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: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:03:41 GMT
Keywords: Nyikos failing other arguments goes for guilt by association

In article <nyikos.715465492@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Aug29.135948.22535@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> 
> >In article <nyikos.715043800@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> >> [Dan King wrote] 
> >> >Were the pro-lifers picketing the house because he was involved in 
> >> >child pornography (an illegal act), or were they picketing the house
> >> >because he performed abortions (A legal act).
> >> 
> >> Don't assume the abortions were legal.  Here in Columbia almost every
> >> abortionist has done 2nd trimester abortions in his clinic, and some
> >> even admit it openly, even though South Carolina law says all 2nd 
> >> trimester abortions must be done either in a hospital or a licensed
> >> clinic, and not one of the clinics in South Carolina is licensed.
> 
> >Here we see that Nyikos has no facts on which to accuse the doctor
> >in question of performing illegal abortions, so he posts idle
> >speculation in the guise of facts.
> 
> You're missing my point.  You said A.  I said, don't 
> assume A, there's also possibility B.  Now B may be idle
> speculation, but I did not disguise it as a fact.

"May be idle speculation?"  Haven't you got the guts to just admit
that it was speculation, or to say something directly?

You know, there have been bombings of clinics, and there are
quite a few pro-life people who think that is okay.  And there
are pro-life people who have fired guns at doctors who perform
abortions and many who have not fired guns at these doctors but
who think doing so is okay.  So don't assume that Peter Nyikos
hasn't been out there shooting doctors and bombing clinics.
Now that may be just idle speculation, but then again it may
not.
> 
> >> As to why the pro-lifers were picketing, I don't know, but judging
> >> from the pro-lifers I know, they were probably protesting both acts.
> >> Certainly if they knew about all his sleazy porn business, they would
> >> have been protesting both.
> 
> >Here we see that Nyikos has no information on the matter at all, but
> >just speculates that his side would do the right thing if they
> >knew what it was.  Again, pure speculation and no information.
> 
> Not speculation.  Based on a great deal of experience, although I
> should have worded the above differently: all the pro-lifers I know,
> had they known about all the sleazy porn business, would have been
> protesting both.  And I know over a hundred pro-lifers from all
> across the country.

You just said you don't know if they were protesting the child
molesting.  You said it right there.  Read it.  As I said, you
have no information on that at all but simply speculate about it.

> I've seen real speculation from the pro-choice side.  People
> calling me a misogynist, a liar, a man associating with terrorists, 
> an unprincipled man, a man lacking integrity--that's real speculation.
> None of it backed up by a shred of evidence, nor with valid comparisons to
> people who do fit the above descriptions. 

That was all based on your own words.  That was interpretation of
your attitudes as expressed by you in your postings here.  Your
postings themselves provide the direct evidence and those who
posted their interpretations quoted your own words and stated
their reasons for the conclusions they drew.  You, on the other
hand, take a newspaper article about an event and make
assumptions based on far-flung and very indirect "evidence."
There's a big difference there.

Dean Kaflowitz
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:34549 alt.abortion.inequity:3415