You’re pathetic. You did not address the original post of yours that started all this. Now you begin referring to other posts where you take no responsiblity for it all. First you tell me that it must suck for me that the most disgusting racial slurs can’t be used, now you make it an issue of how thick my skin is.

No egos, no outrage. Just truth…and taking responsiblity for what you say. You fail on both accounts.

–Scott

“I would find the direct implication that I am a racist who delights in the subjugation of minority groups far more offensive than saying you may have gone of the deep end.”

Your words. Not mine. You implied that I called you a racist and I explained that to you in my reply no. 76 which you obviously have not read. No one attacked you. You just keep repeating the same old shit, over and over.

Read my lips. I NEVER called you a racist. And here is my clarification of that. You are putting words in my mouth. Obviously, you insist on seeing and hearing what you want to see and hear regardless of what I actually said.

“Had it been my desire to call you a racist, I would have done so, boldly, clearly and distinctly rather than just alluding to it. Innuendo, as I am certain that you must have noticed by now, is not one of my writing hallmarks on these threads.”

What part of that do you not understand? You have obviously decided that you are going to take insult, where non was ever intended, no matter what I say.

And then, when you find that you cannot win your point on that issue, you then go back and look for other imagined insults to harp on. To wit:

“Dang. Nobody is any fun anymore!” A hit???

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment that is as common as “A stitch in time, saves nine”. It was meant to be funny, but oh no…you have read more shit into it and find a reason to be upset…over nothing. You make it sound like I defamed your character or questioned your mother’s morality. Your outrage, over nothing, is ludicrous and laughable.

Grow up, for crying out loud…or get some thicker skin.

This is, after all, a blog site, not a place to get your ego massaged.

I’m finished with you.

I am going to do this one more time. Maybe you’ll own up to it…I doubt you will given your last response.

First, you quote me: “”I am opposed to censorship period”

Then you say in response (capitalization is mine):
Then YOU MUST BE TERRIBLY UPSET THAT A BLACK CANNOT BE CALLED THE “N” WORD IN THE MEDIA, OR THAT A JEW CANNOT BE CALLED A K*KE, AN ITALIAN PERSON A W*P….”

You continue with other racial slurs I supposedly am “terribly upset” can not be used and then finish with this little hit at the end:

“Dang. Nobody is any fun anymore!”

Charles – what gets me about you and others who subscribe to this position and argument is that I was making a statement against censorship, not for bigotry. But you very clearly accuse me of being upset that these words can’t be used…and then do not have the balls to even admit you made the accusation later on in the very same thread.

I have no issues with your age – your the one who keeps bringing that up. I have no idea how old you are and it does not bear at at all on my argument. My issue is with this anti-intellectual mode of attack – and I have seen it before on here. It, apparently, is not enough to disagree with someone. The other person has to be called a racist…or to heavily suggest it. It’s weak, it’s false and it lessens the charge for REAL instances of racism and bigotry.

But for G*d’s sake, at least have the guts to take responsibility for your own words. There right up there for anyone with their eyes open to see.

–Scott

So…why isn’t he showing us more of it?

Thank you for the apology, which I accept. I think.

The immediate recall of that apology with a posting obviously designed to attempt make me look like a doddering old fool, left me somewhat puzzled, however. It’s a peculiarity in your postings that I have picked up on more than once.

Your posting no. 64 is a good example of that. While you explained, and apologized for what I felt was an ageist remark, you went on to make my commentaries about politically incorrect racial names look as if I was implying that you are a racist. You assumed that I was doing so when, in fact, I was not. In in so doing, you made it obvious that you still wished to pick a bone with me on some level.

Had it been my desire to call you a racist, I would have done so, boldly, clearly and distinctly rather than just alluding to it. Innuendo, as I am certain that you must have noticed by now, is not one of my writing hallmarks on these threads.

The topic of this thread was about hate speech and my references to the racial slurs, were examples of what is no longer considered acceptable speech in our society. Since you appear to be a fierce proponent of free speech, I was merely pointing out that you may very well feel that the making of these of these words into politically incorrect speech, was a serious abridgement of your freedom of speech rights. Any other meaning assigned to my comments, is merely misinterpretation or hearing what you want to hear, on behalf of the reader.

With respect the duplicity of posting names, yours is not the first posting name on these threads to cause confusion, as you will note by the addition of parenthesis after quite a few other posters on these threads. If I were to reply to one of your comments with the name Charles J. Mueller (the other one), would this not also cause some confusion on your behalf as well? And why I purposely wish to cause that confusion, if you get my drift? After all, my name is not in the least unusual. There are hundred of people in the US with my exact same name.

