Where is the evidence that
1) he made up a single slogan, even one (rather than that Betty Friedan and the feminists around her made them up).
Well, E, according to the post we are discussing here, Nathanson himself claimed “we” made up the slogans. There is the evidence. I am assuming, since he was indeed a founder of NARAL, that when he claimed “we” made them up, that he was in significant control of the slogans.
2) he had the "ultimate authority" over the slogans, as you have claimed, ludicrously
There is nothing ludicrous about it. You are intentionally ignoring the common meaning of words, like “founder.” The word has meaning, E, meaning that any reasonable person would take into account in considering this issue. It is just unreasonable to assume as you do, that as a founder of his own organization, Nathanson was not in authority to ultimately craft the message you would eventually receive from that organization. No one, neither Prolife nor me, ever claimed Nathanson had sole authority over the message. I certainly didn’t even think such a thing because I know organizations don’t usually work in that way. But I do know that as a founder, Nathanson would surely have control over the ultimate message of his own organization. That is not a mere “extrapolation.” It is an understanding of the common meaning of words.
3) that he had any authority to tell me how to think.
If he was a founder of NARAL, and you were part of NARAL’s audience, then he had authority to tell you what to think. You may not have obeyed him, but he nevertheless had the authority to tell you. If you accepted his message, as it appears you did, then a man successfully told you what to think and you accepted it.
(Note that I have never belonged to any abortion rights group specifically because of the third trimester issue and I note also that you are aware that it was my mother who influenced me on this issue.)
Until now, I hadn’t a clue whether you even had a mother, E, unless I came to it by that dreaded "extrapolation" that inexplicably tends to send you up the wall. I certainly had no idea you had a mother who influenced you on abortion.
As for your never being a member of an abortion group, you need not be a member to be influenced by the group’s message. You have parroted some of the same brainwashed filth that those in the snake pit of NARAL have commonly parroted. If a man was behind these messages, then a man has deeply influenced what you now think. That is fine, E. I really don’t understand why you recoil from this fact. The thoughts of plenty of women have been and are being deeply influenced by men. Nothing new.
I'd like to point out that in every single case in which I've caught PROLIES, and now you, in lies parading as facts, you've justified them by admitting that they were your personal "any normal person" extrapolations.
Well, it took “extrapolations” for you to conclude that we are “lying.” So you certainly are no better than we are. The fact is, unlike in your case, we have such common words as “founder” that give us a very reasonable cause to come to our conclusions. If we didn’t do as we are doing, then conversation would be impossible. You are just being intentionally unreasonable because you do not wish to accept he implications of the facts. That is dishonorable.
Poor PROLIES is so gaga he just keeps repeating his lies. You at least get credit for being smart enough trying to obscure your tricks.
I obscure nothing. I am simply addressing the thing without guile, something that obviously betrays in you some serious issues. Moreover, I do not wish credit from you. I do not value it in the least.
A confession: You've disappointed me. I thought I'd run into an honest zealot.
Well, to recognize honesty in another, you must first be honest. |
