Re: How low can you sink? [WAS: Re: HAARP: High Frequency Active

On 2008-05-19 05:56 +0100, stephen allegedly wrote:
> On May 18, 5:37 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>  wrote:
>> On 2008-05-19 02:06 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
>> 
>>> But what an individual does in bed with a consenting adult human 
>>> being is his own business - if a socialist he belongs, if he so 
>>> choses, in a socialist organisation.
>> Exactly. Yet it seems that according to SRD, homo***uality 
>> invalidates that.
>> 
> Whether a homo***ual practices, abstains, or pretends to conform has
>  no effect on my *****sment. So homo***uality doesn't invalidate the
>  right to participate in chosen ***ual activity.

My statement wasn't about the ***ual activity, but about the "if a
socialist he belongs, if he so choses, in a socialist organisation".


> The most extreme measure that could be contemplated is to exclude 
> homo***uals from the party. I don't advocate this.

Don't you.


> Consider that I compared conspirativists to homo***ual activists.

I very much considered that -- as a prodding the limits of good taste
(and overstepping those of rationality).


> Yet, I'm not inclined to exclude conspirativists.

Aren't you.

But you are inclined to exclude "conspirativism"... which you made up...
which is a "defence against an underlying paranoid psychosis"... which
is, as a vision just told you, equivalent, with respects to its
determination, to homo***uality... because that, too, is a "defence
against an underlying paranoid psychosis"...

Riiiight.


> I certainly wouldn't want to see vngelis excluded.

Why not? You said he's crazy. What's there to be gained from a crazed
individual?


> But the leader****p should absolutely refuse to humor him on his 
> conspirativist delusions. (Or concede even a blink of attention to 
> homo***ual members who insist the party take up gay rights.{
> 
> But consider, even if homo***uals were excluded, it still wouldn't 
> violate your principle.

"My" principle?


> Exclusion wouldn't depend on conduct but traits.

I cannot even begin to imagine a situation where that would be the right
thing to do.


> (I don't say, for example, that occasional acts of homo***uality 
> necessarily indicate anything.

SIC!


> More like they represent a borderline personality disorder or traits
>  rather than actual homo***uality.) A strong additional argument 
> against exclusion is it would require applying a diagnosis.

Yes... I imagine how YOU would have trouble with that, Mr. "clinical
expert".

> 
> srd

.... Well, well. The least I can say is this all has been a rather
edifying exchange so far.

But you are STILL avoiding what for me has been, as repeatedly noted,
the primary issue. You have proclaimed homo***uality per se to be
a _threat_ to socialism per se. I am STILL waiting for you to elaborate
on and to back that claim. I shall ask you one more time but I have to
admit I'm beginning to lose my patience over this.


-- 
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"