In my defence I grew up spending election campaigns waving green and yellow ribbons and working in Uncle Gary’s returning offices and with my father, other uncle and grandfather being arrested for protesting the arrival of nuclear ships in Auckland’s harbours and attending nuclear free marches.

I must also point out that it was for only one election I suffered this affliction as I encountered people whose arguments made me see what I had assumed previously.

I will throw one retort – at least I did not vote for the Alliance because I thought Jim Anderton was hot.

“1. Madeleine voted for the Alliance the first time she voted because she liked their tax policy”.

I rest my case. There’s no point in arguing with anyone who displays and then publicly publishes that sort of logic.

Look, you endorsed a socialist over a liberal because he pointed out logical flaws in the reasoning advanced by gay activists and because he resembled one of your past boyfriends and because you were annoyed that he made a bid for ACT leadership, only Rodney was allowed to do that.

As argued above, the reasons you offered on the homophobic charge, that I linked to, were flawed. If you have posted a sound case elsewhere please feel free to post the url and I will concede my point.

The fact you cannot see the logical flaw; that you describe the reasoning advanced on this blog as “muddled religious based nonsense” and will not engage with an argument is telling.

Further, your psycho-analysis is off. I alluded to the fact that Franks is not a stranger to me in the post above, there is your disclosure. In addition, it is both common blogosphere knowledge and widely known in the political circles you and I associate in that Franks advised me over Pete Hodgson’s affront to my civil liberties, that he took my case against the Christchurch Press pro bono, not free, and that he, Trevor, Matt and I co-authored an ACT pamphlet for the 2005 election.

So what? My defence of a given argument is based on its merit. If my friends are wrong or my opponents are right I happily say so. There is nothing personal in my support or my criticism; I’d happily have a glass of Dom and a laugh with you about this exchange any day of the week because my liberality is philosophically based. The whole point of this post was to challenge those for whom it is not to recheck their premises.

Liberal bigotry towards Christians and ill-informed assumptions about what Christians believe and the basis for their beliefs are creating unnecessary divisions in the right.

Still no actual response I see. Instead you (a) point out some personal history between Madeleine and Frank’s (b) call my writings a tirade of names. (c) *assert* that our beliefs are on par with belief in fairies.

None of this actually provides a reason for any conclusion you have made.

Thanks for further confirming what Madeleine and I have been saying on this blog.

Matt

I have already explained my objections to Franks elsewhere and above in relation to his political history and behaviour in ACT. Unlike other posts on this blog that you seem to produce I don’t need 5000 more words of muddled religious based nonsense to explain my position and call it an “argument”.

Franks did of course if I remember correctly, do free legal work for you in obtaining a settlement with a newspaper so of course you think he’s fabulous and won’t let a bad word be said about him.

A little disclosure wouldn’t go a miss.

You are free to believe in “fairies at the bottom of the garden”, but don’t be surprised or offended when others don’t share your faith.

Franks is bad because he allegedly compared gays to dogs (which he didn’t) but it’s perfectly ok to compare Christians to David Koresh, a child molester.

Who was it who lives in a bubble with a different set of rules to those you preach?

May you and Matt be happy in that bubble together.

I suggest you invite others to join and charge a toll at the entrance.

David Koresh was very successful with such a concept.

Precisely my point. You would rather support a socialist and sell out your commitment to liberty than side with someone who, like you, couldn’t care less that Robertson’s partner is a bloke, merely because he made valid criticisms of the flawed arguments advanced by the gay lobby.

I note you throw the word bigot around a lot.

A bigot is obstinate in his or her beliefs and intolerant of others.

You made a blanket accusation against all who can mount some criticism of the moral stance you hold dear, calling such people bigots. This suggests that such people believe obstinately, that is, continue to hold their beliefs despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

Where is this compelling evidence? I am yet to hear you offer any.

(By the way Kate stating it, isn’t evidence, neither is calling people names.)

As for the dog argument, read our point by point critique of Robertson’s video Fisking Grant Robertson.

If love was all that mattered then anything would go.
Franks’ argument followed.
Boo, hiss, shame, stating his argument was stupid does not.

As for pointing to the fact there are other people within ACT and National who cannot spot a flawed argument, I am not sure how that helps you. Socialism is also widely held.