this is a special post just for one special person, balbulican. i'm putting it all in lower case so balby will feel at home. lefties seem to like lower case for some reason.
anyways, over at blazing cat fur balby asks: "[Geert] Wilders says the Koran should be banned. Now, all you brave free speakers who believe that there should be no interference with the publication of things like the Mohammed cartoons (and I agree, by the way): are you supporting Wilders' right to call for a ban on the Koran, or are supporting the idea of a ban?"
ok balby, it should be stunningly obvious by now that i, The Phantom, do not care for speech codes, human rights commissions, government regulation of trade, speech, guns, food or most other things. In fact about the only regulations I do support are the building code and the local health department guys who inspect food processing plants and restaurant kitchens.
therefore your question is deliberately obtuse and does not deserve a polite answer. My impolite answer is that obviously geert wilders can say any fucking thing he likes and obviously his call to ban the koran is abject stupidity.
equally obviously the british government was insane for banning him from visiting parliament on the occasion of his movie being screened there, no matter what he's ever said.
now, given your purposefully obtuse questioning, i will also add that you are a stupid, stupid man. or woman, or surgically mutilated whatsit, whichever applies.
by the way, as to your post about banning the hijab. godwin's law, much? however, to briefly entertain the concept: it is not the government's place to dictate garb. period. ever. because when they do that it is not a free country anymore, and it doesn't work anyway. the only place they have any business doing that is in the public service, where that battle is already lost. driving a car is an outside possibility, given peripheral vision being blocked by the damn things.
otoh, the hijab/veil/burkha/fucking circus tent bullshit these radical islamic types demand their women wear is an insult to me personally, to my religion and to my culture. i should not have to put up with that. therefore in a free country i should be free to make my views known to each and every individual i choose to communicate with, particularly women wearing tents and the men who make them do so.
this is canada balby. we don't wear tents here. people who come here must adjust to us, we do not adjust to them. you want your six wives to wear tents, stay in the desert.
10 comments:
"therefore your question is deliberately obtuse and does not deserve a polite answer. My impolite answer is that obviously geert wilders can say any fucking thing he likes and obviously his call to ban the koran is abject stupidity."
I'm not sure how you conclude the question was obtuse, since there's a range of views represented at BCF's site that include folks who would quite happily see the Koran banned. But thanks for your answer: and I agree with both your points. He should have been admitted to Britain in the first place, he should be free to call for a ban on the Koran, and it's a stupid idea.
"otoh, the hijab/veil/burkha/fucking circus tent bullshit these radical islamic types demand their women wear is an insult to me personally, to my religion and to my culture. i should not have to put up with that. therefore in a free country i should be free to make my views known to each and every individual i choose to communicate with, particularly women wearing tents and the men who make them do so. this is canada balby. we don't wear tents here. people who come here must adjust to us, we do not adjust to them. you want your six wives to wear tents, stay in the desert"
Uh...yup. You can make your displeasure known to whoever you like. However, the point of the post was that the government should not be given the authority to legislate what Canadian citizens may or may not wear.
Your question is deliberately obtuse because you already knew the answer when you asked it, balby. Plus, you are conflating demonstrators demanging Geert Wilder's head on a plate, plus the destruction of democracy with people who object to women being masked in public. Which is, again, obtuse. Calculatedly so.
"However, the point of the post was that the government should not be given the authority to legislate what Canadian citizens may or may not wear."
Where have you been? The government already has this power. Going masked in public is -illegal- and has been for probably 100 years.
But it gets better, balby! They also have the power to dictate to you what you will and will not say, and the power to confiscate anything and everything you own. Your house, your car, a patent, a copy write, your children, or your dead body. At whim, balby.
I can't make my displeasure known, because if I do Lucy and the Section 13 posse are going to come hunting me.
And the real joke is, you and your fellow travelers GAVE them that power. They didn't have it in the old days, pre-Trudeau.
Why do you think I want the HRCs shut down? Why do you think I want my property rights cast in stone in a proper constitution? Why do you think I oppose the fucking gun registry?
So they can't do stuff like that.
I'm in no danger from radical Islamists, Nazis or even lame brained socialists, I can ignore or mock them at whim. Unless they have the unrestrained power of the Canadian government behind them. Then I'm fucked.
And balby baby, YOU are fucked too. Because as the country turns from fruity post-modern liberalism to Church Lady conservatism, the Section 13 assholes will be replaced with -other- assholes who will be coming after YOU instead of me.
Which while better for me personally is still bad for Canada.
I've asked you this before but I'll ask you one more time balby: Who the hell do you think you're talking to here? Do you even read what I write? Or what Fur or Kate McMillan write?
Deliberately. Calculatedly. Obtuse. Stupidity used as a weapon. That's you, balby.
"Your question is deliberately obtuse because you already knew the answer when you asked it, balby."
You're mistaken, I'm afraid. The question wasn't addressed to you, but to the BCF general readership - some of whom I suspect WOULD support a ban.
The rest of your post is pretty much template rant about lefties from the BCF/Levant songbook, which may apply to bloggers who don't actually support freedom of speech and expression. I do.
Thanks for answering the question.
Admit it blobby. You were Nazishopping, hoping to flush out a KKKer.
They don't post at BCF or SDA. Or here. We don't like them. They suck.
I also note that regardless of the fact that I've agreed with you in every particular, you're still trying to tar me with the "BCF/Levant songbook" crap that there's gotta be a racist in there sumwhars.
To recap, government banning the hijab would be "bad", but BCF/Levant Free Speechers are racists so government banning them is good? Is this where we are now?
No wonder BCF said it was a waste of time talking to you. Jeasus boy!
"To recap, government banning the hijab would be "bad", but BCF/Levant Free Speechers are racists so government banning them is good? Is this where we are now?"
Nope. Not sure where you got that notion from.
My reference to the "BCF/Levant songbook" had to do with your attribution of views to me that I haven't expressed - as you just demonstrated again. I don't think BCF or Levant should be banned at all, by anyone, in any forum, and have never advocated anything remotely resembling that.
"No wonder BCF said it was a waste of time talking to you. Jeasus boy."
Yes, I've been tremendously impressed with the stimulating quality of discussion at his site. Clearly a powerful and thoughtful intellect at work there.
"Not sure where you got that notion from"?
So, we are back to obtuse are we? Incompetence is not a defense balby.
"So, we are back to obtuse are we? Incompetence is not a defense balby."
That's it? Good. Thanks. As noted, I appreciate that you did actually respond to the question. Cheers.
Yes Blobby, that's it. I'm not going to play the "I don't understand" game with you. My response to the question is that you're a jerk for asking. This has not changed.
You posted a deliberately provocative and offensive question at Fur's, you've been deliberately provocative and offensive here as well, in your soapy passive/agressive way. Now you're going to feign innocence and run off pretending you've won something. That's classy, blob.
And you wonder why you get called a troll.
Hello...I know I'm butting here...however...I have been following Wilders situation. Can you quote him suggesting a ban of the Qu'arnan?
Are we sure that isn't spin?
If I remember correctly he said something like "If you're going to ban hate speech, what about the Koran? There's some serious hate action there, you should ban that."
Which is of course different from what Blobby implies, because Blobby has his axe to grind and all.
Blobby's not good at context and stuff like that. Gets in the way of a good troll, y'know.
Post a Comment