Report Has the quality of this forum gone down in Federal Politics Posted June 14, 2004 The fact that no such reason exists implies that that they are. But reality does exist outside your mind, and it might not align completely with your perspective, in all cases. This is why arguments exist. Otherwise, it would simply be a matter of "ask takeanumber". There is no good reason to be 'for' the promotion of extermination of a whole group of people. The term "good" is a value judgement that exists in your mind. There might be an argument that laws that suppress individual expression will cause a backlash, and give a hint of contraband to views that would otherwise just wither and die anyway. That's one argument that might be good to someone. You can't say, "because of freedom of speech", because we place limits on all our rights for reasons. Libel is one such limit. That doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. You can't say, "because political correctness is bad", because how can you be against basic respect for homosexuals without being anti-homosexual. It's possible. If one thinks that their actions are immoral, decadent or improper somehow for one. You can't hide behind the curtain of 'free speech' or anything else for that matter because that material, with the right glasses, is transparent. But maybe I'd rather wait until everyone can see properly than force everyone to wear glasses. When I read some of this stuff, it is exactly what I've heard from the mouths of, well, people who were involved in doing things, and that's why I have the reaction. But it doesn't mean they're the same type of people. You may be pre-judging them, which is a behavior that you are ostensibly against. I've asked, repeatedly, for some proof that the people on these boards are different than the people I know in real life, and every time, I don't the differentiating statements.Which inclines me to believe the absolute worse about these people. But the board isn't about outing bad people, it's about discussion. Your visceral reaction to your opponents is understandable, but I suggest that all you can do is argue them to a stalemate then walk away. Those who are comfortable in their views will be open to change them. I mean, they might not want to be associated with those people, but when they make statements like the ones I read under Bill C-250, or the immigration one, it just confirms my worst suspicion.And I'm not sorry, but those ideas need to be disputed. And nothing short of banning is going to keep me from fighting those ideas, in spite of the personal attacks. The board is about arguing the idea not the person. If you're indeed arguing with somebody who harbours hatred for certain groups, you're never going to win anyway. Give up. The board isn't for those types anyway. That's an emotive response, not an intellectual one. Those ideas are wrong, and worse, they're infectious if they're left unchallenged. I think hatred is more of an emotion than an idea. You can't argue against an emotion.