Has the quality of this forum gone down

[Stoker]

See: no response

Nazi scum

[takeanumber]

I got mine in before you could post "Nazi scum".

See: no response

Nazi scum

Great job, Stoker.

[Stoker]

I'm sorry takeanumber, I never argued with your point of views for the most part, but thought you to be quite harmless.............but now your true Nazish colors have come out.....people like you make me sick, almost as sick as the elite left that think thye should hold the hand of the average Canadian.......

[takeanumber]

I'm sorry takeanumber, I never argued with your point of views for the most part, but thought you to be quite harmless.............but now your true Nazish colors have come out.....people like you make me sick, almost as sick as the elite left that think thye should hold the hand of the average Canadian.......

Ignoring my reply and attacking myself.

Again.

Is this your Modus Operandi?

[Stoker]

Ignoring my reply and attacking myself.

Again.

Is this your Modus Operandi?

I don't care to debate with a Nazi......

[takeanumber]

I don't care to debate with a Nazi......

The fact you can't reply to my 'degrees' post without a personal attack suggests that you're either:

1. Stalling.

2. Don't have a reply.

Wern't expecting such a good reply so quickly were you?

Thought you had me there eh?

BTW: I chose not to be a nazi after a lot of peer pressure from friends. I lost quite a few good friends that year. I went on to graduate and then go to university. My friends are still unemployed, and don't even qualify for welfare. It really doesn't bother me that you're calling me a nazi because I know so much about them and their general ideology, but you should know the facts.

[Argus]

BTW:  I chose not to be a nazi after a lot of peer pressure from friends.  I lost quite a few good friends that year.  I went on to graduate and then go to university.

Ahh, high school is always so rough. There's always so much peer pressure to smoke, do drugs, have sex, be a Nazi.....

Oh man.

[takeanumber]

I'll try to find the clipping of what happened.

[Stoker]

I'll answer your question, only after you answer the one I asked you in the post above it........

So again takeanumber, which people do you believe to be inferior to white males?

Me thinks your the one stalling........

And if you were not so blinded by your bigotry, you would have noticed that your question was answered before you asked it....

[takeanumber]

There you go

[takeanumber]

QUOTE 

So again takeanumber, which people do you believe to be inferior to white males?

Nobody.

I did answer it, Stoker.

[August1991]

Gee whiz, are you people ever self-centered. You seem to enjoy discussing each other more than discussing anything concrete.

The fact you can't reply to my 'degrees' post without a personal attack suggests that you're either:

TakeNumb, imagine if people guilty of armed robbery and of murder received the same sentence. Soon enough, there wouldn't be many people charged with robbery. The crook might as well kill the robbery victim.

This is the principle reason that different crimes lead to different penalties.

[takeanumber]

There are different degrees to the same crime.

If you plan out a murder, or if you murder a police officer, it's of a higher degree than say, murdering out of rage.

They're both awful offenses, but one is valued by society to be worse than the other. (The difference between 20 years in jail max and 8 years in jail max.)

Adding hatred into the mix also adds a degree.

Planning to kill a homosexual whom you don't know personally solely because they're a homosexual is valued by society to be worse than killing somebody you don't know purely because you feel like killing somebody is --horrible, but at a different degree.

Recognizing the 'hatred' by refusing to accept them as an advanced degree is not a 'special' right, no more than police officers get 'special rights' when it comes to murdering them.

[Stoker]

Gee whiz, are you people ever self-centered. You seem to enjoy discussing each other more than discussing anything concrete.

I wouldn't say I'm being self-centered, and yes i do prefer discussing issues that are more "concrete", but in this thread, I feel the need to make a point pertaining to this thread.......quality.

It's quite easy to call a person a Nazi when they don't agree with you eh?

[takeanumber]

It's quite easy to ignore the arguements that I make and then to incorrectly label them as 'Nazi', yes.

Especially when you don't understand the difference between a basic arguement and an arguement with similarities to Nazi-ism.

[BigGunner]

I think that since I was first a member of this forum, this forum was a great place to have a debate. Their were alot of members from both sides of the political spectrum. Their were members such as Pellaken, Gugsy, Moderate Centrist, Neal, Siriff, Sir Springer, and many others who participated in good debates, and showed respect for each others opinion's. However it seems that it has all gone down hill, when Takeanumber, Maplesyrup, Black Dog, and a bunch of other leftists, hijack this forum. For example pretty well every post is all the same, and most of the leftists make bigoted statements, without backing them up. Somethings gotta change.

I'm getting sick of Takeanumber calling anybody opposed to gay marriage nazis, and I'm getting sick of some of those on the left calling anybody that disagrees with them bigot. For now I think that anybody right of center on this forum should leave. I'm getting sick of this, and it's only getting worse.

If you think that so-called "leftists" have contributed to degrading the quality of debate in this forum, take a look in the mirror.

You, personally, have penned some potentially libellous and defamitory comments too. You have attempted to paint people like Svend Robinson as some kind of spokesperson for NABMLA and is somehow sympathetic to paedophelia.

...and I have reported such comments that you have written to Greg.

To everyone in the forum...we can keep the debate civil and healthy by keeping to one simple principle - "challenge the issues and politics, not the person"

[Michael Hardner]

If you're against C-250, you're anti-Homosexual.

