From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Item for Chaney's study of abortion--adult/child sex link.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:29:56 GMT
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association

In article <nyikos.715900697@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep3.165119.21400@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.715472754@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> In <1992Aug29.135528.22372@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> >> 
> >> >Mr Nyikos wallows in speculation to no clear purpose unless it is to
> >> >somehow imply that clinics that provide abortion services have been
> >> >bombed by their own staff for insurance purposes.  This flies in
> >> >the face of the facts, which include convictions in court of some
> >> >of the bombers, all of whom are staunchly "pro-life."
> >> 
> >> Just how deeply held are these pro-life beliefs?  Children playing
> >> at "cops and robbers" almost never go into the harm the robbers have
> >> caused.  The "robbers" are simply "the bad guys" and the ones playing
> >> cops get a big adrenaline surge from going after them and even have
> >> the "moral" satisfaction of being "the good guys" even though someone
> >> watching their play usually can't tell the good guys from the bad guys
> >> without a scorecard.
> 
> >You make no response to
> >the fact that the people in these convictions admitted their
> >part in the bombings.  Susan Garvin recently published a quote
> >from one of them who said it's okay to kill doctors if the
> >doctors provide abortion services.  Are you now going to tell
> >us that maybe these doctors are really trying to commit suicide
> >by firing guns through their own houses from a distance of fifty
> >yrads, pausing only once to reload?
> 
> First you talk about bombings, then you speak of firing guns.  Just
> what did these people admit to doing?

Some have been convicted of the clinic bombings.  Others have been
convicted of firing guns at doctors who provide abortion services.

And you are still weaseling away from your own baseless speculation
about clinic staff burning their own clinics.  I can see why you
would want to.  But deliberately misunderstanding what I say and
trying to find minor errors in what I say doesn't keep you clear
of the main point.
> 
> >> Now what little I have read of "The Lambs of God" [you never do identify
> >> these "pro-lifers"] leads me to believe their motivation is of this 
> >> juvenile sort.  
> 
> >We were talking about your remarks that clinic staff were
> >burning down or bombing their own clinics.
> 
> I never said they were, I just brought it up as a possibility.
> 
> >  I think your tactics, lies and innuendoes, are as
> >reprehensible and indicative of a lack of character as the
> >behavior of these juvenile "Lambs of God" you so disdain.
> 
> Gee, now I am being charged with doing things every bit as
> reprehensible as bombing clinics and (perhaps) shooting guns
> at them.  If your moral code is this bad at making distinctions,
> perhaps you are a moral nihilist at heart.

This is an attempt at misdirection.  You take that one remark of mine
and respond to it, but fail to admit that you have been trying
a little sleazy smear based on speculation that you have no
facts to support.

As for my moral code, it does not permit me to engage in lies and
innuendoes and baseless speculation in order to make other people
appear to be evil or criminal.  Yours obviously does permit such
behaviors.  So let us not speak of moral codes here, since I can
hear your glass house tinkling.
> 
> >> >> >In article <nyikos.714859323@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> >> >> In <1992Aug25.231443.21218@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
> >> >> >> > Does the fact that this doctor did bad things some how 
> >> >> >> >discredit the pro-choice movement?
> >> >> >> Of course not, no more than a few crazy bombers discredit the whole
> >> >> >> pro-life movement.
> 
> I'm glad this quote is still on the net.  Lots of people have been 
> claiming I am trying to discredit the whole pro-choice movement by
> posting what the doctor did.  Some even accuse me of posting lies.

You followed this up by posting about how it might be the
clinic staff themselves who are bombing their own clinics and
claiming afterwards to be pro-life.  What a weasel you are
trying to act like that never happened.

> >In other words, you have no facts, and just want to construct
> >a speculative support structure for your sleaze tactics.
> 
> No more speculative than most of the stuff I read on talk.abortion.

I see your moral code is constructed on the principle that if
someone engages in a disreputable tactic, it is perfectly
all right for you to do the same.  Your sterling character
is an example for us all.

> >> 2. Abortion is part and parcel of the quality-of-life ethic, which sees
> >> the worth of human beings according to how much they are wanted, or 
> >> appreciated, or loved by others.
> 
> >This is a complete misrepresentation of the pro-choice position,
> 
> Of your pro-choice position, maybe.  Pro-choice is a much bigger tent
> than most people in talk.abortion seem to realize.  Ditto for pro-life.

That's so beautiful I can't begin to thank you enough.  You admit
that you have made a claim about the pro-choice position, then,
which is general, and now admit that your claim is too broad.
Thank you for admitting that you are trying to tar all people who
beleive in choice with an evil brush even when you know it doesn't
apply to all of us.  I know from my own contacts with pro-choice
people that it doesn't even apply to many of us.

Again, I love that moral code you're showing.  Your integrity
is superlative.
> 
> >and as such does not even deserve a response.  You can kick all
> >the strawmen down that you please.  I can easily say that,
> >rather than having real concerns, the anti-abortion movement
> >is simply part and parcel of the anti-woman, control-freak
> >attitude that wants to enslave all people to one ideology and
> >one point of view and prohibit human freedom.
> 
> This is NARAL propaganda.  Item 2. is based on lots of things lots
> of pro-choicers have said.  Stay tuned.

So the tent is big, but you insist that we all come down to your
straw man in the end?

Thanks, Peter.  I love a man of high moral fiber.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:35894 talk.bizarre:29557