Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[Cow Poke]

This might be hard for you to understand but: There's more than one liberal in the world and they don't all share the same views on everything. ~gasp~

Some are free speech absolutists. Some are not. Some support hate-speech laws. Some do not.

Crazy ain't it?

Very few actually condone the murder of innocent children. In fact, I've never met a liberal who has such asinine beliefs before you came along.

[Jedidiah]

But also I see the bizarre thought among conservatives here that if they can prove whatever particular thesis they're pushing to be 'true', then they are somehow not guilty of demonizing homosexuals.

Making a statement of truth, even if it is about homosexuals, is in no way demonizing them. If I say homosexuals are evil and are destroying society due to their hatred of everyone else, that would be demonizing. Saying on the other hand, homosexuality is harmful to society, is not demonizing.

The thought process seems to be that if they can 'prove' some complex hypothesis about something some people in the 70s did, then they are justified or reasonable to demonize millions of people in the present day who had nothing to do with it.

This sounds a lot like the push for monetary reparations to blacks because of evil done to their ancestors by the ancestors of some other folks. Glad to hear that you will not support such hypocrisy.

What you have been doing is illegal in many Western countries, . . .

Terribly sad if this is true. Certainly no country I would ever visit. I would be in fear for my life and safety.

[Starlight]

Very few actually condone the murder of innocent children. In fact, I've never met a liberal who has such asinine beliefs before you came along.

LOL, way to try and change the subject.

I presume you are among the many conservatives here who view a normal abortion that kills a fetus to be just as bad as infanticide or murder of an adult? And that you were quite enthusiastically forthright in your pro-life beliefs and against liberal abortionists prior to ever meeting me? As is regularly pointed out here, Peter Singer, one of the most popular atheist ethical philosophers alive today, (and who was responsible for the modern animal rights movement and the effective altruism movement), holds the same views as me, so I am hardly unique.

I'm also inclined to wonder to what extent your personal theological beliefs actually consider fetuses/infants "innocent" - are they actually innocent or are they "innocent" (Justly Deserving Of God's Wrath And Infinite Punishment Due To Sin)?

[Jedidiah]

I'm the hysterical one?

You post pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages... ...and pages going on and on and on and on and on about NAMBLA.

If you look back you will find that almost all of the posts CP made were simply in response to one of your buddies. Why don't you get on Tass for going on for "pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages... ...and pages going on and on and on and on and on about NAMBLA?"

[Cow Poke]

Agreed.

But also I see the bizarre thought among conservatives here that if they can prove whatever particular thesis they're pushing to be 'true', then they are somehow not guilty of demonizing homosexuals.

Wow.... pushing back against Tassman's dishonest twisting of the whole ILGA/NAMBLA thing is, in your sicko drama queen mind, "pushing to be 'true'" an imagined "thesis", when it's simply presenting the actual facts of the case.

You guys continue the spin, the false accusations, and your own sordid hate speech, and I'll continue to present the actual facts.

[Cow Poke]

LOL, way to try and change the subject.

Not changing the subject at all, Star --- just putting your whacko false accusations of moral turpitude in perspective.

I presume you are among the many conservatives here who view a normal abortion that kills a fetus to be just as bad as infanticide or murder of an adult? And that you were quite enthusiastically forthright in your pro-life beliefs and against liberal abortionists prior to ever meeting me? As is regularly pointed out here, Peter Singer, one of the most popular atheist ethical philosophers alive today, (and who was responsible for the modern animal rights movement and the effective altruism movement), holds the same views as me, so I am hardly unique.

So, you're just as sick as some other morally bankrupt individual. Sad.

[Starlight]

Making a statement of truth, even if it is about homosexuals, is in no way demonizing them.

Imagine there was a modern movement to advertise the black crime statistics: Posters were put up everywhere, and on all sorts of billboards, and on numerous TV ads, people talked about just how many thousands of criminal acts black people in the US had committed this year. Let's say that the statistics they gave were all true ones. I contend that those obsessive acts of singling out black crime publicly and dwelling on it in a disproportionate way would amount to a demonization of black people.

Saying on the other hand, homosexuality is harmful to society, is not demonizing.

The mere words "homosexuality is harmful to society" are not themselves demonizing, but as soon as somebody asks "why is it harmful?" the reply seems pretty likely to delve straight into a demonization of gay people.

This sounds a lot like the push for monetary reparations to blacks because of evil done to their ancestors by the ancestors of some other folks. Glad to hear that you will not support such hypocrisy.