If you are going to post under various assumed names, which is your right to do so, it is not up to reader to play Sherlock Holmes to try to figure out who is who and what comments belong to whom. It’s rather disingenuous to apologize to someone over the confusion and then in the next breath, allude to their stupidity for questioning two similar, but different names.

If the apology is offered with conditions, then I submit that it really isn’t a sincere apology begin with. Saying to someone “And you couldn’t figure that one out?” At the very least, if sounds snarky. At it’s worst, it comes off sounding more like, “I’m sorry that you’re such a dum-dum.” I would have felt less insulted by the complete lack of any apology at all, truth be known.

And just for the record, it did, in fact, occur to me that you were one and the same, but then I thought about the old adage about making assumptions. Bad enough that a good many people think of a person of my years as old and foolish, but making an ass of one’s self at my age is totally unforgivable.

And in the Winnipeg case, unless they had other grounds for removal I don’t think it would be fair for them to remove the child.

That said, the system is already unfair and many child welfare agencies have no problem cooking a legal reason to take kids, particularly if the family is poor, non-white, or single-parent.

Look at what happened when they busted the polygamists last year and seized all those children. Whether you agree with their lifestyle or not it was a monumental balls-up and certainly did more harm than good.

That’s very possible, Moo. I got to thinking about that after I posted my reply.

If it is, I am certain that I’ll hear back from him shortly.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Moo

I have no idea who you are or why you are addressing your comment to me?

I checked the postings on this thread twice, and nowhere do I see the name Scott Berwitz or any comments you have accused me of making about you.

I remember hearing a story (don’t have the source) of a woman who had her child taken away for “sexual abuse” after she told her doctor she felt aroused when she breastfed.

But here are two recent cases, in the news only because of the Nazi connection. And of course because it involves children and is before the court they can’t talk about the reasons for removal before it goes to court:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manit.....stika.html
Trying to ban the media from the trial is a stupid move though, and it is really questionable whether a judge would agree to that.

Here’s a case from the U.S.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/.....names.html

Charles – I don’t have the slightest idea as to your age – so nothing was meant a nod to ageism. I apologize, sincerely, if it came off that offensive. It was meant to be provocative, not deeply insulting.

That being said, earlier you made this statement:

“Then you must be terribly upset that a black cannot be called the “N” word in the media, or that a Jew cannot be called a K*ke, an Italian person a W*p, a Spanish person a S*ick or a Chinese person a C*ink.”

I would find the direct implication that I am a racist who delights in the subjugation of minority groups far more offensive than saying you may have gone of the deep end.

Practice what you preach, Charles.

Shouldn’t the kids be taken away by social services and brought up away from them in sane and safe homes???

What is happening to the kids is child abuse.

Whatever. To each his own.

That’s good to hear.

“Do you find a problem with that way of thinking?”

Not at all. Except that what you’re talking about means having someone else do your fighting for you. I disagree that there are more of “them” than there are of us. Most people, even those who disagree with us on many things, think people like Phelps are nuts. When we are reasonable, we win more people over to our side than we lose.

The other problem with your way of thinking is that for some reason, you think that when someone who is against you gets silenced, somehow that same thing won’t be turned around on you. It can and it will be.

“Censorship by the government is the wimp’s way of fighting back. I want them to speak so I can speak right back.”

That’s all well and good if the playing (fighting) field were level. Unfortunately, it is not. It’s stacked against us, not only by the religious right, but by the government as well. And it would do you well to remember that there are more of “them” than there is of “us”. We may not wish to be know as “wimps”, but we are, like it or not, an overwhelmingly outnumbered minority group. That’s a fact.

Furthermore, I do believe that it’s a bit unfair when the Xstain Right is able to manipulate and coerce the government of the people, for the people and by the people, to side with them and pass legislation that attempts to marginalize, defame, discriminate and criminalize us and deny us our civil-rights, while at the same time defending their right to do do.

I am sorry, but I not equate hate speech and free speech in the same breath. The former incites contempt, disrespect and violence as we are too often witness to these days. If living our lives in fear of being killed is the price we must pay to protect their freedom of speech and the right of others to murder us with impunity, based on their perceived convolution of freedom of speech rights as the justification for their evil deeds, then I say the price is too high and very unjust.

Are we using freedom of speech to ban the presentation of any art forms that we might find offensive? Are we using freedom of speech physically bash any of our enemies? Are we using freedom of speech to pass legislation against any of our enemies? Why must we be so concerned with preserving “their” rights, while they are working with so much zeal and such a religiously inspired fervor to eliminate our rights?

