Will NOW Defend This Woman

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When the  did NOW support those? Got a link?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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 didn't see anything on Lorenna Bobbit. That was dumb of them to support Yates, but they were just doing it because they oppose the death penalty for the mentally ill.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well Jfern, since you have failed to answer, I assume you are reserving the right to defend NOW even if they defended Andrea Yates.  If that were the case, why did you ask for links in the first place, implying that what I was saying was not true, rather than that you support something that is truly reprehensible.

BTW, here are two links.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/front/1021312
http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment082801a.shtml

And here's one on the Bobbitt case.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1562

Gee, sorry that I GOOGLED myself instead of waiting for your right-wing links.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, NOW is run by some morons. However, they don't have the power or extremism of Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

John Brown was almost surely insane. Does anyone actually think he should not have gotten the death penalty?

Yeah, most non pro-slavery southerners.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, NOW is run by some morons. However, they don't have the power or extremism of Falwell, Robertson, or Dobson.

No, they actually have a lot more power.  And even if they don't, that makes it OK for them to take reprehensible positions? 

What do you think their position would have been if the father, rather than the mother, had murdered those children?  I think I know the answer to that question, and it speaks volumes about the integrity of NOW.

What more do you need to know about NOW besides that they're run by morons?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Dazzzleman, you're one of my favourite posters on a lot of things but I can't tell why you go after this issue so much.  I mean, it pisses me off too but it seems like half of your topics are about feminism.  Why is it such a huge issue to you?

Dazzleman doesn't actually stand for anything, he just stands against straw man stuff.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[Why don't YOU explain who Annie Sprinkle is? Her name makes me think of a porn star.

Exactly.  This is a standard BRTD tactic.  When he's wrong on the overall question, which is basically all the time, he starts to argue over some obscure detail.

I don't know who Annie Sprinkle is, and I couldn't care less.

No, he's just not allowing you to generalize your straw man argument.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[Why don't YOU explain who Annie Sprinkle is? Her name makes me think of a porn star.

Exactly.  This is a standard BRTD tactic.  When he's wrong on the overall question, which is basically all the time, he starts to argue over some obscure detail.

I don't know who Annie Sprinkle is, and I couldn't care less.

No, he's just not allowing you to generalize your straw man argument.

If somebody argued that the Nazis were anti-Jewish, BRTD would find one Nazi party member who had a Jewish friend, and to him that would be "proof" that the Nazis weren't anti-Jewish.  I guess I shouldn't generalize about the Nazis though; I'm sure there were a few who supported the cause for reasons other than anti-Semitism.  It would be a straw man argument to claim that they were anti-Jewish.

Wow, another straw man argument. Of course BRTD wouldn't argue that the Nazis were anti-Jewish you straw manning fool.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why would I defend Nazis? I absolutely hate them, and that's why I would've supported the anti-Nazi resistance movements in Europe who killed anyone who supported or sympathized with them.

Ironic that he committed another straw man after being attacked for having only straw men arguments.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Exceptions do not undermine a general statement. I'm sorry anything that contradicts your world view is a 'straw man' in jFraud world.

Sad that you resort to using insults developed by Mr. 94%-heads-and-94%-correlations-are-always-statistically-insignificant.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, another straw man argument. Of course BRTD wouldn't argue that the Nazis were anti-Jewish you straw manning fool.

Of course he wouldn't, because Nazis aren't on the approved list for liberals.  Feminists are.  You people are completely incapable of thinking for yourselves.  The principle is the same, if either of you were intelligent enough to recognize it, which you are not.

Yeah, if we were really intelligent we would mindlessly bash feminists and liberals with straw man arguments.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You have yet to dispute the accuracy of the analogy. Simply calling something a straw man again and again because of an aspect that was not being compared does not qualify as a serious argument of any kind.

It has been explained to you several times. You just can't process information properly.

So feminists are Nazis? Then Godwin's Law, he loses.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Please look up what an analogy is and try again. Hint: it doesn't mean every aspect of the two is the same.

Comparing feminists to Nazis makes you lose.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[○∙◄☻¥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.