From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Mr. Kaldis's "misogyny"
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:19:38 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <Aug.30.22.57.09.1992.22622@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) wrote:
> 
> Every so often, the charge is put forth that I am, somehow, a
> "misogynist".  Such a charge is completely baseless, nevertheless,
> some see fit to advance it in an attempt to refute the timeless ideas
> and traditions upon which civilized western societies are based --
> never mind the fact that these ideas are irrefutable.

Um, Thud, does the following excerpt support or refute the "baselessness"
of said charge?

In article <Aug.23.22.51.32.1992.18778@romulus.rutgers.edu>,
kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.052035.22833@news.columbia.edu> >egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>> Similarly, all those female hormones that wash through pre-menopausal
>> women interferes with her clear thinking and right judgement.
>
>And all she needs to straighten her out is a good stiff ... never
>mind.

So tell us, do your unattractive rape fantasies represent misogyny on your
part, Thud?

> Shift the focus, then.

I can well imagine that you'd like to.

> They suppose that if they can discredit the one who is standing up for and 
> defending these ideas, they can somehow discredit the ideas themselves.  
> This is, essentially, nothing more than the old ad hominem argument.

First off, discrediting you personally is no challenge.  All the hard work
of making you look like a fascist idiot is already being done by _you_,
Thud.  All the rest of us have to do is await your next gem.

Secondly, discrediting your "argument" would probably be a greater
challenge if you actually _had_ one.  All you ever present is a series of
baseless assertions, quotes of baseless assertions from dubious
"authorities", and pointless invective.  Your debate coach would be
ashamed.

Thirdly, for an "ad hominem" argument to be levelled against you, you would
have to be a member of the class "hominem".  This much is certainly in
dispute.

> But I would like, at this point, to comment on an example of true
> misogyny that is all too prevalent (and too overlooked) within our
> society -- one that is, moreover, applauded by those who would like to
> portray me as a misogynist.  I am talking, of course, about the
> aberrant practice of homosexuality.

You _are_?  What a surprise!

> The homosexual is essentially a person who, for some reason, cannot come to 
> terms with his own sexuality, and has turn to an aberrant behavior in an 
> attempt to repudiate it.

There is certainly no supporting evidence for this assertion, Thud. 
Homosexuality is found in a variety of species, and there doesn't seem to
be any convincing evidence that homosexuals are, in general, less
comfortable with their own sexuality than are heterosexuals.

> I would to quote here a passage from George Gilders _Men_and_Marriage_
> (Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, LA, 1986):

Ah!  George Gilder again.  What a thrill.  Would you care to share with us
just what expertise or credentials Mr. Gilder might hold that would make
anyone take his assertions more seriously than we might take yours?

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.