Will NOW Defend This Woman

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Apparently one can only be a true feminist if s/he likes sex.

They do not neccesarily have to like it, but they must be tolerant of it.

Some radical "feminists" have even attacked homosexual groups, over things such as lesbian erotica. Anyone who holds such positions is not a liberal.

Apparently one can only be a true liberal if s/he likes sex.

You do not need to "like" it, but you must be tolerant of it.

And what I meant by that statment is that no homophobe is a liberal.

[Alcon]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

If I called you a Nazi because of your moderation, wouldn't you agree that that would be a stupid attack? And Godwin's law is totally about that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

How is that relevant?

[Everett]

Apparently one can only be a true feminist if s/he likes sex.

They do not neccesarily have to like it, but they must be tolerant of it.

Some radical "feminists" have even attacked homosexual groups, over things such as lesbian erotica. Anyone who holds such positions is not a liberal.

Apparently one can only be a true liberal if s/he likes sex.

You do not need to "like" it, but you must be tolerant of it.

And what I meant by that statment is that no homophobe is a liberal.

Then explain to me how my deadbeat liberal father is a die-hard homophobe but my more conservative mother is more sympathetic towards gays/lesbians.

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

If I called you a Nazi because of your moderation, wouldn't you agree that that would be a stupid attack? And Godwin's law is totally about that.

Yeah, like wow, like, oh my god, totally.

[phk]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

How is that relevant?

It isn't.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Apparently one can only be a true feminist if s/he likes sex.

They do not neccesarily have to like it, but they must be tolerant of it.

Some radical "feminists" have even attacked homosexual groups, over things such as lesbian erotica. Anyone who holds such positions is not a liberal.

Apparently one can only be a true liberal if s/he likes sex.

You do not need to "like" it, but you must be tolerant of it.

And what I meant by that statment is that no homophobe is a liberal.

Then explain to me how my deadbeat liberal father is a die-hard homophobe but my more conservative mother is more sympathetic towards gays/lesbians.

then your father is not a true liberal and you are probably confusing "liberal" with "populist"

[Everett]

Apparently one can only be a true feminist if s/he likes sex.

They do not neccesarily have to like it, but they must be tolerant of it.

Some radical "feminists" have even attacked homosexual groups, over things such as lesbian erotica. Anyone who holds such positions is not a liberal.

Apparently one can only be a true liberal if s/he likes sex.

You do not need to "like" it, but you must be tolerant of it.

And what I meant by that statment is that no homophobe is a liberal.

Then explain to me how my deadbeat liberal father is a die-hard homophobe but my more conservative mother is more sympathetic towards gays/lesbians.

then your father is not a true liberal and you are probably confusing "liberal" with "populist"

He isn't a populist, BRTD. He has very similar views to yours. No wonder he sucked at staying married, eh?

You are confusing "liberal" with "open-minded" and "tolerant", be as it may.

[Alcon]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

How is that relevant?

Because you are implying that Godwin's law makes what he says worth not replying to; this is blatantly untrue.  You are apparently saying that his point is moot because it is predicted by Godwin's law.  Since when does a predictable reply mean you do not have to respond to it?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Apparently one can only be a true feminist if s/he likes sex.

They do not neccesarily have to like it, but they must be tolerant of it.

Some radical "feminists" have even attacked homosexual groups, over things such as lesbian erotica. Anyone who holds such positions is not a liberal.

Apparently one can only be a true liberal if s/he likes sex.

You do not need to "like" it, but you must be tolerant of it.

And what I meant by that statment is that no homophobe is a liberal.

Then explain to me how my deadbeat liberal father is a die-hard homophobe but my more conservative mother is more sympathetic towards gays/lesbians.

then your father is not a true liberal and you are probably confusing "liberal" with "populist"

He isn't a populist, BRTD. He has very similar views to yours. No wonder he sucked at staying married, eh?

You are confusing "liberal" with "open-minded" and "tolerant", be as it may.

So what are some of his socially liberal views?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

How is that relevant?

Because you are implying that Godwin's law makes what he says worth not replying to; this is blatantly untrue.  You are apparently saying that his point is moot because it is predicted by Godwin's law.  Since when does a predictable reply mean you do not have to respond to it?

I don't think that Godwin predicted that dazzleman would compare feminists to Nazis.

[Alcon]

If I was losing, my opponent in this argument would at least be making points instead of repeating stupid slogans like "you lose." Exceptions do not undermine a general rule in either case.

It's obvious that if you compare feminists to Nazis, you lose from Godwin's law.

Godwin's law makes no judgement on whether it is a good or bad thing that Godwin's law exists.

How is that relevant?

Because you are implying that Godwin's law makes what he says worth not replying to; this is blatantly untrue.  You are apparently saying that his point is moot because it is predicted by Godwin's law.  Since when does a predictable reply mean you do not have to respond to it?

I don't think that Godwin predicted that dazzleman would compare feminists to Nazis.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (i.e. certainty)."

He did, more or less.

But the point is, what does Godwin's Law have to do with his comment, and how does it make it any less valid?

