On Nov 29, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Whoops, I mis-read. You said something about killing Christians. So, that's OK? It appears so.
I don't advocate killing Christians, just bigots. There are enough of them in the world already. We don't need more.
Then why be one? That would be a good place to start.
Be one what? What are you accusing me of being now?
Consider that if this attitude had been in place against the Taliban, the WTC might still be standing.
And the Soviet Union would have been glass in the late '40s.
The difference being that the USSR didn't fly aircraft into buildings.
Sometimes it makes sense to eliminate a pocket of virulent hatred rather than allow it to fester and turn into a source of misery for thousands.
What would you do? Kill everyone who is opposed to gay marriages? Kill everyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin?
Nope. Just the ones who openly support murder, and those who commit it in the first place. I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
Treating intolerance with tolerance lets the intolerance win, every time. Eliminating the intolerance is the most reasonable response to it.
I'm not the one pushing for oppression or hatred.
We differ on that...your posts seem hateful.
I'm not the one, Dan, who accuses others of being pro-child rape in order to try to score rhetorical points. You're in no position to judge.
I'll defend myself using any degree of force necessary. The discretion is mine. If I feel a need to use words to defend myself, I will use words. If I have to put a bullet into the brain of someone trying to harm or kill me, I will do that.
Iff you are in clear and present danger, then it is self defense. Otherwise, it's homocide.
I see a clear and present danger in the form of increased bigotry (which, by the way, YOU are trying to turn into an anti-religious argument -- that's only sensible if you consider Christians to be bigoted).
I'm using words now because I'd prefer not to have to kill anyone to defend my rights, my person or my life, but I will if necessary. I think the term here is "fair warning".
Looks a lot like the kinda warning given by Bin Laden to me.
Aha, I see. As soon as the victims stand up and say, "stop victimizing us", they become terrorists!
Frankly, I'm tired of this crap. I'd be perfectly happy to drop all the
belligerence if the religious intolerants would just shut the hell up
and let me (and mine) live peacefully. There are millions just like me
who feel exactly the same.
You really think there are millions of gays who call for wholesale slaughter?
Where, precisely, did I say that?
Are you so intent on making a point that you are unaware of everything else, or are you really so blind that you didn't even see what I posted?
Or are you just so intent on demonizing your opponent that you have to call him either an advocate of child molestation/incest or as a murderous, bloodthirsty demagogue in order to make your own weak stance seem more plausible?
But those who have chosen to take sides against us refuse to allow that. So yes, I advocate eliminating bigotry. If we can't do that, the next step is to eliminate the bigots.
That's not what you are doing. You posts indicate an embracing of the evil
that was behind the murder of Matthew Shephard as your guiding light.
Uh, no, Dan, they embrace the idea of defending life and liberty with lethal force, if necessary.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
