Re: Tell Dr. Laura what you think of her hate-mongering

On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 05:45:38PM -0400, [email protected] muttered something about:
> I for one do not listen to Dr. Laura on a daily basis. 

Well, at least you honestly admit you're talking about stuff you're ignorant
about. That's something.

  But when I do, I think 
> she is mostly right on the money. 

I don't, on a stunningly wide range of issues, and I said so, publicly and
clearly. What's the problem?

  There is nothing wrong in seeing something 
> wrong and saying so.

Well, you mean, nothing wrong with it *when you agree*, right? I mean, I see
something very wrong with Dr Laura and I said so, and you seem to have all
kinds of problems with that. That's at best a hypocritical double standard.

  I do not and cannot support the homosexual lifestyle. I 
> have seen it destroy to many lives.

I don't think any gay men or lesbians seek your support of their
"lifestyle", nor are troubled by you refusal to give it. Of course, to talk
about the "homosexual lifestyle" is to talk about a phantom, something that
doesn't exist.

What it means, of course, is just "the mere existence of homosexuals", your
opposition to which puts you in a vastly more genocidal frame of mind than I
could possibly abide. But you seem very comfortable with it, even if morally
degraded.

  I can not say with any certainty if she 
> is wrong in saying that homosexual men are more of a chance in being a 
> pedophile than a heterosexual male cause I do not have the facts.

So you're not only ignorant of her spewage generally, you're not even
certain about the specific claims I took exception to... So, what *is* your
point?

You might want to do a little research before becoming complicitous in
Schlessinger's hate-mongering by supporting it directly, as you have here.

  Instead of 
> going on a website and calling people names can you not find a more decent 
> way of saying that you disagree?

I don't recall from what I wrote that I called *her* any "names"; I did
offer characterizations of her opinionating. But let's assume I did call her
a nasty name; are reproachful labels *never* appropriate? I think that's a
very hard case to make. If you systematically spew hateful, falsehoods and
financially profit from that spewage, you deserve *some* moral and social
censure, condemnation, stigma, friction, etc. 

The really delicious irony is that your concern about decency is so
massively one-sided and hate-speech supporting. Whatever *indecency* is
present in my very short article about Schlessinger, it is *dwarfed* by the
systematic, grotesque indecency of her treatment of gay men and lesbians
*daily*, for which she profits financially to some unknown-to-me, yet
certainly staggering sum.

Kendall Clark