From: dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi)
Subject: Re: Defending Dahmer Wasn't Satire
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:24:55 GMT

In article <13065@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
)In article <Bx8CBx.4ys@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
)> In article <1992Nov2.173140.7338@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
)# #The equating of vileness and evil to an opponent is a basic building
)# #block of your lynch mobs and progroms -- i.e., "All niggers are ..." or
)# #"All Jews are ...".
)# 
)# And isn't this what Clayton is doing with his never-ending efforts to
)# associate homosexuality with evil?  What is the point of his digging up
)# statistics to show that there is a higher proportion of child molestors
)# among gay men than among straight men?
)
)To demonstrate that there are legitimate reasons to discriminate
)against homosexuals, at least in jobs that involve being in charge
)of children.

I came across the following in the latest Playboy:

	According to a report based on a decade of research into
	pedophilia ("The Cruelest Crime," published in Life in 1984), a
	disproportionate number of pedophiles are outwardly religious.

By your reasoning, it would be legitimate to discriminate against the
openly religious; to trust only atheists, agnostics, and religionists
who don't flaunt it in positions that involve being in charge of
children.  I can't remember you ever having claimed to belong to any
religion, so I expect this would be no skin off your nose personally.
Still...  Would you support such policies against openly religious
people with anything like the zeal with which you support such policies
against homosexuals?

)# What is the point of his mining
)# soc.motss for things he can (mis)interpret as support for Jeffrey
)# Dahmer?
)
)To demonstrate that homosexuals are NOT healthy, well-adjusted
)people who just have different sexual preferences.

...with the ultimate goal of justifying discrimination and prejudice
against them.  I can only judge from the example I saw you post, and
that example could only be interpreted as support for Dahmer by
somebody who *wants* *badly* to find support for Dahmer in it.

)# Consider two kinds of people:
)# (1) Those who rarely experience moral outrage.
)# (2) Those who frequently do.
)# 
)# Which kind are most likely to form lynch mobs?  Which kind are most
)# likely to build concentration camps and carry out genocides?
)
)The concentration camp operators were among the least morally
)outraged people in history -- which is what makes it so disturbing.
)We aren't surprised when people at the heights of irrational
)passions do horrible things -- we are more horrified when someone
)engages in a methodical, organized, carefully thought out program
)of genocide.

We can't judge the strength or the nature of the emotions that led the
people of a state to demand capital punishment from the calmness of the
excutioner who pulls the switch.  Similarly, we can't judge the
emotions that led to the concentration camps from the lack of emotion
among their operators.

What were the feelings of the people who supported the rounding up and
transport of Jews?  What were the feelings of the people who supported
the creation of the concentration camps?  There were (and still are)
stories circulating about Jewish conspiracies, which enable anybody so
inclined to believe more easily that Jews are villains, and to justify
policies harmful to them.  (Similar to the way some people use tales of
homosexual mass murderers and child molesters today.) How easy would it
have been to get people to support such things without first convincing
them that Jews deserved it?
-- 
David Canzi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc