----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: Re: So it begins.... Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time
> This is the last I'm going to post with you on this subject, Dan; we're > beginning to go in circles and it's pretty clear you're not going to > concede that even *one* of my points makes any sense. Whether this is > out of stubbornness or a genuine inability to grasp the validity of > others' opinions is an exercise I hope you'll take up. > > On Nov 29, 2004, at 3:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> 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. > > How interesting that even your "explanation" of your behavior (by which > I mean the ad hominem attacks you've made) includes a backhanded ad > hominem attack. You seem to see sex abuse victims and potential > molestors with greater frequency, and in more people, than the average > person. I see them in numbers consistent with known statistitics. References have been posted extensively on this list. Look at the archives for the references. The trick is, of course, to see it you have to let people feel safe in telling you. I'll give a simple example. Go to something like a retreat for young people. Try to get along with the young people. Simply share your experiences with the repercussions of abuse in your own life. Then listen. It doesn't seem that I have a jaded view of humanity....I just think people are wounded, incomplete and in need of grace. > Beyond that your talent for straw men is exquisite; and even when I > respond to the data you submit, such as it is, by pointing out that it > is not relevant to your assertions, you seem to believe I'm the one, > not you, who made the mistake. Given the amazing quantity of > unsubstantiated propositions you've put forth, the lack of relevant > evidence to support those claims, and the misdirecting, ad hominem and > straw man arguments, I cannot carry on a rational dialogue with you. I > suggest you study Erik's rhetorical style. He's very good at this. You mean you actually prefer: <quote> But I think that your comments, Warren, have often been incoherent. When they have been comprehensible, they have tended to be absurd, irrational, and contrary to facts. I have found most of your posts to be nearly worthless. You really need to try MUCH harder if you want to persuade people of anything, or even if you want to avoid appearing the fool. <end quote> Well, that's not my style. I actually try to be patient and polite, ask questions, etc. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. > Murder statistics are not given at those sites, but I wonder why you > think that's the litmus limit. It's really quite simple. You were talking about lynchings. I think there would be a strong arguement that the Jews had a right to pre-emptive strikes against the Nazis. The Black Panther's did not have a right to pre-emptive strikes. You don't either. >There are plenty of crimes that warrant the use of any force necessary to terminate the perpetration. >An armed GLBT population would go a long way toward stopping bigotry, wouldn't > it? No, it would promote shootouts. It's the same nonsense that the Black Panthers argued back in the '60s. It went out of style around the same time that Bernstein stopped inviting Black Panthers to his parties. Thank God that most gays are more reasonable about this than you are. The backlash would be ugly if even 10% subscribed to the nonsense of killing first and asking questions later. BTW, "just kidding" is not an acceptable statement after approval of murder. It's like saying gays should be killed and then saying "can't you take a joke?" > Finally, as an exercise, I suggest you take this assessment and answer > it truthfully. > > <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html> > I did, and got. 16 - Your score rates you as "high-grade non-homophobic." In his 1996 study of 64 white, male college students, Dr. Henry Adams classed 29 participants as "non-homophobic." Their mean score was 30.48, however, placing most of the men outside of this sub-group. Dr. Adams reported that he had difficulty finding heterosexual men whose scores ranked them as high-grade non-homophobic I don't see how you can have read what I wrote and come to that conclusion that I'm homophobic. I think gay marriage is pro-family. When one of my extra daughters came to the realization she was gay...she was dating guys before that...and told us, she was a bit nervous....and told us she had something difficult to tell us. I was very relieved that it wasn't something she had been doing wrong. Our second favorite couple to double date with is gay. (Our main problem with socializing with them is that its so hard to get together with them...given their schedule). One of them is a tremendous flirt, and I find his flirting with me more complementary than anything. Now, we both know its not serious (he flirts with women too...and I know he's not interested in them sexually), so it is flirting without consequences. But, I honestly think that few homophobes would be comfortable with a gay man flirting with them. If he came onto me, instead of just flirting, then I'd be bothered, sure. But, I'd also be bothered if women friends of mine did that....especially if I find them attractive. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
