The Nimrod Chronicles

Sam don't want lectures,

Sam requires only lecturing,

First Amendment hurt.

But that is my point, regardless of past conversations, now all we have is endless name calling and finger pointing. You all weaken your arguments through these actions, and you end up at a point when you would chase away all reasonable dialogue. Sure I understand that forums like these aren't a hotbed of reasonable discussion, but can't a girl dream?

It IS ok for for Sam and G5 to make as many racial, stereotypical or prejudicial, or overtly xenophobic (although I don't recall reading and overtly xenophobic comments I trust you that there have been) comments as they like. Just as it is fine for you or jhat to make as many racial, stereotypical, prejudicial, or elitist comments at you like.

The problem with all of these comments is they make all of you seem closed minded and petty. If anyone really feels bullied by a blog in a small town newspaper on Nebraska, as the great Mr. T said, "I pity the fool." Perhaps most saddening to me is that you feel justified in and vindicated by handing out generalization as the preferred method of standing up for yourself so we enter this cycle where everyone wants the other to be the first to extend a hand.

jhat,

Mea Culpa, I don't know of any racist, stereotypical, prejudicial, or elitist comments you have used on this forum. I was merely trying to balance the equation and have seen you often disagree vehemently with sam and his supporters. I don't want to go through all the posts and take people's comments out of context to try to play "gotcha." My comments are really directed at anyone who reads or posts in forums like this.

However, I will say I have been guilty of all that I have cautioned against including making racial, stereotypical, prejudicial, elitist, and even xenophobic (I really hate Martians) comments and feel that if everyone were being honest with themselves they would find that they have as well. Although perhaps not and I am the only person of questionable moral fiber in the world.

I don't think I (or anyone) called those types of remarks "the greatest evil".

And certainly, freedom of speech affords me the right to say anything that I want. However, I choose to remain civil, and not make those types of remarks, for a few reasons.

1) I do not like when other people say racist things, stereotypical remarks, etc. So I attempt to refrain from making those type of remarks. "Do unto others", as it were.

2) The point of posting in a forum such as this, is to share your ideas and have them seriously considered by others. My own personal experience has lead me to believe that others are significantly less likely to take me seriously if I make racist remarks or speak in hateful ways. And because I want to be taken seriously, I attempt to not make those remarks.

3)"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

G5, I don't think anyone has attempted to take away your ability to say whatever you want. They may have requested you refrain from saying things, or even demanded that you don't say certain things. However, it is within their right of free speech to request/demand whatever they want. To my knowledge, no one has actually attempted to forcibly stop you from saying anything. No one has hacked your account, or made a request to the administrator to have your posts blocked.

And you are absolutely correct. Racism is not illegal. But that does not mean that it is not morally wrong.

Sam, You have to know that folks like Guillermo are nothing more than seminar responders who are progammed what to say so you should not waste your valuable time on this drivel. You can see where they get their information (CBS - Dan Rather ilk and PBS - Bill Moyer ilk)

Being called liberal is not hate speech. I consider being called a conservative a compliment.

Just write your blogs and so we can enjoy the reading of your take on things. We can agree or disagree, your comments may apply to our lives or not but it is always interesting to read.

G5,

I'm beginning to think that you do not read anything I post.

Firstly, I'm not sure how I have tried to 'bully' anyone into conforming to my beliefs. Unless by 'bully' you mean 'present a rational thought out argument for my positions by which I hope to convince people of their merit'.

Secondly, you continually bring up the same tired points about reification and race. Both of which I have responded to with facts and my opinions, and I still await your counter-responses. I am honestly tired of bringing up my responses only to have you bring up the same points over and over again without engaging me in my response.

And by your own definition of reification, you can't refer to 'liberals', as that is an abstraction with no power of it's own. And you have unknowingly given a GOOD example of reification. You cannot 'debate ideas'. As ideas are abstracts incapable of engaging in debate. You must debate PEOPLE on the subject of ideas.

You see? We use reification (your definition) in common speech all of the time. It is a fallacy of ambiguity, not a fallacy of deductive reasoning. Meaning that as long as we understand each other's MEANINGS, it is OK. I understand what you mean when you say "I will debate ideas". Just as you understand me when I say "society considers that racist". So the fallacy is moot.

Additionally, I'm not sure who you are referring to as my "resident troll", but I will assure you that I have no control over what other people say, and I don't intend to 'muzzle' anyone (nor would I wish to). Contrary to popular conservative beliefs, we don't have weekly meetings where we plot propaganda and the downfall of America.

And I do argue my ideas, but you were the one who was claiming that liberals are too sensitive to political correctness, I was simply presenting the counterpoint that most people in society would find some of the language you use to be unacceptable. Sorry if that was 'chastising' you. But in my opinion, you are drawing the line between arguing points and 'chastising' pretty thinly.

I'm sorry that you require preconditions that I cannot meet in order to actually have a civil discussion. However, I would point out that were I to request the same of you, you would be less able to meet them than myself.

I think a large difference between us is that you seem to think you are justified in making inflammatory, mean, and deragatory statements because the "other side" is doing it. While I strive my best to have a civil debate DESPITE the fact that the "other side" is being inflammatory and hateful. (Do unto others)

"You do not speak for all people and you have no monopoly on ethics and morals, especially Liberal ones."

I am aware that I don't speak for all people. I don't believe that I claimed I did. Are you referring to my assertion that most citizens would find some of your racist terminology offensive? I really don't think that it is an extraordinary claim that people are generally offended by calling other races genetically inferior or using the term 'porch monkey'.

Seriously, G5. R-E-A-D.

You explicitly asked me to define race in the comments of Mike's latest blog post (Grand Obstructionist party), and I gave you TWO definitions, explained the difference, and where I think you are confused on the matter. It was a very long comment, so I will not repost it here. It is still posted where you asked your question, go read it.

You keep railing about NAMBLA. Are you living in the 90's? NAMBLA's "headquarters" consists of a PO Box in San Francisco. They no longer have national meetings, and the organization has even discouraged the creation of local chapters. Are they really the big threat we need to worry about? In a free society, there are always going to be groups of people with fringe views. Why are you taking a practically defunct one of these groups so seriously?

And before you chastise the ACLU, read up on the case in which they defended NAMBLA. A man (not a member of NAMBLA) raped and murdered a child. A wrongful death lawsuit was brought against NAMBLA soley because the murderer VISITED the NAMBLA website. The ACLU defended their right to freedom of speech.

Think of this from your perspective. If a man murdered a Muslim, and someone brought a lawsuit against YOU because the man read some of your hateful comments against Muslims, wouldn't you want someone to step up and defend your 1st amendment rights? And make the case that you are not responsible for HIS actions just because he visited a website where you write?

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion of homosexuals. Just as I am entitled to call your opinion narrow-minded and hateful.