Harvey Weinstein: Another Good Liberal...

[Cow Poke]

I'm the hysterical one?

Yes.

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.

Simply correcting Tassman's distortions, and I'm using facts from gay/lesbian websites.

Because apparently you just can't stop trying to demonize gay people by connecting them to pedophilia and spreading hate speech against them.

See, here's some of your hysteria - I'm posting facts, and haven't demonized anybody. All I've done is documented the association between ILGA and NAMBLA - historical facts.

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

It's truly a shame if telling the truth is illegal anywhere.

and as I've made clear I consider it to be really seriously immoral.

You'll forgive me if I don't consider you a valid source for what is moral, given your approval of murdering small children.

And then when I do my very first post in the thread and suggest maybe your really repetitive posting on the subject ,

And, here's some more of you hysteria - Tassman has a very thick skull, and it apparently takes pages and pages and pages to combat his spin.

is trying to distract from the recent prominent pedophilia of Christian priests and pastors

I've done no such thing - the thread was not about pedophilia of Christian priests and pastors, but you're welcome to start such a thread any time.

which is a lot more recent than the NAMBLA garbage and a lot more evidenced, you guys all utterly lose your minds and go completely hysterical.

Lost our minds? Completely hysterical? Just citing facts, and it's Tassman's imagination (and it seems to have infected you) that I've gone beyond simply pointing out facts.

[Starlight]

I'm posting facts, and haven't demonized anybody. All I've done is documented the association between ILGA and NAMBLA - historical facts.

And what is motivating you to do that?

You aren't spending dozens of pages documenting the historical connections between the AP and Reuters, or between the CIA and Latin American death squads, or arguing about the number of people in Napoleans' armies - you're not a historian who generally spends his time correcting people on the the internet about minutia of historical connections and events. Instead of anything else you've completely mysteriously and coincidentally () selected this topic to go on and on and on and on about.

Your purpose is pretty clear to everyone: You feel that by doing and saying this you are conveying something negative about gay people. If you thought it had no relevance, you wouldn't be saying it.

It's truly a shame if telling the truth is illegal anywhere.

If you saw a particular female member of your congregation and you went up to her and gave a 5 minute spiel about how beautiful she was that left her red-faced in front of her friends, and she asked you repeatedly to stop doing that, and you nonetheless continued to do it every time you saw her, over and over and over again... is that likely to be illegal sexual harassment? Is it any kind of defense at all to point out that the statements you were making to her were "true" and that it was indeed "true she is beautiful" and that "it's a shame if telling the truth is illegal"? The truth or falsity of the claims are just not relevant, the damage comes through the way in which they are repeated in public - it could be perfectly true that she is beautiful but that's quite different to whether or not it is harmful to repeatedly say it in a way that harms her emotionally.

Your NAMBLA ramblings could be true - I don't care and I haven't read the hundred pages of them and it has zero relevance whether they are true. Your purpose in bringing the issue up repeatedly is to smear gay people via alleged historical connection with pedophiles. In the same way that it's not relevant whether "it's true" that the sexually harassed woman is beautiful or not, it's simply not relevant whether the NAMBLA thesis is true or not, what's relevant is that by repeatedly bringing it up you are using it in an anti-social and misanthropic way that is emotionally harmful to people, that is why doing such a thing is illegal in increasingly more Western countries. By associating gay people with pedophilia you smear millions of gay people who have absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

It comes across as "I'm not hateful, I just say 'gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA, gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA, gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA' ten thousand times. Why would anything think that was smearing gay people? ~whistles innocently~"

Just stop it dude. It's grossly hateful, harmful, immoral, and illegal in dozens of countries.

[Cow Poke]

And what is motivating you to do that?

As I have already stated - correcting Tassman's dishonest spin.

You aren't spending dozens of pages documenting the historical connections between the AP and Reuters, or between the CIA and Latin American death squads, or arguing about the number of people in Napoleans' armies - you're not a historian who generally spends his time correcting people on the the internet about minutia of historical connections and events. Instead of anything else you've completely mysteriously and coincidentally () selected this topic to go on and on and on and on about.

Ummmmm.... you're not noticing that Tassman keeps posting his spin?

Your purpose is pretty clear to everyone: You feel that by doing and saying this you are conveying something negative about gay people. If you thought it had no relevance, you wouldn't be saying it.

Actually, I'm the one that pointed out that it was a gay person who made the case against NAMBLA, and it was Tassman who falsely accused him of defending NAMBLA.

This next party you write is just downright creepy...