Indeed I do not. The government here paid large reparations to people of partial native descent due to what their white ancestors did to their native ancestors. I regarded the whole process as stupid and fundamentally flawed and rationally indefensible. I found it semi-tolerable only on the grounds that the group of people receiving money were generally poorer and I am fine with money being given to poor people to help them.

Terribly sad if this is true. Certainly no country I would ever visit. I would be in fear for my life and safety.

The punishments are typically fines, so I don't know why you would fear for your life or safety. Those are only things to fear for people visiting the US where the crazies all have guns.

[Tassman]

Making a statement of truth, even if it is about homosexuals, is in no way demonizing them.

It is if it is falsely implying that homosexuals are somehow complicit with pedophile groups, as has been the case throughout this thread...despite the vacuous denials by those doing just that.

If I say homosexuals are evil and are destroying society due to their hatred of everyone else, that would be demonizing. Saying on the other hand, homosexuality is harmful to society, is not demonizing.

To say that “homosexuality is harmful to society” is demonstrably not true. It’s merely an opinion held by some people based upon superseded religious beliefs.

[Cow Poke]

It is if it is falsely implying that homosexuals are somehow complicit with pedophile groups, as has been the case throughout this thread...

Only in your sick little mind, Tassman. I do find it interesting that a presentation of the actual facts in the case leads you to assume that it means that homosexuals are complicit with pedophile groups, when I have never stated any such thing.

You continue to spew false accusations, and I'll continue to push back. Mickiel would be proud. Grow thread grow!

[Jedidiah]

It is if it is falsely implying that homosexuals are somehow complicit with pedophile groups, as has been the case throughout this thread...despite the vacuous denials by those doing just that.

Which was never the case with CP's responses to your dishonesty. There is clear evidence of your dishonesty in this thread.

[Starlight]

If you look back you will find that almost all of the posts CP made were simply in response to one of your buddies. Why don't you get on Tass for going on for "pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages, and pages... ...and pages going on and on and on and on and on about NAMBLA?"

I think he was wrong to feed the discussion, but he wasn't the one engaging in hate-speech, he was defending an oppressed minority from the hate-speech.

I guess you could have a moral discussion of whether you're best to openly oppose immorality if in doing so you give that immorality more air-time, or whether in such a situation you should ignore it. My view, as I've mentioned in the past, is that the first person who brings up NAMBLA has basically Godwin's law'd themselves and lost the discussion by virtue of bringing it up in the first place, and if they repeat it they should receive escalating infraction points for hate-speech.

[Cow Poke]

I think he was wrong to feed the discussion,

Ya THINK?!?!?!

but he wasn't the one engaging in hate-speech, he was defending an oppressed minority from the hate-speech.

Hogwash! He was assuming hate speech where there was none, because he, himself, is full of hate of anything Christian. In his zeal to combat "evangelicals", he even got so carried away as to threw a fellow gay under the bus, accusing him of defending NAMBLA, when I was the one pointing out that the poor guy was calling for the ouster of NAMBLA.

WANNNNNNHHHHH... they disagree with me.... HATE SPEECH!!!!!!!!

Pathetic.

[Tassman]

Only in your sick little mind, Tassman. I do find it interesting that a presentation of the actual facts in the case leads you to assume that it means that homosexuals are complicit with pedophile groups, when I have never stated any such thing.

You haven’t answered the question as to WHY you are presenting the “facts in the case”. You deny that you were implying homosexuals were complicit with pedophile groups, so what is the point of your history lesson?

[Cow Poke]

You haven’t answered the question as to WHY you are presenting the “facts in the case”.

I have, repeatedly, but apparently you're just too dense to grasp it.

You deny that you were implying homosexuals were complicit with pedophile groups,

Actually, I was denying that this was the purpose of my pushback of your goofy dishonest spin.

so what is the point of your history lesson?

To expose and correct your goofy dishonest spin.

That will not, of course, keep you from continuing your goofy dishonest spin, but I'll be here to expose and correct it!

[Tassman]

I have, repeatedly, but apparently you're just too dense to grasp it.

Are you saying you have answered the question as to WHY you are presenting the “facts in the case”? I must have missed it. Please repeat it.

Actually, I was denying that this was the purpose of my pushback of your goofy dishonest spin.

So you deny that you were implying homosexuals were complicit with pedophile groups? So what is the point of your history lesson?