Alta4ever Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) . Edited November 10, 2010 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) . As I stated before I even provided the first bit of proof, unless the man himself wrote or said the word "unmitigated" you'd never accept it. The resaon for that is your claim is false. No, you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted.... About 2:35 in...i says he would support a lawsuit.... I posted your own words. You can try to deny them all you want, those words were in fact written by you. I concede I think you are a sub genius..I concede I should write without nuance because your reading skillz are sub par, I concede you are duller than a butter knife.... You said.... ...stated before I even provided the first bit of proof, unless the man himself wrote or said the word "unmitigated" you'd never accept it. I replied ... No, you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted.... That is, you think you need find exactly the words you used, i said you could find something that says the same thing in a different way.... but in the end, you didn't. Edited November 10, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) I concede I think you are a sub genius..I concede I should write without nuance because your reading skillz are sub par, I concede you are duller than a butter knife.... You said.... ...stated before I even provided the first bit of proof, unless the man himself wrote or said the word "unmitigated" you'd never accept it. I replied ... No, you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted.... No, you said that instead of finding unmitigated support for the freedom of speech, all I could find was him saying that all restrictions should be lifted (I did, you refuse to accept it, but that's not my problem). If you meant something different perhaps you should check up on your writing skillz Bringing ignorance back up, you still refuse to very much prove a positive and find me where he believes in restrictions on freedom of speech. If I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be so hard, now should it. Oh, why am I asking, you'll never answer this anyway. I guess it goes to show you should never chose to debate a coward. Always attacking, never actually arguing for themselves. Edited November 10, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 No, you said that instead of finding unmitigated support for the freedom of speech, all I could find was him saying that all restrictions should be lifted Again, your reading skills are failing you.... Show where I said "all" to paraphrase, I said you didn't need find unmitigated, ... you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted.... And you haven't. I begin to suspect your honesty as well as your intelligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Bringing ignorance back up, you still refuse to very much prove a positive and find me where he believes in restrictions on freedom of speech. If I'm so wrong, it shouldn't be so hard, now should it. Speaking of ignorance, how many times do you need to be told that if you make the claim it is up you to prove it, not someone else to disprove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Again, your reading skills are failing you.... Show where I said "all" to paraphrase, I said you didn't need find unmitigated, ... you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted.... And you haven't. I begin to suspect your honesty as well as your intelligence. The word "all" doesn't make or break the statement. More semantics. More purposeful ignornace of everything else I've posted here. I've never once doubted your honesty. Please don't take that for a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 The word "all" doesn't make or break the statement. More semantics. More purposeful ignornace of everything else I've posted here. I've never once doubted your honesty. Please don't take that for a compliment. Really? Is that why you put it in, 'cause it doesn't change the meaning? No, you said that instead of finding unmitigated support for the freedom of speech, all I could find was him saying that all restrictions should be lifted No, you could find his saying he believes that all restrictions on speech should be lifted.... You are beaten and hoisted on your own chicken fart... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) Really? Is that why you put it in, 'cause it doesn't change the meaning? You are beaten and hoisted on your own chicken fart... I was paraphrasing. It is legal, you know. As for being beaten, I'm at least the one who has actually posted proof here of my arguments. You've done no such thing. The fact that you're completely ignoring this fact, and the fact that you're incredibly weak arguments over proving a negative, a pile of horseshit just meant to distract people from the real crux of what is going on here, says who is really being beaten here. You can sit here and make fun of me as much as you please. It doesn't change the channel from the fact that you've been unable to provide any proof of your own. Lets go over things. You've called me: a sped an embarrassment you've questioned my literacy skills despite your own problems ignorant a liar Have you done anything on this thread besides make fun of me? You've provided proof of absolutely noting yet have the gall to call me these names. If I'm easily this stupid, you shouldn't