[ExI] flds raid, was general repudiation...

[Lee Corbin]

BillK writes

> [Rafal] has logically worked himself into the position of defending an
> organisation that totally denies the freedom and liberty that he
> claims to support. Libertarianism has absolutely no place in the FLDS
> structure, but Rafal defends it.

Surely you have heard the phrase usually attributed to Voltaire:
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." 

I do not agree with the lifestyle of nudists, but I will respect
them and defend their wish to practice that lifestyle anyway.
They're harming no one---at least none of them will admit to
being harmed. We do not have good evidence, as has been
repeatedly pointed out here, that actual harm was accruing
to anyone in that FLDS group at that time. Perhaps it was,
perhaps not. But we can be pretty sure of the harm that
followed the intrusion of the authorities.

>>  And, BTW, hundreds of innocent women and children have just lost their
>>  families because of people like you, enthusiastically supporting your
>>  local SWAT team. Aren't you worried that *your* iron grip (and I mean
>>  it literally - as in manacles, prison bars, youth detention) will hurt
>>  them?
> 
> Now Rafal is defending slavery!  All these slaves are well looked
> after by their owners, so it would really upset them to be forcibly
> given their freedom. Rafal just argued that the War of Independence
> was all wrong and should never have been allowed. What planet is he
> from?  ;)

Natasha has explained that this is getting a little content-free.
Can you please avoid questions like that last one?

Not a single person, so far as we can tell, who was actually *there*
and so had first hand knowledge, would regard himself or herself
as a slave. Your claims are getting pretty wild.

> Rafal's major weak point is his determination not to defend the
> weaker members of society. He is in the fortunate position of being
> intelligent, well-educated and aggressive. Many people in our society
> are the opposite. If the weaker members of society are only regarded
> as prey it is appallingly uncivilised behaviour. And if we aspire to
> being a civilised society then we have to put a stop to those who
> would prey on the disadvantaged.

All your assertions about certain people being "prey" are
very debatable. I'm sure you realize that. It sounds to 
me like you're perhaps making such absolutist statements
in lieu of having more rational arguments that would provide
explanations.

Lee