Ignoring Rudy

Karen Winter wrote:
<...>
> But given your hatred of this Winter person, you would claim
> to dislike her writing even if you thought it was the greatest
> literary work since Milton.

You're no Milton, Karen.

> Since I'm not seeing anything on topic here I want to talk about,
> I'll go back to Lurk mode for a while.

"A while" lasted all of about half an hour the other day.

> Maybe another new person will show up eventually.

Another new person or just another nym, Karen?
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Karen Winter as "Meadowlark" lied:
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
>> I sincerely hope that you
>> are not the Karen they're talking
>> about.
>
>
> I am not


Note the word play. She is pretending to say that she
is "not the Karen Winter they have portrayed". Forget
the portrayal for the moment - her name *is* Karen
Winter. The portrayal, of course, is accurate.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Meadowlark wrote:

>
>>>>> The topic is animal rights.
>
>
>>> Ah, well -- I was proved correct after all
>
>
>> No.
>
>
> Yes.
>
> I am not "Karen Winter" I am not this bizarre creature you
> have created.

Here's her clumsy attempt at game playing at its worst.
Notice she puts quotation marks around Karen Winter,
and follows it with some bullshit about some creature I
have supposedly created. What she's saying is "I am
not the 'Karen Winter' you depict."

But her legal name *is* Karen Winter, without quotation
marks. As to my depiction of her, it's true. She
*did* abandon her son; she *is* a self-marginalizing
neurotic (almost psychotic).

By the way - you'll note she never did answer the
narrower questions I said to ask about her views on
pedophiles and NAMBLA. As Derek said, there's a
peculiar and almost perverse honesty about her in some
respects. If you take something she literally wrote as
"Rat" or "Cynomis" that expresses her views, then ask
her if she believes that, she almost can't lie about
it. She has to refrain from answering.

So, again - ask "Meadowlark" if she believes that
NAMBLA genuinely believes in liberation for children
and genuinely respects them. Ask her if she would have
any hesitation in letting her son associate with the
responsible pedophiles she's met. Of course, since her
son has all but disowned her, if he hasn't actually
done so, she'll probably finesse the question - that's
a refusal to answer - by saying some lie about not
having a son.

"Meadowlark" is Karen Winter. That's her real name.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

shevek4 RemoveThis @yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.
>>>
>>>Oh, no problem.
>>
>>Karen has a history of misleading others herself. That includes her son
>>and his family about her wishes for her grandson, as well as her church
>>about what misanthropes she and her evil FAS-defective sidekick are.
>>Karen (a) says she doesn't like her own son as a person, (b) says she
>>would've had no hesitation introducing her son to any of her pedophile
>>friends from NAMBLA, and (c) says she hopes her grandson will rebel
>>against his own father and develop into a flaming homosexual.
>>[...]
>
> Considering all the press you are giving to Karen Winter,

She's giving it to herself through her deceit and inability to refrain
from posting messages to usenet.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"Meadowlark" <YoMama.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dd2hcm$eai$1@reader2.nmix.net...

>> ... if we can't agree on what a set of morals is, then we aren't going to
>> agree on the scientific evidence for or against.
HINT: science is a method of studying Nature, in the attempt to
elucidate the underlying Laws by mathematical expressions.
"Morals"/ethics are highly-variable, idiosyncratic, temporary, belief
systems of local tribes of humans, and as such are neither natural, nor able
to be investigated by the scientific method.

> Basic moral principles are much the same throughout
> human cultures.
Nonsense, the moral argument against killing humans is conveniently
abandoned when there is a "moral obligation" to start a war, colonize
others' lands, or enslave people.

> For example, there is no human culture that I
> know of which considers cowardice or cruelty a virtue, but
> different cultures, and individuals within cultures, differ on
> how cruelty is defined, as we see here on TPA.
Yes, and since there is no objective set of ethics/morals, individual
sets of ethics are idiosyncratic, there can be no reasonable discussion
about them.

> ... actions are only
> moral if they are supported by moral reasoning -- that is, if the
> person acting can say why his action is moral, or why it follows
> some moral principle ("acting for the right reason").
Hitler was operating out of -his- moral principles, so what?

> What Sapontzis says is that if a being acts by
> intent, and acts in a way generally considered moral, he is acting
> morally.
"Generally considered ", by whom?? The local tribe that has a different
set of morals than the neighboring tribe??

> " ... acts can be moral actions,
> for they accord with accepted moral norms and, consequently, do
> not require justification to be moral."
So, they are idiosyncratic and do not apply to humans, in general.

> How rights are defined and applied is definitely
> open to varied interpretation.
Again, since there is no objective definition of "rights", they are
highly variable, locally-idiosyncratic, and thus a waste of time trying to
discuss them in a rational framework that simply does not exist.

Laurie
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

"usual suspect" <support RemoveThis @our.troops> wrote in message
news:9N7Je.131462$X76.85653@tornado.texas.rr.com...

> Correct, Larry has no facts.
My website has well over 700 citations to the current scientific
literature; you have nothing to back your claims but vulgarity, juvenile
antics, and evasiveness.

Laurie
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy 

Larry Fruity wrote:
> "usual suspect" <support.TakeThisOut@our.troops> wrote in message
> news:9N7Je.131462$X76.85653@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> > Correct, Larry has no facts.
> My website has well over 700 citations

No facts.

You're a FRAUD, Fruity.
 >> Stay informed about: Ignoring Rudy