| | Luke,-
Since you claim to know Jim Peron so well, I only need you to answer one question, Rick: Did Jim Peron openly advocate sexual relations between adults and children? If no, then please explain how he managed to get himself into this position of having so many fingers pointing at him saying that he did. Am I really supposed to believe a conspiracy theory?
My apartment was half-way between Jim's bookstore and PC's house and both were ports of call now and again in the course of Libz activism. I know neither of the two better than the other nor am I more the friend of one over the other. In my experience neither of them eat green eggs and ham, eat their cereal with a fork, have framed Roger Rabbit nor openly advocate sexual relations between adults and children.
Kelly,- I see you standing up for a friend and that is a value I hold. I admire that. We have common ground here, but unfortunately little else. Well there's a newsflash for me. Peron, Perigo, Cresswell and Andrew Bates too for that matter are unique in having made me angrier than a cut snake at one time or another over the last few years and yet I can never see a future where I would choose to dispense with any of them. But I wouldn't count myself as a friend to any of them, and if I did I would be acting to help Peron right now rather than yapping passively.
In this case, "No damn homage. No damn demigod." Strikeout!
Here again I have noticed that you and I don't interpret the same world in the same way.
Robert Winefield? Rick Giles wrote "especially don't like the way your Winefield-types keep doing the same by way of paying homage to the demigods of power" As for the rest, I am used to being accused of begin a Perigo-lackey, it is a tired concept and no longer has any sting.
You've changed man. Seems like only yesterday you wanted to settle the flag burning debate with a fist fight. Has hell frozen over or what? Whoever stopped the sting by finally taking the lid off this jar of maturity....I loosened the lid for them! What this debate needs is some over-the-top berserker on your side of the field to score own goals and bring the team into disrepute. Will I never say 'Whingefield' again?
Ms Kat,- Pedophilia is NOT a sexual fetish and child pornography is NOT a matter of free expression
You're twice wrong. Even the extremes of sadism and depravity that can be found in man are at liberty if man is at liberty- and so it must be. Initiating force to serve this depravity though, ah, that is another matter. But to uphold the Objectivist principles of sexual freedom and free expression you need to separate liberty from your rising bile- because these are two things, not one. You need to be able to say the Voltare line, without circumstantial exception.
Cresswell writes: Barring entry to those that advocate genuine crimes is a legitimate function of government. I would expect you to know that too. I find it striking that PC keeps giving life to this subject, that perhaps he protests too much? No idea why. Little or no idea either as to why the Otago Friends of Jesus have pursued this either! I'm guessing that the word "odium" doesn't generate enough containment to hold the hate, you need words strong enough to support suspension bridges, words like "pedophile". Sometimes I get into fights too but I've never seen fit to initiate an international research project inquiring into my adversary's sexual allegiances. Don't cross the Scarfies! They play for keeps.
This Cresswell policy reminds me of a movie called Minority Report where the premise had Tom Cruise incarcerating 'criminals' for their 'future crimes'. This is in contrast to the huge costs in time and money our own non-fictional constabulary invests in watching and waiting to catch criminals in the act.
What other crimes might one advocate in order to be guilty under the Cresswellian "Pre-Crime" policy? If being an advocate of pedophilia is wrong, how much worse is socialism advocacy? Deport also all Comunists, for they advocate great evil also. Deport Rousseau, Marx, Socrates, Aristotle, Locke and all the other philosophers who are not like us because theirs is the fountianhead of all evil and this will stop them (although each and all of those men were sentenced to exile, and how'd that work out for the enemies of their ideas?).
The people I'm speaking to know where this is going, I needn't develope the argument more, you know I can. If you order your state to start deporting people for the content of their advocacy you'll very soon have a great dearth of population. The last New Zealander will have to deport himself.
Well that's a hypothetical debate that doesn't pertain to anybody I know. But if I'm wrong then at least there's the consolation of having a Cresswellian Commisar without sin. He without sin can cast the first stone for me which I, being an imperfect Objectivist at best, cannot do- could you?
|
|