Subject:
|
Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 17:09:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
738 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > *Sigh* Still no answer.
> >
> > *sigh* Still no reading comprehension.
>
> Oops. I take back what I just wrote.
>
>
> > However, if it will make you shut up, here's an example of a lie:
>
> But Larry, you know it won't.
>
> > "the LP is a White Man's Club"
> >
> > If you had retracted that statement after it was shown to be false (one
> > nonwhite member or female member disproves it, and surely you aren't going
> > to say the LP has none)
>
> I disagree. (I also disagree with Scott's assertion about the LP.)
>
> An organization coule be essentially a "white man's club" and still have a
> token black lady as a member. Surely you recognize that. But this doesn't
> describe the LP even if membership is fairly dominated by white (whatever that
> is) males.
"the LP is a White Man's Club" was caricature which is now being taken out
of context. I know that. Larry knows that. When I used the phrase I was
questioned on the race issue. I was able to rapidly find two instances where
the LP’s view on race is questionable - but I said it was *not* a racist
party. I agree with you when you argue that a pure libertarian party, by its
very nature, should theoretically have no racists in it. But the LP is *not*
that. Take a look at Larry’s “unscientific” poll post. You will see that
there is quite a range of views in the party, and quite a few of them are
divergent with views I would expect a pure libertarian party to have. I
expect that there are a few pure libertarians in the party, but there will
be others who have there own personal agenda (lower taxes, decriminalising
drugs or federal paranoids for example).
Perhaps Larry can now apologise.
Scott A
>
> > and apologised, that would be one thing. But you
> > used it repeatedly, starting a big messy war, and you continue to use it to
> > this day as an insult even though it is false.
>
> Since your logic (of one black lady as a member) doesn't disprove Scott's
> assertion, I think it will take more work to say that this is a lie. Actually,
> I think it's Scott's slanted communitarian opinion, but not really a lie. And
> I think he's wrong, not because of any trends in actual membership, but because
> the LP would be adamantly opposed to practices designed to limit membership
> based either on ethnicity or sex. Those practices are what defind our
> understanding of "white man's club."
>
> > That's a deliberate lie, repeated many times on your part for derogatory
> > effect, not just an accidental misstatement retracted as soon as it was
> > shown to be inaccurate.
>
> I certainly agree that was intentionally derogatory and repeated to either
> damage the LP (less likely) or to set your underwear on fire (much more
> likely).
>
> some thoughts,
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Ok, show me where I have lied? Or apologise.
|
| (...) Oops. I take back what I just wrote. (...) But Larry, you know it won't. (...) I disagree. (I also disagree with Scott's assertion about the LP.) An organization coule be essentially a "white man's club" and still have a token black lady as a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