EDIT:  I am, by the way, not arguing that it is valid.  I am just arguing that Godwin's Law is irrelevant to its validity.

[A18]

Godwin's law does not 'prove' anything. Try following a discussion.

The comparison is all about general rules and exceptions. The fact that a generalization about Nazism does not apply to specific Nazis does not mean the generalization is false. The same logic applies to feminists. You have to dispute the percentages. Instead, you're pointing to exceptions, which is an erroneous argument.

[Everett]

Apparently one can only be a true feminist if s/he likes sex.

They do not neccesarily have to like it, but they must be tolerant of it.

Some radical "feminists" have even attacked homosexual groups, over things such as lesbian erotica. Anyone who holds such positions is not a liberal.

Apparently one can only be a true liberal if s/he likes sex.

You do not need to "like" it, but you must be tolerant of it.

And what I meant by that statment is that no homophobe is a liberal.

Then explain to me how my deadbeat liberal father is a die-hard homophobe but my more conservative mother is more sympathetic towards gays/lesbians.

then your father is not a true liberal and you are probably confusing "liberal" with "populist"

He isn't a populist, BRTD. He has very similar views to yours. No wonder he sucked at staying married, eh?

You are confusing "liberal" with "open-minded" and "tolerant", be as it may.

So what are some of his socially liberal views?

You still haven't answered my original question, which was explaining to me how my very liberal father could be a terrible homophobe whereas my conservative mother is very nice to gays/lesbians. Since you apparently don't want to answer it and are instead trying to lead me in a completely different direction, I'll answer it for you. It's simply proof that liberalism != open-mindedness.

I won't continue this discussion because it's a really sad waste of time arguing with someone who has an incredibly thick skull when I could just as well be studying and accomplishing something productive. But as for your latest question: hold up a mirror. Think of your own social views. That is the answer to your question.

Before I follow dazzleman out the Internet door into the realm of Having An Actual Life And Not Continuing To Post In A Trainwreck Of An Internet Forum Thread, I will make one more statement - this thread is a comedy goldmine in the negative sense.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My point is I do not consider your father a true liberal and that since he is not a social liberal he is therefore a populist since I assume your claim that he is liberal is based on his economic views.

You claim his views are just like mine, but since I support gay rights and gay marriage, this is not possible. So I wonder what his views on social issues are.

[A18]

You can be a homophobe and 'support' gay marriage, just like you can hate blacks and 'support' black marriage.

[opebo]

When the  did NOW support those? Got a link?

Before I post a link, will you agree that it would be reprehensible for NOW to have rallied to the support of Andrea Yates?

I certainly don't agree.  I'd be all for Yates getting her day in court, and if I were a woman and therefore potentially in her shoes, I'd like to see post-partum depression recognized as a mental illness.

Also, what was wrong with Bobbit cutting off her husband's penis?  It seems to me fair retaliation for abuse, and anyway he took his chances by getting married/involved.  Personally I'm all for the State staying out of such intimate personal affairs - any reasonable person would expect a violent, even murderous result from such unecessary intimacies.

[nclib]

(Columbia) August 19, 2005 - A 24-year-old South Carolina State student was arrested Thursday and charged with unlawful conduct towards a child.
An arrest warrant states Miama Rebecca Kromah cut the scrotum of her three-year-old stepson with a sharp object.

Lt. Chris Cowan with the Richland County Sheriff's Department says it's one of the most horrific cases of child abuse investigators say they've seen in a while.

Deputies say Kromah came to Palmetto Richland on Monday night with her three year old stepson who had a three inch laceration on his scrotum, and the testicle was protruding from the scrotum.

Kromah told the hospital the child was not in her care when he sustained the injuries. However, further investigation by the Richland County Deputies and a statement taken from the three-year-old victim identifies Kromah as the person who caused the injury.

Deputies say Kromah is a native of Liberia and here on a student visa. The three year old's father is also here from Liberia on a work student visa, he was not home at the time of the incident.

The boy was transported to Lexington Medical Center and then to Palmetto Richland Hospital for surgery. After receiving treatment for his injuries, the boy was taken into emergency protective custody and turned over to DSS.

Deputies are now trying to figure out what could have led her to this violent act.

With this (limited) information, I doubt NOW would defend this woman.

[MODU]

Sounds like this woman should be tied to the stake.

[migrendel]

I don't think dazzleman's typically puerile analysis is what should concern us. I'm far more interested in whether castration has any cultural significance in Liberia. Unless there is a mental defect to be considered, this is an obviously criminal act. However, I think a circumspect judge would consider the mitgating anthropological factors carefully before pronouncing a sentence.

[dazzleman]

I don't think dazzleman's typically puerile analysis is what should concern us. I'm far more interested in whether castration has any cultural significance in Liberia. Unless there is a mental defect to be considered, this is an obviously criminal act. However, I think a circumspect judge would consider the mitgating anthropological factors carefully before pronouncing a sentence.

Coming from you migrendel, I take that as high praise.  Thank you.

As far as your analysis goes, and what you find most important in the matter, that speaks for itself.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Did NOW ever defend this woman?

[Meeker]

A Google search says "No."

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Did you need to bump a 3 year old thread?