new blogs

ck; also,

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Homosexuals, masquerading as "libertarians"--they're really just fascist, little punks (as u always knew)....

Ho ho ho: below-copied are couple of notes I've sent to the web-master/owner of, a web-site/forum for discussion ostensibly for "libertarians," but actually for homosexuals--which I didn't know when I first signed-up, but found-out soon enough, as one might easily verify.  Below text should be sufficiently self-explanatory, including for references to particular discussion threads (esp. in the note sent on 2 May).

Homosexuals are really just narcissist-fascists, also obsessive-compulsives addicted to sense-gratification, well-enough demonstrated in below-copied notes, I think.  If u want a good laugh, ck out the lead posting, titled "Seven things...," for the thread cited below, by Nystrom.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[just below sent earlier, on the 4th, May, Monday]

Note my previous msg, sent 2 days ago, copied below--

What's ur problem, Nystrom?

Do u imagine "libertarians" must necessarily tolerate homosexuals?  I note u still haven't replied to my below-copied complaint about ur enforcer, "JennyWren," who obviously didn't consider herself capable of a rational dialectic, so she simply banned someone (me) who was in midst of contending against her thesis--that homosexuals are the very arbiters of the free society.

Isn't this a topic/issue that deserves full exposition?--why was my side of the debate to be cut-off without the fair, rational opportunity for rebuttal?

Don't doubt I intend to bring this fascist repression on part of homosexuals (which is, AGAIN, certainly within ur rights as owner/proprietor to tolerate or not as u prefer--it's still fascist (irrational) action on part of abusive moderator, working according to ur instruction, evidently, even though, again, it's ur right to be so fascist and irrational--the real question/issue is whether the philosophy, and ur policy, is compatible w. libertarianism--it's something to be debated, aside fm any smug declarations u may feel it expedient to spout as part of ur excuse not to so debate/discuss) up for discussion on ur forum--should I be given the opportunity--which opportunity should be considered perfectly fair topic for discussion--why wouldn't it be?  How is it this topic--about legitimacy of homosexuals--would be "off-limits"?  Why would ANYTHING necessarily be "off-limits"?

So (polemic) ball's in ur court, Nystrom--what's the problem?--u gays are simply not going to tolerate criticism, and anyone who questions u will be suppressed?  Interesting how u people struggle over the simple and obvious answer, eh?  Rather indicates U KNOW PERFECTLY WELL, u homosexuals are a serious problem for the legitimacy of "libertarians" for tolerating u people, eh?

U've already LOST the debate, seems to me--question is whether u can salvage anything.

--------------------below-copied sent previously, 2nd May----------------------------------------

Hey Nystrom:

I want to draw ur attn. to my being banned by "JennyWren" (I'm pretty sure), this happening as result of, and in midst of the dialectic on ur "Seven things...," post,, this banning coming right after she posted her note at JennyWren replied on Sat, 05/02/2015 - 01:55.

U will observe my own argumentation is perfectly legitimate and rational, I trust.  And I was following the dialectic and about to reply when I found I'd been banned immediately after "JennyWren" had posted her comment, above-noted.  She seems to have determined I was championing statism, and that this conclusion of hers is now warrant for her banning of me.

So I say this banning is un-justified in view of the argument not being over, not being legitimately treated by my opponent, "JennyWren," who has abused her position of moderator.

Spare me ur tiresome protestation of property rights--it's quite well-understood.  Issue is whether u want to vindicate ur presumed principle of reason for the dialectic u indicate u want to promote.  A.

No comments:

Post a Comment