Perhaps I am just getting old and senile, but it just plain doesn’t make any sense to me. Why should we be obliged to ‘fight fair” when everything these people are doing to the LGBT community is obviously unfair?

When I was still a little boy, my father taught me that if a bully hits me first, I have every right to hit him back. And, if hitting him back results in him resorting to “dirty fighting”, then I have ever right to kick him in the balls if needs be.

Do you find a problem with that way of thinking?

“I wonder if you haven’t already gone off the deep end.”

Just for your edification, my mental faculties are just fine, thank you very much. When I do become certifiably insane, I will instruct the institution that I been incarcerated for my own good, as well as that of the general public, to notify you accordingly.

Scott, I went back and reread every single post on this thread starting with number 1. Other than the question I posed on comment no. 33, “Log cabin much, do you”, I fail to find one instance in which I made any reference to your mental faculties or attempted to make you look like a doddering old fool who needs to be put away.

At it’s most, it strongly suggests ageism on your behalf and, at the very least, your comment shows an element of disrepect for for your elders which is not very becomming…or appreciated.

If you wish to engage in discourse with me or debate anything I have said, I encourage you to do so. I enjoy lively debate and do not deny anyone else the right to engage in it as well.

That said, however, I would respectfully request that you refrain from beginning your replies to me with allusions to my sanity, or lack thereof, if you expect a courteous and respectful reply from me.

“Too many gay people just don’t get that these extremists are are war with us. Make no mistake about it. And if we do not fight back, we will have lost not only the battle, we will have lost the war.”

You are absolutely correct. We are at war with them. And when we try to get the government to shut them up, we lose. When we let them spew their hate and get up in their faces and speak the truth, we win. Free speech is a two-way street, and when we try to block one direction, we typically block our own. Censorship by the government is the wimp’s way of fighting back. I want them to speak so I can speak right back.

I’d have to agree in some ways — guys like Phelps are backwards morons, and the more we can let him feel the heat from people who recognize it, the better off we’ll all be. I mean, let’s face it — most people are smart enough to recognize hypocrisy and nonsense when they see it, and those who aren’t will still find a way to be ignorant even if we suppress guys like Phelps.

In regards to number 1 – The difference in your example is that those groups are domestic.

You are making two different points…one I understand yet respectfully disagree with, the other, I am still not getting at all. I’ll take each separately:

1) The UK not wanting to expend resources on police protection: I get that, but really, I don’t see it as plausible. The UK police – like any country – expend resources on a host of different groups, protests, issues, etc. Including the highly offensive RESPECT party (if it’s still around). To single this small group out as too huge a resource expenditure seems a little far-fectched to me.

2) This global citizen thing with free movement argument…I don’t understand it. If it’s meant that I want Americans to be considered global citizens (as opposed to citizens of other countries) I not only don’t believe it, I never said anything that suggested I did. If it’s meant that I think people should cross borders at will with no national protection, I don’t believe it and never said anything that suggested I did. I am lost as to why you keep bringing this point up.

Personally, I wish we were global citizens with the right of free movement anywhere in the world. But, that is not the current law. So just wondering?

Sebbe…I know countries have the right to bar anyone they want…and I also believe there are reasons to not let..say…a convicted murderer across borders. That I get. The Phelps bigots are just bigots. No country should be denying them entrance.

As far as global citizens, that has nothing to do with it. I am arguing on principle…for anyone, not just Americans. I don’t see where I wrote otherwise.

Maybe next time, the UK will decide that someone else is offensive and they are not allowed in to your country. Only YOU might not feel they’re offensive. Who will decide?

How weak is it to have anyone deemed offensive not allowed into your country? It’s weak and pathetic. Americans don’t need big brother protecting their feelings from mean people. I would guess most in the UK don’t either…save you.

Charles… I hope you can keep it together for long enough to continue this back and forth. But judging from your posts, I wonder if you haven’t already gone off the deep end.

This would seem obvious to me, but when I said to be a bit more careful in your posts, I was talking about you – as one person – suggesting that I – another person – delighted in racial slurs. If we’re going to have any kind of reasonable debate, I would suggest actually reading what I wrote. That’s what I meant by being more “careful” – I certainly did not imply that I’d like to outlaw your right to be as irresponsible with your words as you’d like. I certainly am not going to start the process of attempting to have other countries deny your entrance.

I think your issue is that you see anyone taking issue with anything anyone else says as synonymous to OUTLAWING someone’s right to say it. Taking issue is debate…outlawing is censorship. It’s a big difference. Maybe now you’ll be able to recognize it.