----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 2:21 PM Subject: Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
> 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? > A bigot, of course. > >> 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. > 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. But, you openly support murder. > Treating intolerance with tolerance lets the intolerance win, every > time. Eliminating the intolerance is the most reasonable response to > > 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 was honestly curious. After all man-boy love groups makes arguements that were similar to the ones you made. I wanted clarification and got it. I even apologized for wording it in a way that could be misunderstood. A common technique I use is to first establish boundaries over which a difference takes place, and then narrow the boundaries. > >> 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). Clear and present danger? Lets look at numbers. At http://www.hatecrime.org/index.html we see that a gay group counts 8 homicides over the last 9+ years as a result of anti-gay hate crimes. Now, that is clearly 8 too many, but let's talk about the direct risk to your own life. Based on this, and assuming 5% of the population is male and gay, we have almost 15 million gay males in the US. So, the probability of you being killed by a random hate murder in a given year is significantly less than one in a million. This is not a "clear and present danger" that would authorize the use of leathal force. > > 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! No, it's as soon as they threaten terrorism themselves. Your arguement justifies the Co > >> 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? You posted: "So yes, I advocate eliminating bigotry. If we can't do that, the next step is to eliminate the bigots." IIRC, you also called JDG clearly a bigot earlier....but it might have just been homophobic bigotry you mentioned, so maybe he can live on a technicality. Would you like to bet that, if I look, I can't dig up a quote accusing JDG of something like that? > 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? If one does not want to appear bloodthirsty, then one shouldn't favor lynchings. > Uh, no, Dan, they embrace the idea of defending life and liberty with > lethal force, if necessary. That's what the Klan claims too. There is a clear line between folks like the Klansmen and just plain opinionated citizens. Approving lynchings crosses over that line. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
