The poster has indicated that what Wisdom has called for here, and what the poster has called for in the Wiki thread, are the same thing. I believe the poster is confused. The Wiki thread was precisely a move to censor Wikipedia. Here is what that thread called for: Wiki - Remove the Images This is the definition of censorship. The poster supported the move. I did not. To the subject of this thread, I do believe there is a difference between what Wisdom calls for here, and what the poster, and those who think like him, called for in the Wiki thread. Or, in other words, The difference between the two ways of proceeding, it seems to me, is quite clear. One registers a choice, expressing an opinion, and urges others to avoid seeing the film. On the other hand, using the framework of the wiki thread and applying it to this film, we would find instead of Wisdom's reasonable stance a call to remove the film so that none may see it, their choice notwithstanding. I find these two ways quite different. Moreover, I support Wisdom's way, and not the poster's. In other words, I see quite a clear difference between: and and I would think the difference is evident to reasonable folks. Since the poster has dragged a question relating to the "Gay Marriage" thread into this thread, I don't consider my reliance on the constitution weak; misleading; nor slander. I will say, that to the philosophy expressed by the poster in the following: I admit I take considerable moral issue (in fact, I have a problem with segregation, which declared such a right as expressed above; I find it an abomination), and, moreover, pointed out the gross error, constitutionally speaking, of the poster's statement, with Supreme Court juridical review and decisions on constitutionality. Others may go to the proper thread should they want to investigate the discussion there.
I support muskets and lined marching. And hiring me for content work. It is essentially the entire idea of censorship that makes me balk. I don't mind it if daytime TV on kids shows are numbed and dumbed, but the news media, the books, the press, the views, the internet, the anything else is essentially just an infringement on my right to know and my right to be offended. As for discretion, when it comes to things I do on the internet, I expect to only see what I have chosen to see, and not be bombarded by things that have no relation to what I see, see? If it offends, I change the URL. Same with the TV. I change the channel. Ooooh, better not depict a dead guy! Yes, let's scare people out of their free will to do whatever they feel like. I embrace the hedonistic ideals of 'whatever' because on some level we all indulge in it. If you chose not to - then don't. If you don't wish to see, then don't look. If you don't wish to hear, don't listen. If you don't wish to learn, smoke weed or something. Honestly, I do have a problem if someone comes up to me and starts getting in my face about issues, and thats a violation of my right to personal space - so if people are being flagrantly disrespectful, stop them. Use the baseball bat. However, if some homosexuals are having a parade - walk the other way. I usually run, but you get the idea. So what if some queer folk want to parade down the street? So what if they want Marriage? When did Marriage get special privileges anyways? I say we abolish any government involvement with marriages except the tracking of certificates for legal purposes (like child support and such). Otherwise... who cares? When did all the people of earth start giving a damn about trivial little matters that distract everyone from the big picture. Oooh he drew a picture of Raptor Jesus. Oooh he drew a picture of Mohammad. Oooh Bush warns us about the true evil facing America - Gay Marriage - and leaves out that little issue of Iraq and the impending bankruptcy of the entire country, or the fact the war was illegal and pretty much for no other reason than dickwaving jingoism. But noooooo, a cartoon about Mohammad or gay marriage is like, way more important to focus on than... the fate of a country. I'm glad that whistle blower site won, and I want more sites like that. Expose the lies of everyone, expose the filthy underbelly of this corrupt system. Fight it and clean it, bring about the revolution and free ourselves from this media mindf*ck that has main stream America addicted to main stream news that is nothing more than main stream shit in a main stream can, while the real stream has been cut off and all the fish are dead.
Please let me reiterate what the wiki thread called for. It was to support this petition: The poster and I traded considerable points, mostly surrounding the nature of free speech, property rights, and many other things. While expressing a support to move the images to another page, in addition, regarding the petition itself, this was the poster's view: And here was mine: Hence, I conclude as I do.
I completely agree, which is precisely why I thought the effort to censor Wikipedia was as cockamamie as it comes. It's a simple click to go to another page.
It has stopped? When? in the 8th century? in the 15th century? When? last month when this muslim brother killed his sister with the dad's help because she was in love with a christian? I just don't see when or where... Mass movement? are you talking about what Jose Maria AZNAR was calling a ' slow sneaky invasion' of Europe by the Muslims? slow enough so Europeans won't see it as a massive hostile invasion...