Can you say somewhat is racist if they're against hate laws ? I think that's a fallacy.

There are many reasons one might be against the law and not racist.

THERE EXISTS NO VALID REASON FOR BEING AGAINST C-250.

This is a value statement, not a fact statement. You have to prove this in argument, you can't just say it's true and expect people to accept it.

I've called you on it repeatedly, and you havn't been able to offer a single, VALID reason for being anti-250.

Conclusion, you must be anti-Homosexual.

It's up to people to decide how they would like or not like to be labelled. It might be obvious to you, but it's still up to him/her what they would like to be called.

Rather than descend into a statement about your opponent, try speaking in the third person, ie. "One can't be anti-250 and not be anti-homosexual" etc.

Otherwise, you're contravening board policy, contributing to the trashification of the board and inviting tit-for-tat responses.

[August1991]

Michael, I suggest you look through the other, older thread specifically about C-250. Look at the posts at the end.

[Michael Hardner]

Which one - 'Bill C250 passes Senate ' ?

[takeanumber]

QUOTE 

If you're against C-250, you're anti-Homosexual.

Can you say somewhat is racist if they're against hate laws ? I think that's a fallacy.

There are many reasons one might be against the law and not racist.

QUOTE 

THERE EXISTS NO VALID REASON FOR BEING AGAINST C-250.

This is a value statement, not a fact statement. You have to prove this in argument, you can't just say it's true and expect people to accept it.

QUOTE 

I've called you on it repeatedly, and you havn't been able to offer a single, VALID reason for being anti-250.

Conclusion, you must be anti-Homosexual.

It's up to people to decide how they would like or not like to be labelled. It might be obvious to you, but it's still up to him/her what they would like to be called.

Rather than descend into a statement about your opponent, try speaking in the third person, ie. "One can't be anti-250 and not be anti-homosexual" etc.

Otherwise, you're contravening board policy, contributing to the trashification of the board and inviting tit-for-tat responses

Can you say somewhat is racist if they're against hate laws ? I think that's a fallacy.

There are many reasons one might be against the law and not racist.

The fact that no such reason exists implies that that they are.

There is no good reason to be 'for' the promotion of extermination of a whole group of people.

You can't say, "because of freedom of speech", because we place limits on all our rights for reasons. Libel is one such limit.

You can't say, "because political correctness is bad", because how can you be against basic respect for homosexuals without being anti-homosexual.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Those ideas are wrong, and worse, they're infectious if they're left unchallenged.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

[takeanumber]

Superior reply Michael Hardner.

I accept most of them, except the pre-judging one.

I initially gave specific people the benefit of the doubt, just to have those benefits dashed. (And in two cases, thrashed horribly.)

I didn't enter some of these debates thinking, "alright, all of these posters are bigots", when in fact, I just had those suspcions repeatedly confirmed.

As to the possible justifications for not showing a homosexual any respect: those arn't valid reasons.

You can't justify shouting 'FAG' out your window at two guys holding hands, no more than you can justify yelling the N word at a black man walking down the street.

They're unjustifiable actions, and the fact that not everybody agrees confirms the existance of bigots.

The difference, I think, between people like me and a few Canadians, is when they're in the car with somebody who yells 'FAG' out the window, they laugh along with them.

Or they laugh at that Jew joke.

And they don't speak up to correct them. They might deep down disagree with the speech, but they don't speak up. Tacit acceptance I suppose.

Anyway, if you hate homosexuals or any other immigrant group, all I gotta say is: I know you're not used to somebody telling you that your behaviour is unacceptable, but you're going to hear it from me.

I'm not going to give up fighting a bigot simply because they can't change. It's the principle in not being complicit in their disgusting act that I stand for.

That's all.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Takeanumber your a politically correct nazi. After all it has been said when facism comes to north american it will come in the name of anti-facism. As to the CRRF, that organization has also painted police constables who risk their lives as a bunch of racists who have fun killing blacks.

My understanding is that if you attack a christian simply because they are christian, it is not a hate crime. Why not. If a homosexual writes a letter talking about the evils of christianity, why is'nt that a hate crime.

[takeanumber]

The last time I checked, there wasn't a problem with homosexuals waitint outside of churches to beat Christians with bats.

Takeanumber your a politically correct nazi.

That's par for the course AF.

[caesar]

I am against the Hate crimes laws that specifically protect Jews or homosexuals. Every group, every individual should be protected from hate crimes that are commited because of someone's race, country of origin, sexual preference . Why should it be against the law to attack someone for being Jewish? Does that mean that it is different or acceptable to commit these crimes if the person is being attacked because he is an Iraqi, an Iran, or a Palestinian or even an American. Why do we need a specific law to protect only the Jewish race/religion. All groups or individuals should be equally protected from hate crimes.

It stifles discussion regarding issues in Israel. I am tired of being called a racist whenever I criticize any Israeli government action. I don't like being called anti American for criticizing Bush. Bush may be president but he does not represent all Americans. Much of the American support of Bush initiatives were founded on lies and propaganda. We are too complacent here in North America. We believe that as we are a democracies and such civilized countries that our governments would not lie or feed us propaganda. Many tend to believe that only the other guys do that.