Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[Wild Bill]

Amazon.com USED to be. But I switched to Indigo after the "A.com" stopped offering free delivery to Canada. I've tried "A.can" a few times, but remain amazed that you can find - without looking hard - books on that site which claim 6-8 weeks or longer for delivery while Indigo ships within a few days.

Btw, the same books on A.com ship immediately as well.

I've never used 'amazon.com', Argus. I've always dealt with 'amazon.ca'. They list all the books, movies and music stuff but don't have much of the other things, like electronic items and things for musicians. The free shipping used to be for orders of about $50 but they've just lowered that to $25. Pretty well any order of a book and a CD or two will hit that mark. They tell me when they're gonna ship, notify me when they did ship (never late so far) and it always arrives in 1-2 days with the postman.

The only delays have come when they don't have stock and refer you to a 3rd party vendor. Still, the delivery from those sources has always seemed pretty accurate as well.

[Evening Star]

Ha, some of the details were a little fuzzy in my memory. Now I recall that it was in fact Coulter's own people who cancelled her U of O talk, not Houle: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spurned-in-ottawa-ann-coulter-gets-a-big-welcome-from-calgary/article1511247/

His worst crime, then, was being a little condescending and simply stating the reality that there is a difference between Canadian and US laws concerning free speech. (Note that I personally actually prefer the US law.) Right-wingers really are a sorry bunch of crybabies!

Nicky's dead on here:

He has every right to deplore whatever he wants to. Like I said, anyone attacking Houle for being so anti-speech is essentially committing the same act he did. He was mercilessly attacked for his views in order to shut him up. How many people called for him to lose his job? ... He may be the president of a university but in the end he is still an individual and gets to speak his mind as much as anyone else.

[Smallc]

Amazon.com USED to be. But I switched to Indigo after the "A.com" stopped offering free delivery to Canada. I've tried "A.can" a few times, but remain amazed that you can find - without looking hard - books on that site which claim 6-8 weeks or longer for delivery while Indigo ships within a few days.

Btw, the same books on A.com ship immediately as well.

I use amazon.ca all the time, and I've had absolutely zero problem. The only reason that there are sometimes problems is because of the fact that Amazon currently has no warehouses in Canada. That's about to change.

[bloodyminded]

By the way, I would also favour an American-style approach to freedom of speech and hate speech laws.

Me too.

[g_bambino]

I never said waht Houle did wasn't stupid. He has every right to deplore whatever he wants to.

Then he should've addressed Coulter as a private individual, rather than hiding behind the mass and authority of the university.

Sure it is.

I don't believe you've yet explained how denial of a place in an audience constitutes a violation of free speech.

[+]

Edited November 8, 2010 by g_bambino

[Wild Bill]

Amazing post. I thought the mere fact that he's accusing younger generations of not understanding today because they aren't reading 1984 (they actually are) would be a pretty good response to this as it's so short sighted. You've done a much better job than I ever would've with this.

It's not just the book list, Nicky. You seem to be confusing the ability to ask questions with maturity.

Koko the Ape has learned to ask questions in American Sign Language. That doesn't mean she has the same wisdom as a mature human being.

Any smartass can bark out questions, especially to disrupt a private function. What's important is how appropriate are the questions and are they delivered with decorum.

My point was that previous generations seemed to possess a more mature value system at an earlier age. This process has been going on for a long time. It was the generation before mine that put a man on the moon. What has the present generation done, lately? Called Harper a few names?

[nicky10013]

It's not just the book list, Nicky. You seem to be confusing the ability to ask questions with maturity.

Koko the Ape has learned to ask questions in American Sign Language. That doesn't mean she has the same wisdom as a mature human being.

Any smartass can bark out questions, especially to disrupt a private function. What's important is how appropriate are the questions and are they delivered with decorum.

My point was that previous generations seemed to possess a more mature value system at an earlier age. This process has been going on for a long time. It was the generation before mine that put a man on the moon. What has the present generation done, lately? Called Harper a few names?

If you can't see that you've done the same thing throughout the other thread, well, then that's not my problem, it's yours. Icing on the cake? Saying that 20 year olds should be putting a man on the moon. what has your generation done? Well, not much either. How could honestly use that example when your generation has done dick all as well?

This isn't about maturity, it's about respect. You want to talk to me with respect, you'll get my respect in return.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

It was the generation before mine that put a man on the moon.

You do realize that "your" generation didn't do it, right?

[Wild Bill]

If you can't see that you've done the same thing throughout the other thread, well, then that's not my problem, it's yours. Icing on the cake? Saying that 20 year olds should be putting a man on the moon. what has your generation done? Well, not much either. How could honestly use that example when your generation has done dick all as well?

This isn't about maturity, it's about respect. You want to talk to me with respect, you'll get my respect in return.

Please note that I specifically stated it was the generation BEFORE mine that put a man on the moon! My point was that the decline has been going on for a long time and included my own generation.

YOU are the one who turned it into an immature ad hominem attack, with "what has your generation done? Well, not much either. How could honestly use that example when your generation has done dick all as well?"

You only prove my point!

[Evening Star]

My generation has lolcats, man.

[nicky10013]

Considering you still haven't given me proof, I wouldn't be laughing if I were you.

[nicky10013]

Please note that I specifically stated it was the generation BEFORE mine that put a man on the moon! My point was that the decline has been going on for a long time and included my own generation.

YOU are the one who turned it into an immature ad hominem attack, with "what has your generation done? Well, not much either. How could honestly use that example when your generation has done dick all as well?"

You only prove my point!

Like I said, it's about respect, not maturity. The grumbling old man "kids these days!" bit doesn't fly.

