| | Peter,
I do not believe that I have ever defended Peron. I have, however, used the Peron affair as an existential example of the application of certain principles of politics, such as Rand's "least attractive practitioner" principle; the danger of substituting the subjective opinion of a "Chief Censor" for principled judicial analysis (giving Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as an example of the latter,) the danger of non-objective law, of a lack of due process etc. And, exactly per the "least attractive practitioner" principle as identified by Ayn Rand, I've seen people of whom I expected better turn blind to principles, and to the content of the discussion, and sling counterfactual accusations and attempted smears in my direction.
Even your demand for the statement I just supplied seems to have been meant in precisely that way. In my first post on the case, I wrote that "There is no (court-tested) evidence that Peron ever abused an actual child, or that he collaborated in some way (such as buying child pornography produced by actual sexual abuse of a child) with actual abusers." It should have been obvious from that sentence, to anyone with grade-school reading skills, that I consider abusing an actual child, or buying child pornography produced by actual sexual abuse of a child, cause enough for criminal punishment. Your demand for another explicit statement was either a dishonest attempt to perpetrate a smear, or a demonstration of the effectiveness of the "least attractive practitioner" principle at work.
I don't care at this point which one it was. However, I do not recall that you, Peter Cresswell, ever stated explicitly your opinion on the question on which you demanded mine. Please do so, and I will consider it an adequate apology.
(Edited by Adam Reed
on 7/23, 12:14am)
|
|
