolate them is to get all of their
> extremist beliefs out in the open. Karen is a more
> than willing accomplice in her own marginalization.

While that may be true, it's been my experience that understanding an
individual is much more productive. I have a family member who is
also, as you put it, a more than willing accomplice in his own
marginalization. Perhaps that is part of it.

Susan