Mr Jack writes:
I have in no way misrepresented him.
Yes you have.
Repeatedly.
And now once more:
Mr Jack writes:
He has advocated nuclear first strikes as rational and moral and defended torture, he has done so both in writing and in speech.
I'll repeat my earlier quote, since you seem to be having comprehension problems.
Read it carefully:
quote:
While I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine.
...
It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.
'Advocating' does not mean what you think it means.
Mr Jack writes:
He may later have tried to backpedal on some of his repellent views but by no means all of them.
"It doesn't matter if he claims that he was misunderstood and then explains in detail what he actually thinks because we only accept initial statements!"
This shows that you are knowingly misrepresenting his opinions.
Mr Jack writes:
But I really can't be arsed to play link footie over the views of a third party.
Yes - you would prefer your lies to go unchallenged.
CRYSTALS!!