Reply #195: You shouldn't be dragging a dispute from one group to another

[HamdenRice]

but frankly you DID indeed advocate genocide by starvation of Africans, and many "non-aligned" observers agreed.

I could post link after link of the debate in various forums, and outside links that agree with my position.

Of course you will disagree that it is genocide to deliberately starve millions to achieve ecological "balance." So we're back to square one.

That said, given the consensus that you were advocating genocide by starvation of the poor in Africa, what is the outer limit of discourse to express outrage at such a policy proposal?

Your statement, "The straw man in your imagination may be a disgusting excuse for a human," is sufficient of a "yes". In other words, you are saying, if you are indeed advocating genocide by starvation, then the description is accurate and not an insult.

All we now have to acknowledge is that the characterization of your policy is not a strawman, and the result is quite self-condemning of you.

At any rate, I don't think that should be re-litigated here.