On 2008-05-19 07:22 +0100, stephen allegedly wrote:
> On May 18, 9:55 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Don't loose your patience. I will not necessarily read your verbose
> postings. You impose the work of condensation on your reader that you
> should be performing mentally or on screen.I haven't complained about
> that, so please don't complain if I don't respond until you repeat
> your point a few times.
Now aren't we ****ing grand!!
It just so happens that lies or misconceptions take but one sentence to
state, but many sentences to refute in a comprehensive way. I do
undertake the effort to correct your misconceptions (for your sake as
much as everyone else's), which does take quite some writing especially
due to the pseudo-intellectual talk you wrap them in -- and you manage
to twist that into me having to be THANKFUL for your NOT COMPLAINING
about it!!!
You sure are one hell of a rhetor, Mr. Diamond. I'm wondering however
whether you actually do manage to fool anybody by it.
> Homo***uality has been a threat to socialism because homo***uals,
> persecuted and discontent, have gravitated toward the socialist
> movement. The result has been that the Op****tunist socialist movement--
> almost across the board--has raised reactionary demands like sup****t
> for gay marriage and in general, presented the task of ***ual
> liberation as though it were a demand. Of course, such demands are
> what homo***uals demand of the socialist movement.
>
> I am against the gay liberation program raised by Op****tunist
> socialists--from the Spartacist League to the old U.S. SWP--because it
> is a diversion and an artificial wedge within the working class
> (around the "social conservatism" issue). Since gay liberation is in
> substantial part the effort of gays--and since I think gays will and
> do advocate gay liberation, as a very part of their pathology--gays
> are therefore a threat to socialism, in just the sense described.
So, in a nutshell, homo***uality is a threat to socialism because there
are op****tunist socialist movements.
I must admit I'm speechless.
-.-
The fight for the freedom of ***ual acts, restrained only by the
conditio sine qua non of mutual consent, has to be an integral part of
any socialist movement's program. This goes for all types of
intercourse, between people of the same *** as well as between adults
and minors. As long as there are laws against homo***ual intercourse,
these have to be fought against, not as specific "gay" issue, but as a
subdivision of the general human issue. Anything further than that,
"marriages" or especially that reactionary "affirmative action" crap,
has no place in a socialist movement. Whether it is raised by
homo***uals or green men from Mars doesn't matter.
SRD has blatantly failed to bring up any sensible argument against this.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
