jefferiah

Yes it was over-the-top. I believe that Canada was ranked under Latvia and Chile as well by the Aussies. However, I think this might be sort of a revenge thing, because Canada also has warnings about tourism in Australia, including the spiders James Rahn mentioned.

Ah but that is a bad comparison. Your situation involves what could be vital evidence. In this case, the reasons are irrelevant, because you do not need a reason for free speech. And because he believes that, he is not going to indulge you with one. It's irrelevant. I don't view him with more suspicion because of that answer. I think it is a perfectly natural way to answer the question. This is how I would hope to answer in the same situation, even if I printed the cartoons with the purest of reasons, so it certainly does not raise my suspicion level. But it also does nothing to say his reasons were good. It's brilliant. When it comes to something like free speech, which to me is such a natural ideal, I think it's actually the normal way to react to such a question. Because you would think---what the hell is this.....I don't have to give answers for something which is not wrong....If I wanna paint a mural of Mohammed with horns on his head thats my bloody business. You would be pissed off at the question. If he answered in any other way, I might be more suspicious of him.

Perhaps "you" get that impression. But he is not giving it. He is not giving anything. He does not say whether his reasons are good or bad. He simply says that he is within his rights even if it were for the worst reasons. But he does not say he is doing it for the worst reasons. So he is not giving that impression at all. He is saying since I have the right to do it regardless of the reason, why should I answer. He is certainly not defending his reasons. But he is also not saying he did it for a bad reason. His refusal to defend his motives is the wisest thing. Because, he should not have to. If you wish to look at it this way.....he says in effect (to use your words): "If I did this simply because I can, that is still my right." But that is not the same as saying "I did this because I can". It is like he is saying "What's it to you? I don't have to answer to you or defend myself to you." In this manner he keeps himself in the upperhand.

So what. As I said, had I printed them for my own reason---the newsworthy one, I would respond in this way. Because it should not matter to me what you think. It is my right. I won't indulge your questions. I don't have to answer to you. If I am secure in the belief that this is my right, I think to myself "Why the hell should I be expected to answer to you? If I want to do this cuz I think it will impress some wierd girl, that is my business." If he has a right to say it, his reasons are irrelevant, and why should he have to defend himself over something like this. If you look at his answer, he does not say "I did this because I can". He says I have the right to do it even for the most offensive reasons. But he doesn't say that that was his reason. He is basically saying that the reasons don't and should not matter. He answered very intelligently by not actually giving an answer. Whether he knew what he was doing or not, he responded in the wisest manner. To answer any other way he would be conceding that he does in fact have to answer to other people for his free speech.

Now once again, I do not know what Levant's reasons were, but had I published them for the newsworthy reason, I wish that I would respond so well as he did right there. When asked my reasons for publishing them, I would hope I would say....."Why should it matter my reason? My reasons are my reasons." In a nation with free speech I should not have to answer to anyone about my reasons for using it.

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. You don't know and neither do I. Whatever the reason, I think they ought to have been published for that express purpose I mentioned. And I would publish them for that reason. So for whatever reason he did it, I am glad that he did.

Well, the cartoons were published here and there was no violence. But even if there was. Free speech is an important thing. Reporting the news is important. I for one think it is completely silly to give in to ridiculous demands on our freedom of speech because some people could turn violent. By that logic, violence will rule. Those who wish to get anything will just threaten society with a little violence, and for fear of having to handle that, society will just give in. If you keep using this method, the lives you secure (if any) won't be worth living. No way. In the west we are still allowed to print the news (those cartoons were a big news story). And we will. We won't be intimidated. At some point, we will be faced with the reality that we will have to straighten out our thin little spines and make a stand. Because if we don't, freedom after freedom will erode.

No I don't. Because that is ridiculous. Essentially you are saying its ok for one to be proud of his race, but not for another. What difference do the circumstances make? Personally I think racial pride of any kind is silly. But nonetheless. Let's take two individuals. One grew up and had a hard life let's say. The other didn't. Both of them have made some great accomplishments. Is it only ok for the one who grew up in hard circumstances to be proud? So either it is not ok to be proud of being black or white. Or it is ok to be proud of being black or white. Take your pick.

Oh really? Blacks are prohibited from joining these groups or what, and can only be members of black groups? Hmmmmm..... I am not even going to bother to ask you to back that up.

True enough.

So then you would say this same thing to anyone who says they are proud to be black?

