Replies

I've always wondered if those who infer unspoken "issues" in others aren't simply projecting their own.

The "issues" Luis is refering to are FAR FROM "unspoken".

We see these issues posted week after week in repeated and unecessarily graphic discriptions of acts which are "projected" onto these boards...and NOT by Luis.

Everybody I know agrees that the guy who is constantly obsessed with calling people "fags" and "homos" and trying to impress everybody with how much he hates them..and is ALWAYS describing obscene acts, is the one suspected of having real personal issues.
And rightly so.

"We see these issues posted week after week in repeated and unecessarily graphic discriptions of acts which are "projected" onto these boards"

Unnecessarily graphic? Does that mean that they are offensive?

There is an entirely rational motive behind those graphic descriptions. When one is being propagandized and arm-twisted into accepting a thing as normal, natural, and benign, the true nature of that thing is pertinent.

The pervofascist activists, of course, would much rather euphemize away any accurate images of just what it is they're demanding we legitimize. Repeated graphic descriptions, therefore, are an entirely appropriate response to their tactics.

"Everybody I know agrees"

Whenever I see that, I know:

1. The writer is too ideologically rigid to allow much diversity of opinion among his acquaintances.
2. The writer is philosophically unsophisticated enough to think that constitutes support for an argument.
3. The writer is getting ready to spout some mindless PC cliche.

I can't think of a single debatable issue on which all my acquaintances agree. We can always have a lively discussion of *something* from differing standpoints, and without rancor.

The piece of sophistry under discussion here rests on one premise: that the graphic nature of references to homosexual practices and the frequency with which the matter is addressed indicate an unhealthy preoccupation with the subject.

I dealt with the graphic nature of descriptions above.

With regard to frequency, the supposedly suspect comments are invariably--and I do mean invariably--a *response* to some speech or action that reflects activism in support of the pervofascist agenda.

Far from obsessing on the matter, normal people tend to put it out of their minds until the *next* provocation, to which they may or may not post a response.

Sorry, no signs of preoccupation or obsession there.

This little poison dart is just one more way to try and discredit opposition, a transparent ploy to shift discussion from the substance of the matter (Should SSAD be legitimized?) to an irrelevancy.