bleeding heart

Ah....well done, sir!

The Islamists are conservative, not leftist; you don't get any more conservative than these guys. As for the Nazis...well, you have already been schooled on your delusions, whether you pretend it didn't happen or not. The Nazis (and fascists generally) were a right-wing phenomenon, with a few lefty qualities tossed in for good measure. But in essence, right-wingers.

Why then do you not think my quite different view on this subject "reveals" the left to you?

Uh, no: this is demonstrably the behaviour of arch-conservatives at work. The literal opposite of your assertion.

So did virtually everyone else. So did the National Post! How could it be "specifically....leftists" when it was also all the centrists and all the conservatives? The Left is not at fault for the Right's weaknesses and failings, Kraychik, as comforting as that might be to those who abhor notions of responsibility for their own behaviour. Again--aside from the possibility of some lesser-known outlets publishing the cartoons--the only relatively major sources that published them were the left-wing American Harper's (a fine publicaiton, by the way, and I strongly recommend it), and the right-wing Canadian Western Standard. That few if any other media organs would publish them speaks well for these two magazines, in my view. Again, it's not "the left," and your frantic obssession over this trope is making you blind. The right-wing and centrist publicatiosn all avoided the cartoons like the plague. This is not the fault of the left; only leftist outlets refusing to publish the cartoons are responsible for their own refusal to publish the cartoons. The National Post, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal...hell, the Fredericton, NB Gleaner (our local, crappy little conservative newspaper)...they are all responsible for what they do, and what they omit to do. "The Left." You only wish it were that simple, and that easy.

No one, certainly not myself, has even faintly suggested otherwise. Just to clarify--and this should be helpful to you, since you didn't read my post, or you'd already know this--they're not two Canadian media outlets; it's a Canadian magazine and an American one. And there's nothing inaccurate about it. I wondered aloud at the fact that the republication by these two magazines received no violent response. That has nothing to do with the uncontested fact that violence did erupt over the cartoons previously. I don't think you're following along very well, frankly.

Ha!

Yes, I see you're right. I should have known better than to take Ezra Levant's word for...well, anything, pretty much. Especially while he's promoting his own Courageous Stances on this and that.

I do. But just as a point of order (and I'm not actually disagreeing with you in principle): the film causing the current ruckus is, by every and any standard, a provocative offense, and is designed to be. (I take no major issue with that, personally, beyond thinking that it's a dick move...a dick move which I support, on principle). The Scorsese movie is entirely a different kettle of fish. It is designed to provoke in an artistic sense...not offense for the sake of causing offense. We know this because of a central and crucial difference: Scorsese's movie takes it as a given that Jesus' Divinity is real. It turns out, in the film, that He is indeed the Son of God. So while it takes a heretical view of specific facts, it respectfully assumes the central truth of Christianity. That's not only a major difference; it's completely a different type of provocation. So I don't know that the comparison is entirely apt...but then, you're not the one who brought it up, I realize that. That's an interesting point, and definitely warrants thinking about.

You should revisit your last post on this thread, and explain to us how it adds to the conversation.

Well, if it's a matter of student confidence, can't you imagine scenarios in which a "no zero" policy will hurt confidence? Say, for example, a student makes a real effort, but doesn't understand the material, or does it all wrong...and he gets a fairly poor grade. What is this student to think when another, who has literally made zero effort, gets a similar grade?

No, I think language about the Beautiful Minds of the Great Men of political economy can sometimes go over the top. There are doubtless some Marxists who fall into the same unfortunate category. Then by all means, let's do it. You seem to think that the Residential schools are somehow an accurate analogy for public schooling. How so? On the contrary. If you can refrain from inventing ideas for me that I expressly do not hold--you know, elementary honest debating practice--I assume we can discuss to our hearts' content.

No, but often the abuse is an unfortunate side-effect, distinctly secondary (or less) to the overriding principle.

If we don't support freedom of expression for views with which we disagree, then we don't support it at all. Sure, it sounds a little like a platitude. But I think it's crucial.

There were zero violent incidents that have been in any way attributed to the republishing of the cartoons by the two magazines that I noted. Where? Anywhere. It's meaningful, because they were, to my knowledge, literally the only publications to print them once the controversy erupted. That is, most (ie every single other, I believe) publication refused to publish the cartoons--out of political correctness, or out of genuine fear of a violent backlash, I can't say. These two magazines published them...to no violent effect. Which is interesting, and in my view, heartening. [edit: obviously, i don't wish to too promiscuously overstate how nobody published the cartoons...perhaps a few others did, as well. but in terms of relatively broad readerships, I think the WS--and moreso, Harper's--stand alone.)

I'm inclined to agree with most of this (and with CANADIEN, too). But people don't "have the same tolerance" for Betsy's views precisely because she is of the "literalist" camp; namely, that the Bible is "scientifically accurate" and that it's "truths" have been "proven by science." And sure, she hedges, moving back and forth, and adopting whichever (contradictory) argument best suits her at the time. So, you can't look at every word of the Bible literally...except that, oh yes you can...and in fact must. Her arguments with CANADIEN come very, very close to even denying his own faith...a matter that is of some surprise to him, it seems, as he is educated that his Christianity isn't quite up to the properly exacting (ie literalist) standards. You might be feeling for her because she is so often a lone voice battling several opponents. If so, I get this, and sometimes feel the same way about apparently embattled posters. But often, they bring it on themselves. And as Betsy doesn't seem overly hurt by all the opposition, it's arguably not an issue anyway.

Smack in the middle of the Danish cartoon controversy, the right-wing Canadian Western Standard and the left-wing American Harper's both published the cartoons. There was zero violent incident as a result of these publications. So how do we account for this?

As Waldo has implied, this is nonsensical. If "France had prevailed," then separatists (were there any) would potentially be of the Anglo variety.

And I can't see that Wilber disagrees with this. But it doesn't really speak to his point.

Movie production?

It's just that it's a populist (and in fact very popular) idea. By your logic, we should in fact be increasing taxes on the rich--even if it's ultimately a bad idea--and then learn from the mistake, if it is one.

Yeah, I wouldn't change it for anything. Though I admit I find the "it's selfish not to have children" argument a little strange, and off-putting.

True.

Sorry, blueblood, but it doesn't work quite so conveniently for people who consider themselves "Conservatives." That is, conservatives (ie Conservative voters) need to take a page from a well-worn conservative platitude; that of "personal responsibility." When Conservatives behave a certain way, it gets a little specious to blame progessives for conservatives' behaviour. In short, as with anyone else, Conservative is what Conservative does.

Hence your continual complaints about the extremely expensive military adventurism of the past couple decades....oh, wait....