The Glade 4.0

This is the backstory:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/probation-officers-question-anti-islam-filmmaker-overnight/story?id=17244562#.UFdjQo1lRRE

Selected quotes:




So, no, he didn't request this. They questioned him overnight. Apparently satisfied that he hadn't violated the terms of his parole, he was released.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

It doesn't matter that it's "still a case of that". You can't handwave away the differences, point out only the similarities, and then claim hypocrisy on that basis.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Stephen Fry is welcome to ignore people complaining they are offended on his message board, or in his house. Other private people and organizations, however, are welcome to give whatever weight they want to someone's complaint of being offended, no matter how much that may offend Stephen Fry.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You deserve the very best.





But you still felt the need to bring her into this...if they didn't do anything wrong, why bring her into a conversation she isnt involved with? No, don't answer. I know why.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Really? because I think the point eluded you.
The point is that you are faulting H. Clinton for the SAME behavior as your spouse. But because H. Clinton is a "lib" you fault her, and not your spouse.

I'm saying both are blameless in this case. You're saying one is and the other isn't. Ergo, you are being hypocritical.

Doesn't elude me in the slightest. I know what kind of person you are. Quick question that should put an end to this...

Do you know for a fact that LK asked for that thread to be closed?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

You're right. I don't. Was it you instead? She did ask that other people not share opinions that were offensive to her, so even if it wasn't specifically her who requested to the board admins that the thread be closed, she still asked others not to share opinions that she considered offensive. So until someone else comes forward... (was it you? Please say its you. that would make you even more of a hypocrite)

Oh man of little integrity if any at all...you attack someone in a thread that they aren't involved in then dance around trying to cast others in a negative light.

You are a large, stinking, turd.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

aaaaaaaannnnddd we're back to name calling.

Who exactly did I attack again? (apart from you) Seriously. Maybe if you accuse me of things I haven't done. (Such as attack people) enough, people will believe you.

It's not so much name calling...but describing the essence that is you in a discriptive way...

Attack might be the wrong word then...but you brought my wife into a thread for no reason but to take a shot at me or her...that's what I got out of it. A thread she hasn't been involved with that I'm aware of? What was the reason to even do that? Especially when you admit you don't even know if she did what you accused her of.

Is it ok if I bring your wife into threads and accuse her of things I don't really know the truth of?

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Thanks for proving my point about your myopia for me man. Appreciate it.

hint: you should learn to read their full comments...

You have a penchant for unfounded accusations. Why would you spare anyone? Or are your baseless claims only lobbed in my general direction?

So Aizle, in all your postings...you have never, ever...just copied what was on the page you were reading? Never?

There was no intent to decieve. I read an article on a blog. I'm assuming you have done the same sometime in the past(I mean, democraticunderground, huffington post, dailykos don't get hit's by themselves!). I posted what was on said blog. If you want or require more info, you can go get it. Is that so hard? Oh, but then you wouldn't get to get your own dig in. Like I said, elitist prick you are.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Really? The vast majority of the things I post have links. How is that an unfounded accusation? I've never claimed everything I post is 100% correct. Actally, most of what I post is opinion.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

What baseless claims are referring too? You're the one with the baseless claim in this thread.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Seriously. Learn to argue without name calling. It takes the wind out of your sails and reduces the effectiveness of your arguments. You occasionally have something insightful to say Nitefox, but its lost among the ad hominim attacks and schoolyard name-calling.

First off: TheRiov - you should really apologize for bringing LK into the conversation and then drop the point. It was a cheap shot / trolling, and I suspect you know that.

Now on to the substance....

You're right, NF, that the two Clinton statements are very different - the statement about the Pussy Riot prosecution is an admonishment to respect freedom of speech, full stop, whereas the statement about the anti-Muslim film and the response thereto is an expression of shared offense coupled with an explanation of American values regarding freedom of speech. One common accusation from the right has been that this is due to the identity of the people offended by the underlying speech - i.e., offended Christians get admonished, offended Muslims get coddled. However, I think that critique is mistaken, because Clinton's statement to the Russians wasn't addressed to offended Christians; it was addressed to Putin and his political allies (whether explicitly or not).

Putin and the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church (among others) have allied themselves in an effort to roll back freedoms in Russia and craft a more authoritarian state based on traditional Russian nationalism (which includes the ROC as a key cultural symbol and institutional power). Hence, Pussy Riot's disrespect for the ROC was both intended and perceived as disrespect for Putin's regime and authoritarian Russian nationalism generally, and that's why the Russian government brought the hammer down on them. Consequently, Clinton's statement was a criticism of Putin and his allies for their authoritarianism and a warning that the US is paying attention to the Russian slide in that direction. There was no need or desire to explain the niceties of American values on the subject to the intended audience.

Clinton's statement about the anti-Muslim film, by contrast, was addressed to the Muslim Street, which very much does need to be educated on the niceties of American values surrounding freedom of speech. Most people living in Muslim-majority countries have little to no experience with non-dictatorial governments, separation of Church and State, etc., and they genuinely do not understand or accept that the US government, and the American people generally, would allow and protect speech that they don't agree with. By that logic, if the US doesn't punish this filmmaker, that's a tacit endorsement of his message. So, Clinton's statement was designed to explain the distinction.

I really don't care about your opinion in how I respond to you. You are the last to talk about how people come across. Maybe you don't just outright take a personal dig at someone, but you usually repond or phrase things in very insulting ways.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

Heaven forbid my responses point out the absurdity or ridiculousness of a post. I attack ideas and posts, positions and statements and occasionally behavior.

Occasionally, when someone has been making personal attacks at me, I'll respond in kind. Not particularly proud of that, but even I have my limits. But 99.9% of the time I keep my posts limited to what is said on the board.

Just...no....disagree, defend, lie...but no. I've read your crap on these boards a long, long time...and well, like I said...no.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

You'll note that I never stated that I thought you were doing anything intentional to deceive. You were simply posting in your usual habit, which is to take a sound bite and run with it. What is unfortunate is that that sound bite doesn't include all of the context which shows that actually Clinton isn't some freedom hating muslim lover, but that doesn't fit within your world view, so you tend to ignore it.

She is, however, sympathetic to the disgust for freedom that the Muslims are demonstrating.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The idea that there's some sort of similarity between LK asking the administrator on a private message board to lock a thread that she finds offensive, and the Secretary of State telling muslims "We understand why you're offended" is laughable. The only similarity is that someone taking offense is somehow involved.

TheRiov, if you didn't want to get name-called, you shouldn't have dragged another poster that isn't even in the thread into the discussion on the flimsy excuse that her husband is posting in this thread. What's even flimsier is your comparison between LK and Hillary Clinton. You're able to make it only by cherry-picking the circumstances that are similar and ignoring those that are different. Not only is this a board that makes its own rules and that people can come and go from as they please, as opposed to being the Federal Government, but frankly the thread in General was not a discussion at all; it was just someone making a joke that played off my joke.

The issue at hand is the situation WRT our embassies in the middle east, plus the comparison with the Russian situation. The possible hypocrisy or lack thereof of the posters on this board WRT a completely unrelated thread in General is positively trivial in comparison. No point is being made by even bringing it up; that was just picking a fight for no reason that contributed in any way to the discussion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And therein lies the heart of the problem. There is no reason to be showing any sympathy whatsoever, in view of the fact that they decided to burn embassies and kill people, and the PResident of Egypt downplaying that fact.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."