View Single Post
  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Facts we should *not* consider.

rectal suppository wrote:
>>his remarks were out of place in such a setting is not censorship, it's

>
> Yes it is.


No, it wasn't censorship. He made his remarks. Nobody bleeped his words,
nobody stopped him from saying them. The fact that others remarked about
and/or criticized his hate-speech is NOT censorship. It, too, is free
speech, even when others suggest he should have chosen a more
appropriate forum for his tirade.

> It was FREE SPEECH for Michael Moore to discuss whatever
> the hell he wanted.


He did, didn't he?

> It is for the Academy Awards people to decide what they want
> to air.


They did. Members of the Academy, for the most part, apparently did not
care for his out-of-bounds remarks. They booed Moore.

> If you did not want to hear it, then you could change the channel.


I don't watch much television, and I certainly don't care to watch the
wretched excesses of Hollywood types awarding each other. I heard the
remarks on news channels -- further evidence that the fat shit's
statements were NOT censored by given far more air play than they
deserved. You are a ****ing idiot if you consider THAT censorship.

> Because YOU would say the EXACT same thing if animal rights people
> complained
> about inappropriate advertising and promotion by the meat industry in
> situations which THEY did not ask for.


You're the one bordering on calls of censorship. Meat advertisements
aren't exactlt free speech, though: advertising costs money.

> You would defend every action of
> promoting the MEAT agenda as "free speech" and wrongly accuse
> animal rights people of trying to "censor" you.


No, see above. You have no clue about what censorship is, much less free
speech. Nobody said the fat shithead couldn't say what he did, they only
suggested he do it in a more appropriate venue. While Hollywood has been
particularly partisan in the past, most people have been civil during
awards shows. That was the point of the people -- who probably agreed
with the fat turd more than they disagreed with him -- who booed.

> Why do I have to take a trip on a Greyhound bus and have the bus
> deliberately pull over to a McDonald's on an unscheduled unannounced
> stop?


You don't have to take a bus. I don't know what Greyhound's policies
are, but I bet that's an issue between Greyhound and their drivers. If
you don't want anything from McD's, stay on the bus. It's not that
difficult, you prat.

> There is NOTHING about "free speech" or the "First Amendment"
> in doing that.


Irrelevant. You're free to complain to Greyhound if it really bothers
you (though I find it awfully petty of you to whine about it).

> Assholes like you would bitch and complain if the bus
> stopped at an all-vegetarian health food store.


I don't know if I would since I'm a vegetarian.

> You are just jealous because his books are so popular.


I'm not jealous. He preaches to a small but frenzied choir.

>>According to polls, a large majority of Iraqi people want us to remain
>>in country to help with their transition to freedom and democracy.

>
> What polls?


Gallup, you dolt.

Baghdad residents support US presence for now - poll
14/10/2003 - 06:58:51

More than two-thirds of Baghdad residents would like to see US
troops stay longer than a few more months, but many still have
sharply mixed feelings about their presence troops, a poll says.

The Gallup poll found that 71% of the Iraqi capital’s residents
felt US troops should not leave in the next few months. Just 26%
felt the troops should leave that soon.
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/stor...220&p=6798y8xx

> You may be true,


I am.

> and I hope you are,


Liar.

> but it is ridiculously
> naive that a serious scientific poll has been taken in a country
> struggling to build itself out of the ruins of a war.


No, it isn't naive. Science can and does happen in the strangest places.

>>above (or below) popular support. Just remember, for the record, that
>>you were in a very small minority if you were originally opposed to
>>action in Iraq.

>
> That is false, at best.


It's true whether you like it or not.

> Polls are not scientific,


You obviously do not understand polling.

> because they do not answer
> the questions people wish to ask.


Polls *may* be skewed by the way questions are asked, but even poorly
done polls can gauge public sentiment. In the case of the polling done
by every news organization in the US prior to war with Iraq, every poll
showed widespread support for taking action regardless of which
pollsters (Gallup, Harris, Pew, Quinnipiac College, et al) asked questions.

> You are SO hung up on opinion
> polls, like they mean ANYthing.


I'm not hung up on polls. I pointed out something that goes against what
you said previously. Stop shooting the messenger, you fudgepacker.

> And being in the minority does not have ANYthing to do with the
> correctness of one's argument.


I didn't say it did. Take a look at my defense of minority rights in a
democracy in my exchanges with "Jane" in the "it's too easy" thread.

> I have personally emailed President Bush asking him to take military
> action
> against OTHER countries, such as dictatorships in South America (most
> notably,
> Peru) and elsewhere.


Try writing your congressman and senators. Only Congerss can authorize
such military actions.

> I would be all for war if it meant freeing billions
> of animals from factory farms and torture laboratories in other
> countries!


Yes, you sure do have your priorities straight, misanthrope.

> But then YOU would OPPOSE that war, since you would preach blindly
> against the violence on one side.


No, I would oppose a war for liberation of other species because it
would be a complete waste of valuable resources. I don't "preach"
anything -- I believe terrorism by ARAs is wrong.

>>Non sequitur. Animals do not have rights. They never have.

>
> That is just YOUR opinion.


Legally, it is a fact.

> Many humans believe they DO have rights.


Appeal to popularity. Some people believed David Koresh would rise from
the dead. He hasn't. What people some believe doesn't make it so.

>>No, answer the question. Does an animal have a will PRIOR to the
>>breeding of its parents? Are you suggesting animals pre-exist
>>fertilization?

>
> Non-sequitur.


Sequitur. The OP asked a question and your answer evaded it.

> I never said animals have a will before, or even after,
> fertilization.


The OP responded to you with:
How can an animal be "forced into existence against it's will"?
In order to have will, an animal must exist first.

Your response evaded the issue and suggested he look into breeding.

> HUMANS have a will, however, and deliberately choose
> to bring male and female animals together, KNOWING full well that the
> animals will mate. Or, humans will simply artificially inseminate the
> animals.


Yes, we do that to fulfill a demand. FWIW, male and female animals often
get together without man's interaction, knowing full well that they will
**** and have offspring. That is one of the three drives of animals:
mating, defense of territory, food.

> You are like a person giving a loaded gun to a child and then blaming
> the child if the child shoots themself.


Non sequitur.

> After all, YOU did not choose to make the child shoot themself.


HIMself. Singular. Still non sequitur.

> But, would you argue that children
> have no rights (one of which may be the right to be kept out of
> deliberate danger by handing them a loaded gun)?


Correct, I believe children don't have rights. Minors and others deemed
incompetent, like the retarded or infirm, are afforded protections under
the law. Rights assume a measure of responsibility, and the law respects
the fact that most minors are not yet responsible. It's a legal
distinction, but a very valid one even under our current legal system
(attacks on this distinction have occurred in recent years, but the
principle remains).

Your analogy, though, remains non sequitur.