If you saw a particular female member of your congregation and you went up to her and gave a 5 minute spiel about how beautiful she was that left her red-faced in front of her friends, and she asked you repeatedly to stop doing that, and you nonetheless continued to do it every time you saw her, over and over and over again... is that likely to be illegal sexual harassment? Is it any kind of defense at all to point out that the statements you were making to her were "true" and that it was indeed "true she is beautiful" and that "it's a shame if telling the truth is illegal"? The truth or falsity of the claims are just not relevant, the damage comes through the way in which they are repeated in public - it could be perfectly true that she is beautiful but that's quite different to whether or not it is harmful to repeatedly say it in a way that harms her emotionally.

Not just creepy, but totally irrelevant.

Your NAMBLA ramblings could be true

Unless you want to call the gay/lesbian sites from which they come dishonest.

- I don't care and I haven't read the hundred pages of them and it has zero relevance whether they are true.

Yet, here you are, butting in....

Your purpose in bringing the issue up repeatedly is to smear gay people via alleged historical connection with pedophiles.

You've become a mind reader, have you?

But back to your creepy irrelevant analogy.....

In the same way that it's not relevant whether "it's true" that the sexually harassed woman is beautiful or not, it's simply not relevant whether the NAMBLA thesis is true or not, what's relevant is that by repeatedly bringing it up you are using it in an anti-social and misanthropic way that is emotionally harmful to people, that is why doing such a thing is illegal in increasingly more Western countries. By associating gay people with pedophilia you smear millions of gay people who have absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

Nope - actually, I'm just disproving Tassman's goofy "end of story" crap.

It comes across as "I'm not hateful, I just say 'gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA, gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA, gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA' ten thousand times. Why would anything think that was smearing gay people? ~whistles innocently~"

As long as Tassman continues his dishonest spin, I'll refute it. Want it to stop? Tell him to shut up.

Just stop it dude.

When Tassman does.

It's grossly hateful, harmful, immoral, and illegal in dozens of countries.

And, again, this coming from the morally bankrupt dude who defends the murder of innocent children. Just stop that, dude.

[Adrift]

And what is motivating you to do that?

You aren't spending dozens of pages documenting the historical connections between the AP and Reuters, or between the CIA and Latin American death squads, or arguing about the number of people in Napoleans' armies - you're not a historian who generally spends his time correcting people on the the internet about minutia of historical connections and events. Instead of anything else you've completely mysteriously and coincidentally () selected this topic to go on and on and on and on about.

Your purpose is pretty clear to everyone: You feel that by doing and saying this you are conveying something negative about gay people. If you thought it had no relevance, you wouldn't be saying it.

If you saw a particular female member of your congregation and you went up to her and gave a 5 minute spiel about how beautiful she was that left her red-faced in front of her friends, and she asked you repeatedly to stop doing that, and you nonetheless continued to do it every time you saw her, over and over and over again... is that likely to be illegal sexual harassment? Is it any kind of defense at all to point out that the statements you were making to her were "true" and that it was indeed "true she is beautiful" and that "it's a shame if telling the truth is illegal"? The truth or falsity of the claims are just not relevant, the damage comes through the way in which they are repeated in public - it could be perfectly true that she is beautiful but that's quite different to whether or not it is harmful to repeatedly say it in a way that harms her emotionally.

Your NAMBLA ramblings could be true - I don't care and I haven't read the hundred pages of them and it has zero relevance whether they are true. Your purpose in bringing the issue up repeatedly is to smear gay people via alleged historical connection with pedophiles. In the same way that it's not relevant whether "it's true" that the sexually harassed woman is beautiful or not, it's simply not relevant whether the NAMBLA thesis is true or not, what's relevant is that by repeatedly bringing it up you are using it in an anti-social and misanthropic way that is emotionally harmful to people, that is why doing such a thing is illegal in increasingly more Western countries. By associating gay people with pedophilia you smear millions of gay people who have absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

It comes across as "I'm not hateful, I just say 'gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA, gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA, gay people, pedophilia, NAMBLA' ten thousand times. Why would anything think that was smearing gay people? ~whistles innocently~"

Just stop it dude. It's grossly hateful, harmful, immoral, and illegal in dozens of countries.

It's pretty clear to everyone? If that's truly the case, then let's take it to a simple forum vote. That's not hard to do.

We could put it something like this, "Did Cow Poke post dozens of posts about the association between ILGA and NAMBLA because 1.) He was clearly attempting to associate all gay people with pedophiles, or 2.) He was attempting to out-Tassman Tassman who has been asserting over and over again that there's never been a close association between ILGA and NAMBLA?

