🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gall-0504981716560001@usrts2m3.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca (Norman Gall) wrote:
>In article <6g7iuk$qv7$1@usenet51.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
>(Hithere) wrote:
> 
>>  Your understanding of the issues is pretty shallow, and you know nothing of 
>> *all those* who oppose the decision. _I_ oppose the decision and I am
>not only 
>> bisexual, but the furthest damn thing from _any_ kind of collectivist/fascist
> 
>> you care to describe.
>
>> Laws based on the Vriend decision _are_ based _exactly_ on a desire of the 
>> *politically-correct* to control the actions of those with whom they
> disagree.
>
>You strawmanise his position in exactly the same way that you claim he has
>done to yours.
>
>Norm Gall
>

Y'know--I reread the original post--and he said _explicitly_ that anybody who 
did not support the Vreind decision was a fascist. I stated that that was not 
the case--and that I was not basing my disagreement on some right-wing or 
collectivist philosophy. Care to _identify_ the strawman instead of just 
asserting that it exists?

I mean--you are not contending thatthe Vreind decision is _not_ based on a 
wish to control the actions of homophobes, are you? I understood the decision 
as _exactly_ looking to control the actions of homophobes. Are you suggesting 
that the term *politically-correct* isn't used with any accuracy here? Prove 
it.

Ron