have any problems. Yet you are having these problems. I think that says far more about you than it could ever say about me. Like I said. You're a slimy weasel, a coward who has no personal opinions of his own, no original argument. You just attack for fun. Your kind bring nothing to society. You're a waste of oxygen. Edited November 10, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 I was paraphrasing. It is legal, you know. As for being beaten, I'm at least the one who has actually posted proof here of my arguments. You've done no such thing. The fact that you're completely ignoring this fact, and the fact that you're incredibly weak arguments over proving a negative, a pile of horseshit just meant to distract people from the real crux of what is going on here, says who is really being beaten here. You can sit here and make fun of me as much as you please. It doesn't change the channel from the fact that you've been unable to provide any proof of your own. Lets go over things. You've called me: a sped an embarrassment you've questioned my literacy skills despite your own problems ignorant a liar Have you done anything on this thread besides make fun of me? You've provided proof of absolutely noting yet have the gall to call me these names. If I'm easily this stupid, you shouldn't have any problems. Yet you are having these problems. I think that says far more about you than it could ever say about me. Like I said. You're a slimy weasel, a coward who has no personal opinions of his own, no original argument. You just attack for fun. Your kind bring nothing to society. You're a waste of oxygen. Your funny. Like a dwarf dancing is funny. That kind of funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Your funny. Like a dwarf dancing is funny. That kind of funny. All you have to do to earn all that righteousness you exude is give me an example. Brag all you want then. I suspect you knew that though. Like I said, the fact that you won't (more like can't) says it all. God knows you're drooling at the chance. It's gotta be tough for you, you know, to act like you're superior when you know you can't prove it. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Proving my superiority is not high on my list of priorities...especially not to someone who likes to brag how they sat on the UofT board...I think it's enough to poke holes in their gossamer arguments and shred them up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Proving my superiority is not high on my list of priorities...especially not to someone who likes to brag how they sat on the UofT board... Of course it is. Considering it's on your list at all and the fact that you keep on going with this proves otherwise. I think it's enough to poke holes in their gossamer arguments and shred them up... Ah, so you're exactly what I said you are. No arguments of your own, just floating around from thread to thread, picking out what's wrong without adding any insight of your own. At least I took the opportunity to get involved in university, to put in my say. I bet you were the kid who always grumbled about how the university was screwing you in some way or another but didn't have any suggestions of his own to actually bring to the table. If you went to university in the first place, which, considering the fact that you seem to continually mistake what an argument is, isn't necessarily a lock to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Of course it is. Considering it's on your list at all and the fact that you keep on going with this proves otherwise. Ah, so you're exactly what I said you are. No arguments of your own, just floating around from thread to thread, picking out what's wrong without adding any insight of your own. At least I took the opportunity to get involved in university, to put in my say. I bet you were the kid who always grumbled about how the university was screwing you in some way or another but didn't have any suggestions of his own to actually bring to the table. If you went to university in the first place, which, considering the fact that you seem to continually mistake what an argument is, isn't necessarily a lock to begin with. Dance dwarf dance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Dance dwarf dance... Who is the one really dancing here? I've been posting substantive arguments. Your reply? Dance dwarf dance... In this thread you once said I was embarrassing myself. If you remember what that looks like, then perhaps you should look in the mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Who is the one really dancing here? I've been posting substantive arguments. Your reply? With so much drivel I must have missed it. What was it again? Something about me poking holes in your inuendo? About shredding your claims that Steyn is against free speech by not allowing a convicted criminal and racist attend his talk? That is all my fault....I should really give yor inuendo some merit? Yeah, I'm bad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) With so much drivel I must have missed it. What was it again? Something about me poking holes in your inuendo? About shredding your claims that Steyn is against free speech by not allowing a convicted criminal and racist attend his talk? That is all my fault....I should really give yor inuendo some merit? Yeah, I'm bad.... I claimed that in his writing's he's been for no restrictions on freedom of speech. You've been