Tassman is the type of rare TWeb poster (but oddly not so rare atheist poster) who will NEVER let go of a bone once he's bitten onto it, no matter how many times he's been kicked in the side, and rebuffed. Apparently he has little better to do than spend inordinate amounts of time repeating the same thing over and over and over again ad nauseum. CP, in this relatively rare occurrence, has decided to match Tassman's tenacity. A feat we rarely see on the theist side outside of seer. Unlike you, I've actually read every single post in this hundreds page thread. It is NOT the purpose of CP to smear gay people via alleged historical connections with pedophilia. It never has been. CP wasn't even the person who initially broached the subject. The subject began with Darth Executor, Tassman replied to him, DE replied back, then Tassman replied back, then rogue jumped in, and somewhere along the line CP finally threw in his two cents. Not once has CP claimed, implied, or otherwise stated that homosexuality in general has anything to do with pedophilia. That's just something Tassman, JimL, and now you have made up for rhetorical points.

[Tassman]

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.

"Your honor, it's true I was publicly demonizing homosexuals, but you see the statements I was making were true <insert complicated logic here>. Therefore I'm not guilty of publicly demonizing homosexuals!"

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.

It's like responding to an allegation of sexual harassment with "but it's true that you're beautiful, so when I make a nuisance of myself telling you 100 times in public that you're beautiful, it can't be sexual harassment, because it's true, QED, checkmate!" They don't seem to understand that the truth or falsity of their crazy historical theories about connections between historical groups isn't actually relevant to the question of whether they are publicly demonizing gay people in the present day.

[Starlight]

Oh, yeah, it's all Tassman's fault, and you bear zero responsibility CP... Grow up.

Going back to page 56 in this thread shows multiple conservative posters falling over themselves to smear gay people with the present using NAMBLA, and Tassman responding by saying things like:

Sigh!

Whatever connections (such as they were) NAMBLA may once have had with the LGBT movement, it doesn't have them now. And there are no grounds whatsoever for your previous "suspicion" that given half a chance NAMBLA will be welcomed back into its embrace.

and you see MM making horrific statements like:

The dirty secret is that they're [NAMBLA and modern LGBT groups] still connected, they just keep the connection on the down-low for the sake of expediency.

and Rogue doing his usual hate-speech spiel about NAMBLA's connections with LGBT groups.

And then we seem to get about 50 pages of you arguing the existence of the connection between NAMBLA and LGBT groups, and the importance thereof.

I'll give you you're not as blatant in your wild claims as MM is, and that you're not usually the one doing dozens of pages of hate-speech on the subject (that's normally Rogue with his theories about NAMBLA), but you seem to have managed 50 pages of it in this thread.

[Cow Poke]

CP doesn't even do this. He merely outlines the first decade of ILGA, whereby three paedophile groups were included among the 400+ plus LGBT members of ILGA

And note your own spin --- trying to imply that, because there were other organizations, somehow NAMBLA got lost in the shuffle.

and implies guilt by association.

Your own sick imagination.

In short, he's demonising homosexuals by innuendo!

Only in your sick imagination.

He disingenuously ignores that the initial vetting procedures of membership for ILGA were not in place at the time

Oh, here we go again... the "gays and lesbians are too stupid to set up an organization" defense.

(as acknowledged by ILGA's secretary general)

What do you expect them to say -- "yeah, we knew they were pedophiles, and we let them in anyway"?

I never ever said ILGA advocated pedophilia. This is your own sick imagination, and you're full of crap, Tassman.

I simply post the facts, and this really really drives you nuts - you simply can't handle truth.

[Tassman]

Not once has CP claimed, implied, or otherwise stated that homosexuality in general has anything to do with pedophilia. That's just something Tassman, JimL, and now you have made up for rhetorical points.

That's exactly what he's done. Otherwise why would he raise the subject of NAMBLA's initial association with ILGA at all...a dispassionate history lesson perhaps?

[Cow Poke]

Oh, yeah, it's all Tassman's fault, and you bear zero responsibility CP...

If you say so!

Going back to page 56 in this thread shows multiple conservative posters falling over themselves to smear gay people with the present using NAMBLA, and Tassman responding by saying things like:

So go after them, ya big weenie!

and you see MM making horrific statements like:

I don't answer for MM.

and Rogue doing his usual hate-speech spiel about NAMBLA's connections with LGBT groups.