Ok, it's YOUR conclusion. Fair enough. I can tell you, that a petition is not censorship, it is coercion. When you ask your local merchant to carry a good for you, it's a petition. When you phone your television provider and ask for a certain channel, it is a petition. You might even use persuasion to petition by attempting to justify your position. Petitions gain weight with the more people committed to them. In this regard, I support peaceful efforts to affect change on private entities. Persuasion, petition, AND boycotting. And if THAT is the charge, then I am guilty of it.
I'm all for petitions. But recently the petitions have been getting deadlier. Personally, I'd rather not be shot because I say or believe something offensive.
A petition to censor Wikipedia. Completely different from Wisdom's approach: "I don't like it. I won't watch it. I urge others not to watch it." Therefore, it is impossible to construe that the poster's support to censor Wikipedia, and Wisdom's approach, are the same thing. Both are completely different approaches. As I said. I consider the attempt to equate these utterly different approaches disingenuous. I also consider the attempt to argue the point, only admitting his well-known position now, to be disingenous, and, regretfully, typical.
Simply your misinterpretation of someone else's broken English. I do not support censorship. And you have failed to back up this charge with any proof. Why you continue to lie is beyond me. Your lying? Or your trying to slander others with the implication of racism, the same behavior you criticize and abhor when used against Obama? Hypocrisy NPT. I think most everyone is on to you now.
I consider this the definition of censorship. I consider attempting to attribute his support of said censorship to the thread starter's "broken English" further disingenousness. The poster admits his support for the effort: Therefore, I can only conclude the poster supports the censorship of Wikipedia to comply with what some would wish. He has also said his efforts, and those of Wisdom's are the same. Which is false, as I believe I've shown (a few times, now): In so many words. The poster is simply repeating that I have slandered him, which is untrue. I have simply, and completely, addressed the error of his declaration that Jim Crow/segregation is a legal right. This appears to disturb the poster. I also don't engage in mindreading, and believe it is everyone's right to believe as they do. It is further puzzling to me why someone who so vociferously protests that nothing in society matters but one's conscience, as this poster is regularly wont to do, would now post that "everyone is on to you." I consider this further evidence of the poster's inconsistency regarding his much protested political economic philosophy. Outside of the two PM's I have received recently, and the one person's response in the Church/State separation thread, I can't know the opinion of anyone else. regarding whether others think I am "right" or not. I only know what I see, what I believe, and my reasons why.
This is a further lie. I have posted numerous times that I do not approve of censorship. The statement you construe to be censorship, I believe is a call to petition, one which I endorsed so strongly by not joining, but saying that the petition method was "on the right track" Again, more misinformation, more misdirection by NPT. Right because your conclusion is based on a false premise and continues to override my statements to the contrary. It disturbs me that you continue to paint me as a racist, while it is you who perpetuate that the government can legislate free will over the citizens. That the government can remove and override the right to own property. That in the interest of protecting a little evil, the government should dictate what is allowable thought. Actually, I was being sarcastic. Mocking how you tried to push that because people who don't like my posts PM you, there was a popular consensus against me (see below). Frankly, the sarcasm was in response to how childish you have been lately, refusing to refer to me by name, taking quotes out of context, fabricating bogus positions I do not hold etc. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7147750&postcount=21 Why even bring up the PMs? Didn't you drive Webby off the forum by playing the "secret PM game"? I'd like to say I am done with you. With the "this poster, that poster" nonsense, I probably don't even have to reply. It's likely no one knows what you are talking about (or rather, making up) anyways.
Censorship is forced on you by others. Muslims censored the film on LiveLeak with death threats thereby proving the film. Self-censorship is me telling me and only me I can't do something. Advocating self-censorship is proper. Forcing censorship is not. If Muslims had advocated boycotting the film (an act of self censorship) then the film would have been disproven and people would have ignored it. Now it's just going to be very very popular. I won't watch it because it gets real graphic real quick. But it's message was proven and that's all that matters anyway. Wilders wanted to show that Muslims use threats of violence to get their way and Muslims used threats of violence to get their way.