denying I've provided proof of this for 23 pages now with absolutely no other argument other than the words "you're wrong." No where on this planet, inlcuding your mother's basement where you're probably typing this from, is that an acceptable response. To refute what I've posted which have been some really substantive quotes, you've got to provide some quotes of your own. Without that, you've been poking holes in nothing. Perhaps in your own deluded fantasy you are, but as I said, this isn't the way it works in the real world. Edited November 10, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 I claimed that in his writing's he's been for no restrictions on freedom of speech. You've been denying I've provided proof of this for 23 pages now with absolutely no other argument other than the words "you're wrong." No where on this planet, inlcuding your mother's basement where you're probably typing this from, is that an acceptable response. To refute what I've posted which have been some really substantive quotes, you've got to provide some quotes of your own. Without that, you've been poking holes in nothing. Perhaps in your own deluded fantasy you are, but as I said, this isn't the way it works in the real world. No you claimed unmitigated. Meaning without qualification or exception; absolute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 No you claimed unmitigated. Meaning without qualification or exception; absolute. You do realize that no restrictions on freedom of speech would result in just that, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 I claimed that in his writing's he's been for no restrictions on freedom of speech. You've been denying I've provided proof of this for 23 pages now with absolutely no other argument other than the words "you're wrong." Showing he is against the HRC is not proof. Others had said exactly the same thing. No where on this planet, inlcuding your mother's basement where you're probably typing this from, is that an acceptable response. You argue that 2+2 is five and when asked for proof you procede to show that 1+1+1+1=5 Nothing more is needed. To refute what I've posted which have been some really substantive quotes, you've got to provide some quotes of your own. Without that, you've been poking holes in nothing. Perhaps in your own deluded fantasy you are, but as I said, this isn't the way it works in the real world. I do not need to refute what you haven't proved. That is how it works in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 You do realize that no restrictions on freedom of speech would result in just that, right? A restriction is a quantifier not an absolute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Showing he is against the HRC is not proof. Others had said exactly the same thing. For the people who read those quotes incredibly narrowly sure. When he's literally saying that we have to lift restrictions on freedom of speech regardless of what they are. If you can't or won't see that the HRC's are the vehicle he uses to elucidate his entire argument regarding freedom of speech in general, well, then, is it really me who has the reading comprehension issues? “I cannot see why it is a crime to feel abhorrence and hatred. I detest Osama bin Laden, I detest those who blow up the London Underground and I detest even more those who try to justify it. Loathing and hatred are feelings harboured in the hearts of every human being. Still, the Human Rights Commission in Canada has it as its stated objective to eradicate hatred. That is the kind of social hygiene characteristic of totalitarian regimes.” You also do realize that I also posted articles from Maclean's where he's against British libel laws and German freedom of speech restrictions, right? Oh, right, you and your band of willful ignorants didn't even acknowledge that I posted them. You argue that 2+2 is five and when asked for proof you procede to show that 1+1+1+1=5 Nothing more is needed. You really are nuts. Nothing I ever posted was anything close to that. I do not need to refute what you haven't proved. That is how it works in the real world. Even if to you I haven't proven anything, you still just can't say you haven't proven it. Charter.Rights earlier in this way is correct. You don't just say errrrrrrrrr you're wrong, you get your own quote and say why my position is wrong with the proper citations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 A restriction is a quantifier not an absolute. Yeah, and if there is a lack of a quantifier, then the thing in question would be absolute. In this case, freedom of speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 When he's literally saying that we have to lift restrictions on freedom of speech regardless of what they are. If he is literally saying that, then you should literally be able to provide a quote, but you haven't. “I cannot see why it is a crime to feel abhorrence and hatred. I detest Osama bin Laden, I detest those who blow up the London Underground and I detest even more those who try to justify it. Loathing and hatred are feelings harboured in the hearts of every human being. Still, the Human Rights Commission in Canada has it as its stated objective to eradicate hatred. That is the kind of social hygiene characteristic of totalitarian regimes.” He is correct. Why should abhorrence be a crime? This does not support your argument that he is against all restrictions