You are a classic example of how phony liberals are, pretending to be for "free speech", unless it's something with which they disagree, then it's "hate speech", even if you have to make it up as you go along.

And then we seem to get about 50 pages of you arguing the existence of the connection between NAMBLA and LGBT groups,

Guilty.

and the importance thereof.

Actually, I have repeatedly left that for the reader to decide.

I'll give you you're not as blatant in your wild claims as MM is, and that you're not usually the one doing dozens of pages of hate-speech on the subject

WOW, I'm honored -- the advocate for killing small children cuts me some slack!

(that's normally Rogue with his theories about NAMBLA), but you seem to have managed 50 pages of it in this thread.

Tassman should be right proud to have a man of your caliber, along with a defender of NAMBLA, coming to rescue his sorry butt.

[Tassman]

I simply post the facts,

Why?

you simply can't handle truth.

What "truth"?

[Adrift]

That's exactly what he's done. Otherwise why would he raise the subject of NAMBLA's initial association with ILGA at all...a dispassionate history lesson perhaps?

That's the whole point. He didn't raise the subject.

[Cow Poke]

That's exactly what he's done.

Again, that's an outright lie. Show me anywhere - by using an actual quote - where I have done anything like that. All you do is take the facts I produce, use your own sick imagination about what I intend, and go with that.

Otherwise why would he raise the subject of NAMBLA's initial association with ILGA at all...a dispassionate history lesson perhaps?

I don't believe I was the one who raised the subject, Tassman.

[Tassman]

Again, that's an outright lie. Show me anywhere - by using an actual quote - where I have done anything like that. All you do is take the facts I produce, use your own sick imagination about what I intend, and go with that.

See above...#1165

[Cow Poke]

It's pretty clear to everyone? If that's truly the case, then let's take it to a simple forum vote. That's not hard to do.

We could put it something like this, "Did Cow Poke post dozens of posts about the association between ILGA and NAMBLA because 1.) He was clearly attempting to associate all gay people with pedophiles, or 2.) He was attempting to out-Tassman Tassman who has been asserting over and over again that there's never been a close association between ILGA and NAMBLA?

Tassman is the type of rare TWeb poster (but oddly not so rare atheist poster) who will NEVER let go of a bone once he's bitten onto it, no matter how many times he's been kicked in the side, and rebuffed. Apparently he has little better to do than spend inordinate amounts of time repeating the same thing over and over and over again ad nauseum. CP, in this relatively rare occurrence, has decided to match Tassman's tenacity. A feat we rarely see on the theist side outside of seer. Unlike you, I've actually read every single post in this hundreds page thread. It is NOT the purpose of CP to smear gay people via alleged historical connections with pedophilia. It never has been. CP wasn't even the person who initially broached the subject. The subject began with Darth Executor, Tassman replied to him, DE replied back, then Tassman replied back, then rogue jumped in, and somewhere along the line CP finally threw in his two cents. Not once has CP claimed, implied, or otherwise stated that homosexuality in general has anything to do with pedophilia. That's just something Tassman, JimL, and now you have made up for rhetorical points.

Thanks, Adrift.

And, just in case I haven't before, I'll be happy to go on record as saying that I am NOT stating that a gay or lesbian is any more likely to be a pedophile than a "straight" person. Never said it, never implied it. I've actually looked for any such link in the past, but there doesn't appear to be any such evidence.

I have asked repeatedly for Tassman to show any such proof, or anything that proves I'm homophobic - a false charge he keeps making.

IN FACT, I'm the one who pointed out that it was the lesbian coalition inside ILGA who objected mostly to NAMBLA's membership in the group. That was following Tassman's earlier attempts to make it sound like ILGA was ignorant of NAMBLA's purpose, or somehow NAMBLA just slipped in because ILGA was a very young organization and had poor vetting procedures.

Tassman has been all over the map on this, defending from every angle, including implying that the gays and lesbians were just too ignorant to know what NAMBLA was, and too incompetent to set up an organization to prevent NAMBLA from joining. In fact, Tassman's earlier assertion, way back in post #720, was....

The International LBGT Association rejected NAMBLA's membership, your biased spin is irrelevant.

That makes it sound like NAMBLA applied for membership, ILGA rejected their membership, and NAMBLA was never a member. That's blatantly false, and is super-spin by Tassman.

[Starlight]

You are a classic example of how phony liberals are, pretending to be for "free speech", unless it's something with which they disagree, then it's "hate speech", even if you have to make it up as you go along.

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?