Dragon wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>

>>>>>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

You go to http://tinyurl.com. You copy-and-paste the
long and unwieldy URL into the clearly marked box, then
click on the 'Make TinyURL!' button. You then
copy-and-paste the resulting tiny URL into whatever it
is you're doing, and there ya go!

>
>
>>>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.

See through what? See through what NAMBLA is up to, or
see through Karen's sloppy strawman argument? I'm not
so concerned with either. I'm more concerned with
letting the asshole Karen know that she didn't get away
with her slovenly sophist's attempt to redefine the issue.

>
>
>>>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.

petitio principii = "begging the question"

In essence, you said that anarchy, which IS the
abolishment of all laws, would be a bad thing because
then there would be no laws. That won't do; you need
to say *why* it would be a bad thing to abolish all
laws, not just repeat your belief that the abolishment
of all laws would be a bad thing.

>
>
>>>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.

Not for everyone.

>
>
>>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,

No "may be" about it. It IS true.

> it's been my experience that understanding an
> individual is much more productive.

That's what I'm helping you to do.

> 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.

It's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? The funny
thing is, self marginalized people often, if not
always, complain about marginalization and alienation
as if someone else is doing it TO them, when they not
only are doing it to themselves, but actually seem,
perversely, to enjoy or even *need* that sense of
alienation in order to give meaning to their lives.
Such thinking is clearly mental illness. Whether it
renders those afflicted with it unable to function is a
matter of degree.

Curiously, Karen never even attempts to refute my
contention that she is self marginalized. That her
expressions of extremist political thinking are those
of a marginal is beyond dispute. The only thing open
to debate is how she became such a marginal; that she
never questions my analysis - that she has a mental
defect that causes her to NEED to be marginalized -
says to me that she knows I'm right.