Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[M.Dancer]

Oh, I have. It's not my problem your reading comprehension skills are so bad.

Post the quote again, the one where he is literally"saying that we have to lift restrictions on freedom of speech regardless of what they are"

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.

Not only did he not slander anyone on tuesday, he has not been sued for libel. He has though argued against libel tourism

Whether he is bored by death threats has no bearing on whether he believes death threats are a protected right. Again, 2+2 does not equal 5

So he's not in favour of only libel tourism and not libel? Prove it.

Logical fallacy

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!

If they are generalized, you should have no problem retracting your specific claim he is "literally saying that we have to lift restrictions on freedom of speech regardless of what they are"

Sure doesn't sound like he's just speaking about an HRC here. No free society can do that is an incredibly large generality.

So you're admitting that you won't back up a claim like this?

Why should abhorrence be a crime?

Ummm....when did questions become claims? Are you asking me to argue for the criminalization of abhorence? Or are you asking me to prove why I think Steyn is correct, that abhorence should not be crimninalized? Or are you asking me why Steyn believes that freedom of expression is endangered by the HRC?

Edited November 10, 2010 by M.Dancer

[g_bambino]

Post the quote again, the one where he is literally"saying that we have to lift restrictions on freedom of speech regardless of what they are"

Now, don't you understand that Nicky's definition of "literal" is only what he personally decides lies between lines written by someone else?

[nicky10013]

Post the quote again, the one where he is literally"saying that we have to lift restrictions on freedom of speech regardless of what they are"

“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.

But of course, it comes down yet again to the fact that you wouldn't accept anything unless it said unmitigated.

This says thatthere shouldn't be any limits whether they're appropriate or not because what's appropriate will always be distorted.

That's a word by word interpretation. The fact that I needed to interpret it in the first place after the fact that you berated me for not being able to properly comprehend something, well, you've got problems. Go back to school.

Not only did he not slander anyone on tuesday, he has not been sued for libel. He has though argued against libel tourism

Gee, that would be a great link. Too bad he didn't actually write it.

Whether he is bored by death threats has no bearing on whether he believes death threats are a protected right. Again, 2+2 does not equal 5

See, there you go. You just made an argument. Now, prove it.

Logical fallacy

What part of what I said was fallacious? You specifically argued that he's for libel and not for libel tourism. Certainly you should be able to find proof to that extent.

If they are generalized, you should have no problem retracting your specific claim he is "literally saying that we have to lift restrictions on freedom of speech regardless of what they are"

Sure doesn't sound like he's just speaking about an HRC here. No free society can do that is an incredibly large generality.

Saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech is in itself a vague statement and can thus be expressed in many different ways. Like the quote I posted above. You either don't or won't understand that. Certainly not my fault.

Again, I ask if you're specifically refusing to back up the claims that you made?

Edited November 11, 2010 by nicky10013

[M.Dancer]

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.

Considering he says this in terms of the way he opened the paragraph, he doesn't like any "approproriate limits." His words, not mine.

So you're admitting that you won't back up a claim like this?

What part of what I said was fallacious? You specifically argued that he's for libel and not for libel tourism. Certainly you should be able to find proof to that extent.

You really are dense. You tell me..."So he's not in favour of only libel tourism and not libel? Prove it"

And then yhou tell me I made a claim?

I don't have to prove your arguments, you do.

Edited November 11, 2010 by M.Dancer

[nicky10013]

You really are dense. You tell me..."So he's not in favour of only libel tourism and not libel? Prove it"

I don't have to prove your arguments, you do.

Really? Because it seems to me I'm not the one incapable of answering a simple question.

[M.Dancer]

Really? Because it seems to me I'm not the one incapable of answering a simple question.

Great, show where he states he is literally against all restrictions on free speech.

Do you need help with the definition of literally? hint: it doesn't mean semantic

[nicky10013]

Great, show where he states he is literally against all restrictions on free speech.

Do you need help with the definition of literally? hint: it doesn't mean semantic

Seriously? This is all you can do? Sad....

[M.Dancer]

Seriously? This is all you can do? Sad....

I can do a lot more, but as you pointed out, I am lazy. So, I will only do what I need to do. Demand you back up your ridiculous petulent claims ...since you can't, to my satistfaction and to 99% of everyone else who has read this partisan hackery of a thread, perhaps we can let it rest so yoiu can go on a start another misleading thread to promote your idiotic SpEd inspired propaganda.

[nicky10013]

I can do a lot more, but as you pointed out, I am lazy. So, I will only do what I need to do. Demand you back up your ridiculous petulent claims ...since you can't, to my satistfaction and to 99% of everyone else who has read this partisan hackery of a thread, perhaps we can let it rest so yoiu can go on a start another misleading thread to promote your idiotic SpEd inspired propaganda.

Since 99% of people who have posted on here is all of...1 person...and the fact that you absolutely won't post any proof. I'll gladly take this as the white flag that it is.

[g_bambino]

99% of people who have posted on here is all of...1 person...

Um, pardon me for stating the obvious, but if there were only one person posting here, he would make up 100% of the people who have posted here, not 99%.

I wonder, are you okay?

[nicky10013]

Um, pardon me for stating the obvious, but if there were only one person posting here, he would make up 100% of the people who have posted here, not 99%.

I wonder, are you okay?

Excuse me. One other besides Dancer.