on speech, which by definition, must include slander, libel and death threats. You also do realize that I also posted articles from Maclean's where he's against British libel laws and German freedom of speech restrictions, right? Oh, right, you and your band of willful ignorants didn't even acknowledge that I posted them. No you misrepresent yourself and the articles. He is against libel tourism, the habit of shopping around for the best libel deal, where one is thrown out of court in one jurisdiction, they go to a different jurisdiction and try again. You really are nuts. Nothing I ever posted was anything close to that. Saying that being against the HRC is the same as being against all restrictions on free speech is exactly that, it doesn't add up. Even if to you I haven't proven anything, you still just can't say you haven't proven it Correct, well done....find where I have said I have proved any claim that I have made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 If you can't or won't see that the HRC's are the vehicle he uses to elucidate his entire argument regarding freedom of speech in general, well, then, is it really me who has the reading comprehension issues? You interpret Steyn's words against HRCs as being passive aggressive attacks on any and all restrictions on speech and then ask us to unquestioningly accept that personal construal of yours as truth about Steyn's opinions instead of positing some actual words from Steyn that explicitly call for the end of all restrictions on speech, or even argue for the end of other limitations on expression such as libel and hate speech. I don't believe your interpretation is true and I, like pretty much everyone else participating in this thread, am still waiting for you to put forward some irrefutable proof that Steyn says what you say he says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) If he is literally saying that, then you should literally be able to provide a quote, but you haven't. Oh, I have. It's not my problem your reading comprehension skills are so bad. He is correct. Why should abhorrence be a crime? This does not support your argument that he is against all restrictions on speech, which by definition, must include slander, libel and death threats. He slanders people every day, he's argued against libel laws including the one that saw him sued and he literally said death threats are boring and had no qualms against the death threats against Obama. Quotes I've given. No you misrepresent yourself and the articles. He is against libel tourism, the habit of shopping around for the best libel deal, where one is thrown out of court in one jurisdiction, they go to a different jurisdiction and try again. So he's not in favour of only libel tourism and not libel? Prove it. Saying that being against the HRC is the same as being against all restrictions on free speech is exactly that, it doesn't add up. The quotes from Steyn I've provided are very generalized. The fact that you're taking incredibly generalized statements about the state of freedom of speech in his opinion is the only thing here that doesn't add up. Then again, anything to convince yourself that you're right, right? Denial, denial, denial! Yet, in his pursuit of Maclean's, Lauren Demaree sees the hater as the pin-up crusader who'll abolish hate. No free society can do that [/b] Sure doesn't sound like he's just speaking about an HRC here. No free society can do that is an incredibly large generality. “What are the appropriate limits to freedom of expression in societies that wish to be democratic, multicultural, and committed to the human rights of all?”Whether or not you regard that as a legitimate query, it’s certainly an irrelevant one. Because whatever you decide are the “appropriate” limits, by the time they percolate down to the transgendered liaison officer patrolling Workington shopping centre they’ll be reliably inappropriate. Very general here as well. Professor McCrudden’s question on “appropriate” limits is very adroitly formulated: in today’s advanced Western society, there are no absolute rights—for all individual freedoms must be “balanced” against the state’s commitment to “multiculturalism” or “equality” or whatever other modish conceit tickles its fancy. Everybody talks like this now: for Canada’s Chief Censor, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., freedom of expression is just one menu item in the great Canadian salad bar of rights, so don’t be surprised if we’re occasionally out of stock. Considering he says this in terms of the way he opened the paragraph, he doesn't like any "approproriate limits." His words, not mine. Real “rights” are restraints upon the state—“negative” rights, as constitutionalists have it; they delineate the limits of the sovereign’s power. But in the modern era “rights” are baubles in the state’s gift, and the sovereign confers them at the expense of individual liberty. Truly, this is an Orwellian assault on the very foundations of freedom. Correct, well done....find where I have said I have proved any claim that I have made. So you're admitting that you won't back up a claim like this? He is correct. Why should abhorrence be a crime? This does not support your argument that he is against all restrictions on speech, which by definition, must include slander, libel and death threats. Edited November 10, 2010 by nicky10013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.