Hating crap

[Richard Wiig]

Whether she's right or wrong, 100% or part and part, it isn't the issue. William shifts the goal posts.

I disagree with this.

This is a false dichotomy: i.e., you either hate Islam and applaud the young lady, or you are supporting Islam.

I haven't proposed any such dichotomy. I've said it isn't the issue. The issue is defence of freedom of speech. William is focussing on a side issues, as to whether or not she's right or wrong about her buggery claims. It may be an issue for you, but me, I really couldn't care less. It isn't the essence of the matter.

Just as I don't stand with Islamists, I cannot stand with a lady like the one in the video. She's a kook.

You're free to stand or not stand with whoever you like. Me, I'll support her for her spirited defence of freedom of speech. That doesn't rule out criticism for her faults, but it does mean giving credit where credit is due. I'm not someone who throws out the baby with the bathwater. My brother is a Catholic, I don't throw him out just because he believes in stupid superstitious nonsense. I criticise his religious beliefs, and sometimes it's heated, but I always give him credit where credit is due.

The young lady is no Manson, but give her someone she thinks is a for-real witch, a little power to move mobs and some kindle-wood, I'm fairly sure that gap will start closing.

Hung, drawn and quartered, and she hasn't even commited any kind of crime that I know of.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The issue is defence of freedom of speech.

Richard,

Where has William or myself come out against freedom of speech, or implied we are against freedom of speech?

On the contrary, I specifically remember standing for the other dude's right to burn the Qu'ran in public, even as I exercised my freedom of speech and bashed him for it. Why wouldn't I stand for the same here?

I just don't like haters and don't stand with them on anything. But I don't deny them their freedom of speech.

Since they are haters, I think it is worthwhile to keep an eye on them and keep a healthy distance.

So, if the issue is only freedom of speech, where is the disagreement and this shifting of goal posts you complained about? Would you deny William his own freedom of speech?

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

The issue is defence of freedom of speech.

Richard,

Where has William or myself come out against freedom of speech, or implied we are against freedom of speech?

What you both do is diminish that womans stand for freedom of speech when she actually deserves credit for her stand, regardless of her faults. Neither of you point out her faults, her errors in thinking, in order to improve her, or to improve the situation, you do it in order to destroy her and any positive stand that she's taken. The whole Charles Manson thing is clearly aimed at destroying her credibility, and you do this without one shred of evidence that she is anything like a manson. She even says in her video that she supports the right of people to put crucifixes into vats of urine, label it "Pis Christ" and call it art, yet you make out that she's out to destroy everyones freedom. If she was standing up and saying this should be banned, or that should be banned, that criticism of the Bible should be banned and we should all live by Biblical moral principles, enforced by law, I'd be with you in condemning her 100%. But she isn't. She's standing up and saying that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and that we should all make our stand to defend it in the face of the attack on it. I will never set out to to destroy anyone who is doing that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What you both do is diminish that womans stand for freedom of speech when she actually deserves credit for her stand, regardless of her faults.

Richard,

You are half-right and half-wrong.

You are right that I diminish the woman's stand for freedom of speech. She's a hater and I don't want to be identified with her when I stand for freedom of speech. I want moral and intellectual distance from her. Like I said, I don't stand with her. I reject everything substantial about her I have perceived so far except her right to express herself.

You are wrong about her deserving credit regardless of her faults. I don't give a moral blank check to anyone and pre-forgive them of things I judge they are doing wrong on purpose.

The only thing she deserves credit for is expressing herself. I will actually fight for her right to do that. But I will not endorse what she expresses (as you do in making light of the vileness of it for some kind of greater good you imagine she is providing) and she does not deserve my endorsement for what she expresses--tacit or explicit.

Maybe she deserves your endorsement. Fine. But don't ever think you will do that near me without objection.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

So you've effectively written her off as a person. It doesn't matter what good things there are about her, they all mean zero. I reserve that kind of thing for paedophiles and murderers, not people who merely believe in gourds floating in the sky. I do not hate that much and I certainly do not hate her. Despite her errors she's probably a very good decent person who will never do anyone any harm. Credit where credit is due, by the way, does not equate to a blank moral check as you seem to think it does.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't even see this last post until now.

(That's why this moderation stuff is a pain in the butt.)

So you've effectively written her off as a person. It doesn't matter what good things there are about her, they all mean zero.

No, that's not what I have effectively done.

I believe she has a possibility of changing her views over time. So if she starts coming around to a less hateful view, I'll listen to her. But I use balance as a standard. This young lady is so imbalanced that I don't want her associated with me. And I don't want to stand beside her.

There's a limit I can go with someone of dogmatic views, but after that limit, I prefer distance.

It's like eating off a plate of food that has a tiny portion of good beans and a whole lot of rotten food all around it. I prefer not to eat anything off that plate.

I could knock a couple of rotten things off (say a few funky looking French Fries) and still eat if that's all there was. But I can't do it if there is a whole lot of rotten stuff. Too much rotten food spoils my appetite.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I don't know why you folks make all this so bloody complicated.

Here, a bit of brief input:

I live in FL, for starters, and if you don't think for a minute I don't know what that cocksucker is about, well . . .

I work as a component of a music group that goes greater to an overall worship group, and just for that I have cycled through at least a year-and-a-half of such work (and it is difficult, enduring work).

First off, with these fuckheads . . .

I think it is weird that you run a church where you strap on sidearms. That is what these douchbeags do, trust me. Oh, we, www.uucfm.and others initially protested said douche early on, to no avail.

Talk about trench-fighting for things that we all believe in, yes, Holy Fucking Jesus<tm>.

These people are hateful shitheads. And, so being, reality will get the best of them.

The Universe works painfully in that fashion.

But, break: behold the Asshole In Question<tm>

http://www.kfor.com/sns-rt-usreport-us-protesttre73o618-20110425,0,4319618.story

That's what "It" (dare I even honor it by capitalization) looks like.

He is a hateful freak. He garners media attention vis-a-vis his flamboyant asshole-ness<tm>.

Our work, within the thinking religious community, lies far elsewhere. If you want to expend energy, work with the people that are exploited down here in FL picking tomatoes, for instance.

But I go on, because it is, in the end, BS.

He is shit, and it will run down the drain. We have tried, by all means so far and available, to convince him elsewise.

It (He) will die a natural death. That is the nature of evolution.

rde

Trying to be nice, but that fuck-stick is going to get it eventually

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rich,

We were discussing his female soul-mate.

Some people think that it is a good thing to fight dogmatism and violence with another brand of dogmatism and violence.

I, personally, don't even like the show anymore when these kinds of folks goad and taunt each other in hateful terms.

I guess there is enough popcorn to go around for all humanity in the theaters of spite, though, that is if you want some.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Rich,

We were discussing his female soul-mate.

Some people think that it is a good thing to fight dogmatism and violence with another brand of dogmatism and violence.

I, personally, don't even like the show anymore when these kinds of folks goad and taunt each other in hateful terms.

I guess there is enough popcorn to go around for all humanity in the theaters of spite, though, that is if you want some.

Michael

Some people think that it is a good thing to fight dogmatism and violence with another brand of dogmatism and violence.

And there's the rub . . .

The best thing you can do without becoming one of them is to expose them to the bright, clear sunlight--they don't like that! And while you are hoisting them up yonder flagpole, I think it is OK to tell a few funnies.

rde

You Can Always Let Them Back Down After A Few Hours