Cybercoma, do you generally react to someone who says they are proud to be black?

Not even stupid. Those cartoons were a very newsworthy story. Why shouldn't they have been published for the public to see what all the commotion was about?

You know despite the fact that I am always defending Christianity on here, few people who know me in real life probably think of me as a Christian. I have not gone to Church since I was 12, with the exception of weddings and funerals. I do not wear a t-shirt which anounces that I am Christian, and for many years prior to me changing my ideas, I was more of an armchair Buddhist. And I think alot of people were aware of my interest in Zen at the time. Throughout all of this, I was never treated as a devil outcast. I can remember instances where someone who was strict Christian may have expressed concern, but certainly not horrible to deal with. Nothing along the lines of "convert or else". And in typical everyday life I do not see society treating people as outcasts for not being Christian. You must be dreaming.

Of course she took the money. First off, if she doesn't take the money they don't get to put it on the air. But the whole "I don't want money" thing is part of the drama. When she was going on that spiel she knew she was going to take the money and they knew it as well. That spiel is what she was being paid for. Watch the credits of the show. There are two Supervising Story Producers.

Free speech is the answer, Michael. You are only seeing this from one side. You think the propaganda is the problem. The citizens of Nazi Germany did not have free speech. Hateful propaganda can be countered with reasoned argument in a society with free speech. So if you don't want history to repeat itself, I suggest you get out there and start supporting Steyn and MacLeans. Start to impose limits on speech and you put the citizens of this country in a weak position where any tyrant who comes along could wield great power, much like Nazi Germany.

It certainly isn't. Guyser compared the Danish Cartoons to slander or libel suits. I am pointing out that this is not a parallel.

If the prophet Mohammed feels he has been slandered by the Cartoons let him sue. Even that would be ridiculous if it were possible. Everyday public figures are humiliated in caricature.

Then you ought to stop making the silly comparison.

Well, regardless of hoe some Christians can be, or how some people of any demographic can be, I don't think you are overly concerned. You seem to be more concerned with a desperate attempt to get some sort of ha ha ha ha in, some sort of oneupmanship for you.

Yeah, this performance is right up there with Stone Cold Steve Austin having it out with the evil Vince McMahon.

I have no doubt about it at all. They are making money. Everyday there are people willing to do that on shows like Maury. Scripted is not exactly the word I should have used. Staged is more like it. Of course, they tell them to act this way. Do you think people have all these emotional outbursts and dramatic climaxes naturally, oblivious to the presence of a fellow a few feet away moving around the room capturing every moment from a different angle with his camera? And then when someone storms out of the house angry on one of these shows and you see them walking away pissed off---well you see that because there is a cameraman going step for step with this person. The funny thing here is that during all of this everyone is acting as if there is no cameraman. When yelling at someone they do not ever look at this man. I wouldn't doubt they have multiple takes on some of these. That does not smack of reality. Real people would be well aware of the presence of the camera. What is more likely--that all these people agree to have their out-of-this-world outbursts shown on tv, or that they agree to act a certain way for money. Wife Swap and Trading Spouses are most definitely rigged. Every week on these shows there are these high climax dramatic scenes with people going out of their heads over something silly. I would say some game shows have to be rigged to some degree. Take Deal or No Deal. They have a surprise guest for the contestant on the show. His long lost father is waiting in the back room to come out. It's not just the story that makes this so unbelievable. It is the way they play it out patiently. Howie does not bring this person out until he has gone a few more rounds. I've seen people say "No Deal" to high amounts money more than once all before the special guest is brought out. Now how the hell do Howie and the producers know that he would not walk away before they get to bring out his long lost father?

Scripted

Then you obviously misunderstood my argument. I never said the impairment was the same. I never even used this argument as an indicator that marijuana does impair. In fact, I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I am well aware that alcohol impairs to a greater degree. I used to smoke pot. I know all this. I know that playing guitar on pot is a lot better than playing under the influence of alcohol. I certainly don't think it is a horrible thing to do. And I don't think of pot smokers as criminals. What I did say was that your assertion about Louis Armstrong being instrumental in the invention of modern music does nothing to suggest that marijuana does not impair. I was pointing out that this is a non-argument. Simply put, the scope of one's influence says nothing about the good physical affects of the substances they ingested. This fellow who feels his rights have been violated accepted a position which he knew required regular drug testing.