Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[JonathanL]

To be fair though, I would regard CP as being a substantially worse and less moral person than the average pedophile.

Moral judgments coming from a person who's fine with infanticide aren't worth jack squat.

[Starlight]

Moral judgments coming from a person who's fine with infanticide aren't worth jack squat.

Do you feel like if you repeat it often enough it will become true?

[Cow Poke]

Do you feel like if you repeat it often enough it will become true?

While simply repeating something over and over does not make it true, a certain poster makes it a capstone of his "debate"....

I’ve said several times t...

When that's all ya got...

[Cow Poke]

He's probably really panicky about the number of priests and pastors who have been revealed to be pedophiles over the past couple of decades.

Ah, the personal attack. And, wrong at that.

I see Pastor Andy Savage is in the headlines this week for it. CP, as a pastor, knows he belongs to a highly suspect group and so is eager to find some minority group he can blame instead.

Wow.
• Edited by a Moderator •

[Cerebrum123]

Ah, the personal attack. And, wrong at that.



Wow.



You're revealing, again, what a deplorable person you can be, Star.

fify.

[Cow Poke]

Three pedophile groups were among the 400+ initial members of ILGA...for a decade...

As Starlight pointed out....

Do you feel like if you repeat it often enough it will become true?

You're simply repeating the same old worn stuff over and over and over, Tassman. The facts are what they are, regardless of your attempt to spin them - "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

And you keep making the same false allegations over and over.

NAMBLA was a partner with ILGA from the very beginning, and continued that partnership for a decade.
Only when trying to get the UN recognition they desired, and NAMBLA being an impediment to that, did ILGA act to revoke NAMBLA's membership, along with other pedophile groups.

You can throw in all the conditions and explanations and "fraught"ness you want, but those are the facts.

[Cow Poke]

Moral judgments coming from a person who's fine with infanticide aren't worth jack squat.

It's like being called an idiot by JimL.

[Cow Poke]

Well "substantially worse and less moral" than pretty much anyone, actually.

And, having lost the debate, Tassman descends to all he's got left, revealing his real self.

[RumTumTugger]

Do you feel like if you repeat it often enough it will become true?

Sorry Starlight you said it. Why are you trying to deny what you posted if as in your view as stated in that post it could be considered the right thing to do?

[ke7ejx]

He's probably really panicky about the number of priests and pastors who have been revealed to be pedophiles over the past couple of decades. I see Pastor Andy Savage is in the headlines this week for it. CP, as a pastor, knows he belongs to a highly suspect group and so is eager to find some minority group he can blame instead.• Edited by a Moderator •

That's disgusting and a pack of lies, Starlight.

[RumTumTugger]

That's disgusting and a pack of lies, Starlight.

You will find this is Starlight's modus operandi. When he has no answer to someone's argument he will accuse them of anything from stupidity to insanity or moral turpitude that he has reached the moral turpitude piont means he knows CP is right and does not want to admit it. it is the sign of someone who is a bigoted anti intellectual.

[Starlight]

That's disgusting and a pack of lies, Starlight.

CP's repeated statements in the thread linking gay people to NAMBLA would constitute hate speech and be illegal and be punishable by law in many countries, including Canada which one of the TWeb owners lives in.

It is amusing how conservatives here can go for pages and pages of dishonest drivel, slandering an entire generation of gay people in the present, due to their complex and ridiculous reconstructions of what a past generation of gay people might or might not have tolerated, yet they throw a baby-like tantrum at one mention of the fact that the group in the present most associated with pedophilia in the public eye is actually religious leaders.

Unfortunately the negative speech and actions of conservatives harm many gay people, as their careless hate-speech has serious psychological effects, and their consistent advocacy against marriage rights for gay people do a lot of harm. For this reason I consider CP's prolific hate speech and anti-gay stances a much worse crime than pedophilia as it harms an entire group of people rather than just a few.

[RumTumTugger]

CP's repeated statements in the thread linking gay people to NAMBLA would constitute hate speech and be illegal and be punishable by law in many countries, including Canada which one of the TWeb owners lives in.

It is amusing how conservatives here can go for pages and pages of dishonest drivel, slandering an entire generation of gay people in the present, due to their complex and ridiculous reconstructions of what a past generation of gay people might or might not have tolerated, yet they throw a baby-like tantrum at one mention of the fact that the group in the present most associated with pedophilia in the public eye is actually religious leaders.

Unfortunately the negative speech and actions of conservatives harm many gay people, as their careless hate-speech has serious psychological effects, and their consistent advocacy against marriage rights for gay people do a lot of harm. For this reason I consider CP's prolific hate speech and anti-gay stances a much worse crime than pedophilia as it harms an entire group of people rather than just a few.

When all else fails. fasley call someone's argument hate speech so you do not have to admit you have no facts on your side.

[rogue06]

CP's repeated statements in the thread linking gay people to NAMBLA would constitute hate speech and be illegal and be punishable by law in many countries, including Canada which one of the TWeb owners lives in.

Pretty scary when merely repeating the incontestable fact that the early gay rights movement and NAMBLA were linked -- and closely at that -- could get you in trouble with the law.

[Starlight]

Pretty scary when merely repeating the incontestable fact that the early gay rights movement and NAMBLA were linked -- and closely at that -- could get you in trouble with the law.

It is the context in which the statements are made that matters.

You are not a historian writing a book about history who is noting facts about history or arguing some thesis in an academic journal. You are not in a history sub-forum debating the historical facts of various events and connections between them.

You are a person talking in a public forum about civics who is deliberately trying to slander an entire group of people in the present (people who identify as gay in the present day), as an entire group, via your public discourse. You are attempting to do so in this instance by invoking a historical thesis about how a small number of people in a past generation of people who identified as gay interacted with an organisation calling itself "NAMBLA". The deliberate attempted public slander of an entire minority group via some negative thesis about what some of them do/might have done/previously did, is what makes it harmful / hate speech / illegal. The question of the historical truth or falsity of your thesis itself is not even relevant - because you are clearly wielding the thesis in order to slander a minority group in the present with a negative accusation that broad-brush tars millions of people with the alleged actions of a few people in the past, which is what makes it hate speech, and illegal and punishable in many countries.

Think of it as harassment. If you said something to someone once, that would be okay. But if you keep going up to them over and over and over and repeatedly saying it, that's harassment, and grounds for them seeking a restraining order to keep you away from them etc. You say:

Pretty scary when merely repeating the incontestable fact that...

You have some crazy thesis you've constructed about historical gay groups in the 20th century and their alleged connections with NAMBLA. Ok, whatever, I could hardly care less. It's when you bring it up repeatedly that it becomes harassment and hate speech - after all, what do you think you're achieving by bringing it up repeatedly? I suggest it's rather obvious that what you think you're achieving is tarring gay people / groups in the present with negative allegations regarding their agendas / views. So your (a) belief in the NAMBLA thesis and (b) the use you make of it in public discourse, are two totally different things - the former is a belief about history which might be right or wrong, and the latter is repeated slander and harassment of gay people in the present day which is covered by hate speech laws designed to prevent harassment of minority groups.