The Wiki thread was precisely a call to censorship: The poster supported that call; a call to censorship of a private website. The poster now further attempts to contort the issue, and his stand, by stating the petition wasn't a call to censor Wikipedia, but rather my I think not. The Wiki censorship petition differs entirely from Wisdom's call here, which is, in effect: "I do not support this film; I urge others not to watch it." The poster has said his call, and that of Wisdom, are the same. This is false. The issue is clearly defined. The poster brought up the subject of another thread, and has stated that in that thread I have slandered him. In that thread, the poster has the following position regarding racial, ethnic and religious segregation in places of commerce: Which is the definition of segregation and Jim Crow, from Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) on; namely, that there is a "damn right" to bar people from one's business based on the color of their skin, their religion, their country of origin, and so forth. The march to rectify the constitutional error was a long and hard one, last challenged in 1964, with Hearts of Atlanta v. United States. As I have shown, this last challenge to the destruction of the commonly-known era of legal segregation in the United States failed, and one cannot bar people from their place of business for the reasons would wish to maintain. There is no "damn right," and to act on the erroneous belief is an illegal act in the United States of America. These are the facts. My showing so isn't slander, nor is my printing the poster's own words establishing his point of view.
Care to explain what a call to censorship is? Have you ever heard of a petition for a call to censorship? I think any, well adjusted person can understand he was talking about a petition to Wikipedia for change. Which is exactly how petitioning works. This whole thing is a strawman Paul. I went back and re-read the thread. It's back to a lack of understanding on your part re: Private Property Rights in a free market which is prevalent in most of our arguments, except the Obama one where he is just a shill and no one can defend his lack of integrity or principle. No comment on the secret PMs from secret forum members who don't like my posts?
Let's recap. All else said, the poster has indicated his support for the petitioner's efforts: Among other things, the poster has said in this thread: Already, this is entirely different from Wisdom's approach, decidedly not coercion: Therefore, already, to say the poster's support of the "coercion" approach of the petition and Wisdom's approach are one and the same, is flatly false. But there is more. The petition isn't "empty," a call for understanding, etc. It is specifically a call to coerce the censorship of Wikipedia, a private website. Therefore, the poster has indicated he supports the call to censorship. Therefore, for this reason as well, to say this call to censorship and Wisdom's approach are one and the same is flatly false. Once this was shown, the poster resorted to what I have unfortunately concluded are customary tactics, contorting reason to say: wasn't a call to censorship; rather, it was this poster's: And regarding the "PM's", the poster is attempting to divert the reality of his premises by reference to something I did in the past that I deeply regret, openly apologized for on this forum. Namely, in a pique of frustration, a member on the forum made a public statement in a thread that contradicted what he indicated to me in private. Without any justification, I reprinted the relevant portions of the private correspondence to establish the truth. It was wrong of me to do it, of course, and I apologized to both the member and the community at large, which the poster is aware of. The PM's I mention here are simply facts, as is the post I linked to regarding the separation of Church and State. Though the poster wishes here to divert attention from his support for censorship of a private organization (despite his vociferous battle-cry for "property rights"), or (by calling those who disagree on substance "fanatics," for example), I will not act dishonorably to discuss the specifics of the PM's.
Yes NPT, but who will the petition censor? Wikipedia? Who will the petition be delivered to? Wikipedia? So it's at best a petition requesting Wikipedia to self-censor. Which is exactly what WT has posted. Btw, did you get any more secret PMs about me?
Please see post #57, above. It is impossible for the poster to name the view he has, regarding censorship and the Wikipedia thread, and the position engendered by Wisdom's reasonable point of view, as one and the same point of view. The poster's statement in this regard is false. And attempting to bait something that has already been openly and honestly atoned for yields no fruit, regretful as that might be for the poster. Though it is an attempt to divert attention from the reality of the issue, it is, like so much else, meritless. Good night, all. Have a good weekend. I have spent considerable time on this, and the thread on "gay marriage," and the "Church and State" thread because I just felt it was time to clearly speak the truth, at least as I see it, because these are matters that impact upon the kind of country we have been, we are now, will very likely be. It seems to me this country came along at a point of history propitious for just such an unheralded experiment as we have here in the States, and the issues that have been lengthily discussed go to what America means, at its heart. Anyway, my justification for finally choosing to respond in such a detailed and voluminous manner to what I see in the poster's statements. All the best.
I wasn't aware "the poster" was capable of regret. The way he prosecutes the people he argues with, relentlessly and fiercely doesn't leave a lot of room to imagine "the poster" feeling much of anything except anger. This poster, wants to inform the poster, that this poster, will no longer be arguing this point with that poster. It wasn't bait. It was a reminder. PEACE