Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Dragon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
rthlink.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!
>
>
> Cool. I'll have to try that sometime. Thanks.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>
>
> I was referring to the strawman argument. But now I see where you're coming
> from.
>
>
>>>>>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.
>
>
> Er...no, I didn't. I said I didn't believe in anarchy because that's what
> it was.

Then you still committed _petitio principii_:

I don't believe in the abolishment of all laws
[anarchy],
because then there would be no laws.

> I didn't say anarchy would be a bad thing, though I also believe
> that.
>
>
>>>>>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.
>
>
> It certainly does for me.

Well, de gustibus non disputandum est.

> Of course, I've often seen it used for exactly
> that purpose, but I've more often seen it used when it shouldn't be.
>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Remember, I don't know her that well yet.

I'm here to help.

>
>
>>>it's been my experience that understanding an
>>>individual is much more productive.
>>
>>That's what I'm helping you to do.
>
>
> *chuckle* No, you're helping me understand *you*.
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Mine openly states that he like to alienate certain people. He does not
> seem to realize that in doing so, he's also alienating others, about whom he
> complains because they distance themselves. Yeah, it is rather odd. He's
> actually quite intelligent, yet seems to have a blind spot there.

He seems to be blind to the fact he's alienating himself.

>
>
>>Such thinking is clearly mental illness. Whether it
>>renders those afflicted with it unable to function is a
>>matter of degree.
>
>
> I think if they were unable to function, we probably wouldn't be interacting
> with them. Unless asylums are using the internet for therapy these days.
> :P
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No offensem, but under certain circumstances - I tend to totally ignore
> attackers on the net. This is particularly true when they make accusations
> that I think are so far off base that they are funny. Now, I'm not saying
> what you say isn't true. I don't know either of you well enough to say
> other than that her views are extremist. I'm saying she may view it that
> way.
>
>
>
>