From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The Claytoon on the Couch (was Re: Stereotyping)
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:18:26 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <1992Aug19.140250.416@tc.cornell.edu> shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <c#!nkxp.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
    >Try reading the material you quote, Phool. I realize that
    >there are actually several sentences there and they contain
    >punctuation, but I'll bet that if you really, really put your
    >mind to it you just might be able to understand it.
    >
    >Actually, now that I think about it that seems unlikely.
    >Allow me, then, to spell it out for you. You and Claytoon are
    >opposed to antidiscrimination [sorry about having to use a
    >big word, there] laws protecting gay and lesbian people
    >because you feel that it would violate your right to freedom
    >of association. Yet Claytoon doesn't acknowledge the right of
    >NAMBLA members to freedom of association. Claytoon is a
    >lying, hypocritical pig. Claytoon wants to exercise prior
    >restraint. Claytoon doesn't sound like any kind of
    >libertarian I've ever heard of.

Well, Melissa, both Clayton and I are against racist laws, whether you
call them "antidiscrimination laws" or "racial purity laws" or whatever.
And, Miranda, it is not a case of "feeling" that such laws interfere with
FOA, such laws DO violate FOA.

And yes, Monica, Clayton does not acknowledge the right of NAMBLA members
to FOA -- that is, he has not specifically come out and said that he
supports the right of men that want sex with little boys to associate.
However, I am sure that he does support their right to assemble. I notice
that Clayton has also not supported the right of paroled murderers to
associate either, but I am sure he does. I am even sure that he supports
the right of children that "debate" by mangling the names of people (with
a malicious intent). Do you understand that, Moronica?

Since you seem to be rather incapable of rational debate, let me do this
for you:

1. Clayton, do you support FOA for NAMBLA-ists? I.e., as long as they aren't
   doing anything illegal, do they have the right to get together, on
   their own property etc. and do whatever?

2. Clayton, do you wish to exercise (I assume Mincebrain mean coercively)
   any kind of prior restraint against NAMBLA, in either FOA or FOS?

Now, when Clayton answers these questions, Melody, perhaps you'll
answer a few in turn.

1. Clayton is a not a pig. Why do you call hum one? Have you had a long
   term dysfunctional pesonality that causes you to do this. Or does
   the truth upset that much?

2. You called him a lying pig. Now, in my expereince, when a real lie gets
   told, the person calling it generally posts the rebuttal. Those with
   no rebuttal just call names. Well, Marianne?






-- 
phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)

"I can't get no satisfaction ...", M. Jagger
"Yeah, right, tell me another one Mick.", P. Ronzone

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em!  (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:40676 talk.politics.theory:3740 alt.politics.elections:10979 alt.politics.marrou:844 alt.politics.bush:2175