From: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Speaking ill
Keywords: AIDS HIV molest
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:51:09 GMT
Reply-To: dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber)
Distribution: ca
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: tattoo.mti.sgi.com

In article <1993Jan6.184325.5487@netcom.com>, phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> In article <1if28mINNsse@spim.mti.sgi.com> dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
|>     >So, I have never been to a VD clinic, Phil... Why does the
|>     >public dislike me? One can assume that it is related to the
|>     >fact that people such as yourself spread an incomplete
|>     >picture of the homosexual community. One can assume it is due
|>     >to a group of hateful people who are intent on spreading
|>     >hateful propaganda concerning homosexuals.
|> 
|> How does an incomplete picture turn into "hateful people" and "hateful
|> propaganda"?


By deleting your previous message you have removed an example.  You say
"The Band Plays On" Randy Shilts says X.  Then, from this, you say 
"now do you see why people hate homosexuals?"  Now, Phil, you have met me,
and you know I do not meet the example of homosexuals which Randy was
citing.  In fact, he was discussing the generation before mine.  However,
you sling this generalization around like it was a "fact and a characteristic"
of homosexuals.  It is not, but that does not keep you from portraying it
as such.  This is how an incomplete picture turns into "hateful propaganda"
from "hateful people".


|> For example, just what is the "public" supposed to think when a group
|> that *appears* to be speaking for homosexuals tries to defend the
|> practice of giving blood and imperiling the national blood supply?

There are some homosexuals who do this, and some who do not.

|> 
|> Now, if you'd like to say that the group in question was radical
|> politically radical group that doesn't speak for mostr homosexuals, fine.

You say this, but then...

|> But then, where are the outcries and denouncals from most homosexuals?

You ask for the oath of fealty.  There are two things to remember, the
media attention goes to the outrageous.  It always does.  So these people
make more of an impact.  Two, lack of outcry does not imply support.
This is the exact same claim that Clayton makes concerning NAMBLA.  "Will
you sign a piece of paper saying that you, speaking for the gay community,
disowns NAMBLA."  Again, it is a bad generalization.  When I do not care
about a topic, I do not talk about it.   Therefore, I do not argue about
giving blood (this is not because I agree or disagree with the radicals,
it is because I just do not care).

|> 
|> If a group calling itself "Republican Steering Commitee" calls for
|> "sending all niggers back to Africa", and there are no outcries of
|> repudiation from Republicans in general, would it not be reasonable for
|> most people to think all Republicans are racist assholes???

If a group calling itself the "Republican National Policy" says that all
homosexual are sinners, and there are no outcries of repudiation, would it
be reasonable for people to think that all republicans are homophobes?
No, there is not.


|>     >So, Phil, was does most of the public not like lesbians?
|> 
|> I don't know if they do or not. Do they?


You do seem to think that the public does not like gay men, why don't you
ask your source of information for that statement about it?


FWA