[M.Dancer]

Considering you still haven't given me proof, I wouldn't be laughing if I were you.

Proof about what Nicky? Haven't you made enough logical fallacies this month?

[nicky10013]

Proof about what Nicky? Haven't you made enough logical fallacies this month?

The only thing fallacious in this thread has been your arguments. You specifically made the argument that Steyn believes in restrictions on freedom of speech. I said he didn't. I've given you multiple passages where he's said exactly that. So, now (really, 5 pages ago when you stopped replying) it's your turn. It's really not hard. Just google it and post the link where you can find him saying that (Since I'm not lazy, I won't even request you post a passage!). I tried to do your work for you and I couldn't find anything. Then again, since you obviously fancy yourself so much smarter, you'll probably be able to do a much better job than I.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

You specifically made the argument that Steyn believes in restrictions on freedom of speech.

I specifically made the argument that your claim was bogus.

You have adroitly proved it for me, mainly by posting stuff which did not back your claim like you said it does...

Feel free to post more logical fallacies though, you kids are sure amusing...

[g_bambino]

You specifically made the argument that Steyn believes in restrictions on freedom of speech. I said he didn't. I've given you multiple passages where he's said exactly that.

You provided excerpts of Steyn's writings, yes, but when considered in the contexts from which those quotes came, none express support for totally unmitigated free speech. You've misinterpreted his words to align with your position.

[nicky10013]

You provided excerpts of Steyn's writings, yes, but when considered in the contexts from which those quotes came, none express support for totally unmitigated free speech. You've misinterpreted his words to align with your position.

Not at all. I've specifically said look at the entire context of what he was saying and dancer refused. I've always argued that considering his rambling style it should be read entirely but I can't post entire articles here, now can I? Of all his articles I've read here to provide proof and I've read all of them through entirely, I've never once seen an argument pop up that says he's for anything other than what I've argued here.

[nicky10013]

I specifically made the argument that your claim was bogus.

You have adroitly proved it for me, mainly by posting stuff which did not back your claim like you said it does...

Feel free to post more logical fallacies though, you kids are sure amusing...

You never posted any "stuff." If "stuff" in your head is merely telling someone that they're wrong, I sure hope to god that you know the world really doesn't work that way.

If you couldn't put the "logic" together, here it is. Just for you. You know how you prove me wrong? By simply getting a quote from Steyn saying he's for some kind of restriction on freedom of speech. Since you can't or won't do that, I'll take it for what it is.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

You have adroitly proved it for me, mainly by posting stuff which did not back your claim like you said it does...

Feel free to post more logical fallacies though, you kids are sure amusing...

You never posted any "stuff."

Basic reading skillz aren't your strong suit, are they?

[M.Dancer]

You know how you prove me wrong? By simply getting a quote from Steyn saying he's for some kind of restriction on freedom of speech. Since you can't or won't do that, I'll take it for what it is.

Another logical fallacy....

[nicky10013]

Basic reading skillz aren't your strong suit, are they?

Denial much? When one can't counter evidence through semantics, don't regard the evidence at all.

I gave you what you wanted, and it still wasn't good enough. If you're so confident of him being for restrictions in freedom of speech, get me a quote.

Edited November 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[g_bambino]

Not at all. I've specifically said look at the entire context of what he was saying and dancer refused.

But I did; why would I mention the need to consider context if I hadn't? I saw nothing in those articles that shows Steyn saying what you say he said. He's against human rights commissions (in their current structure, anyway), the laws that create and run them, and politically correct social engineering, all as incursions on freedom of thought and expression. But that doesn't mean he's against any and all restrictions on speech, and I'm still looking for somewhere he said he is.

[nicky10013]

But I did; why would I mention the need to consider context if I hadn't? I saw nothing in those articles that shows Steyn saying what you say he said. He's against human rights commissions (in their current structure, anyway), the laws that create and run them, and politically correct social engineering, all as incursions on freedom of thought and expression. But that doesn't mean he's against any and all restrictions on speech, and I'm still looking for somewhere he said he is.

So, he's only against these laws? You don't see a trend? You do realize that any law restricting freedom of speech in some shape or another restricts freedom of thought and expression, right? If he's against one here and one there why wouldn't he be against all of them? In one of the Maclean's articles I posted (I can't find it by google off the top, I'll repost when I look through this thread), he mentions specifically how the average Canadian's view on freedom of speech includes some restrictions; a position he carefully avoids taking himself. Indeed, he takes that and goes on a rant how that'll lead to a 1984 style police state. To me that's clear enough.

From his rhetoric, we can discern that he's not for any restriction. If I've missed something and he has said it, that's fine which is why I've been asking for the proof. However, we can't just sit here and take our reasonable limits and assume it applies to him. In the above example, he's making it perfectly clear he's not in the majority. He's controversial for a reason.

[g_bambino]

From his rhetoric, we can discern that he's not for any restriction.

No, you can theorise that he's not for any restriction, but, so far, I haven't seen any proof that turns the theory into fact.

If he's against one here and one there why wouldn't he be against all of them?

Steyn believes in the ancient British (and hence now Western) tradition of equality before the law. The laws that create and guide human rights commissions, however, give those running the commissions the power to criticise and punish anyone with contrary opinions, in multiple jurisdictions, all at the same time, without any requirement for the accuser to pay or participate beyond lodging the initial complaint.

Being against that kind of system doesn't mean an automatic simultaneous opposition to laws against hate speech that threatens the personal safety and lives of other human beings; laws that can be employed in a proper trial in one court of law at a time.

[+]

Edited November 8, 2010 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

Denial much? When one can't counter evidence through semantics...

I wouldn't blame your poor reading skillz on semantics...