Spineless Newspapers

[Joe Schmoe]

Really? Do you blame teacher and priest for all your shortcomings? (no pun intended).

Like what? I am not aware of having any shortcomings.

 

[Davemcc]

Understand that Dave has capitulated: the editor has a right to decide what gets printed and what does not in his paper.

I have never argued against this point. If this is your argument with me, then you are tilting at windmills, Mr Quixote.

The reason that I went to such great length to clarify why I wrote every little thing is that you largely ignored what I wrote and attacked my character and integrity instead. I parsed my own comments to show that you've attacked me not on what I said, or what I am, but rather on your own interpretations of my post, your inferences of what I am or believe and your own invention of motives or intentions which you have ascribed to me which bear no relation to anything I've written.

I will gladly discuss any issue, but when your primary tactic is character assassination, ad hominem or literary invention instead of a response to what I have actually written, I will no longer dignify your comments with a reply.

 

[Johnd]

I have never argued against this point. If this is your argument with me, then you are tilting at windmills, Mr Quixote.

The reason that I went to such great length to clarify why I wrote every little thing is that you largely ignored what I wrote and attacked my character and integrity instead. I parsed my own comments to show that you've attacked me not on what I said, or what I am, but rather on your own interpretations of my post, your inferences of what I am or believe and your own invention of motives or intentions which you have ascribed to me which bear no relation to anything I've written.

I will gladly discuss any issue, but when your primary tactic is character assassination, ad hominem or literary invention instead of a response to what I have actually written, I will no longer dignify your comments with a reply.

No. What you did do is slide by that fact, and insert your own intolerance of Catholicism and Islam. It's there in black and white Dave. You agenda has been written.

And is if that wasn't enough, whilst you write your own soliloquies on the evils of Catholicism and Islam, you display your lack of knowledge about a rather simple term: fundamentalism.

No Dave, there was no "character assassination," no "ad hominems," no "personal attacks." Your intense distaste for Catholicism and Islam is now part of the record. I was keeping the discussion on track by repeatedly referring to the editor's prerogative.

 

[Davemcc]

No. What you did do is slide by that fact, and insert your own intolerance of Catholicism and Islam. It's there in black and white Dave. You agenda has been written.

There you go again with the character assaults.

If there is anything I have said about Islam or the Catholic Church that is factually inaccurate, please correct my statements. But please do not insult my character or integrity any longer.

 

[Johnd]

There you go again with the character assaults.

If there is anything I have said about Islam or the Catholic Church that is factually inaccurate, please correct my statements. But please do not insult my character or integrity any longer.

Ummmm....

Number 1: I thought you were "finished" here.

Number 2: Character and integrity attacks. WHERE? Please reference.

Your attacks speak for themselves. Your initial post attacked all Fundamentalist Muslims...until I called you on it. You blame the Catholic church for your blight. If this is your agenda, so be it. Start your own thread. Don't infiltrate this thread with your dogma. Please. It's really old. Lighten up Dave.

 

[Davemcc]

Ummmm....

Number 1: I thought you were "finished" here.

Number 2: Character and integrity attacks. WHERE? Please reference.

Your attacks speak for themselves. Your initial post attacked all Fundamentalist Muslims...until I called you on it. You blame the Catholic church for your blight. If this is your agenda, so be it. Start your own thread. Don't infiltrate this thread with your dogma. Please. It's really old. Lighten up Dave.

If there is anything I have said about Islam or the Catholic Church that is factually inaccurate, please correct my statements.

 

[jinjuku]

Dave,

There is no use wrestling with the pigs. All that happens is you get dirty and pigs like it. Other posters know what you meant. We understand the spirit (pardon the pun) of your posting.

The thread has now derailed. My main concern is making sure that censorship due to corporate sponsor and greed isn't tolerated. Arguably, though I think not, the Opus strip was censored due to wanting to be culturally sensitive to a group of people. Why this particular group and not others such as Hindu, Seeks, Christianity etc... is beyond me. I can only still go with my initial thought of cowardice.

 

[Johnd]

ummm...

I'd watch your tone young man.

 

[Johnd]

If there is anything I have said about Islam or the Catholic Church that is factually inaccurate, please correct my statements.

For the third time, your initial post attacked all of Muslim fundametalism. I thought we've already been over this, and that you conceded.

 

[Johnd]

Arguably, though I think not, the Opus strip was censored due to wanting to be culturally sensitive to a group of people.

Precisely. Yet your op states that it was the "government."

 

[Davemcc]

First, nobody including Muslims have a "right" to live a life without being offended, which is something that appears to happen a lot with Muslims. The problem is that offending Muslims often causes rioting and death. The Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed caused roughly 100 deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
I think that this self-censorship is driven as much by the implicit threat of violent retribution and/or murder as much as offending delicate, or should I say hair-trigger sensitivities. As has been mentioned, all other religions are targets for comedy but Islam.

Parody is a long established form of humour that is a valid way of highlighting the weakness, illogic, ignorance, hypocracy, etc of a person or group. That Islam is immune from criticism in the media either directly or by parody due to the implied threat of rioting or violence is in itself a shame and evidence of the need for open and critical discussion of the Dark Ages mentality of Islamic fundamentalism.

Please highlight the offending passage.

 

[jinjuku]

Precisely. Yet your op states that it was the "government."

The potential for the government to do big business's bidding as in media consolidation ergo a few men at the top making a decision of censorship vs. a market with many independent players not beholden to shareholders.

My original point stands. You see it one way, I see it another. Call it the butterfly effect or one degree of separation if you like. Bottom line big money lobbying and a government for rent is not conducive long term to the benefit of its citizens.

Again; government does not have to be a direct actor to share in the blame and shame of corporate lack of citizenship, social responsibility and being held morally responsible. Everything has gotten so out of whack that you have everything from Enron to the 'Patriot' Act to the abuse and morphism of Copyright to the benefit of big business at a cost to the average citizen. So as a tangential thread, why isn't Micky Mouse in the public domain where it should be?

I don't want to get into a situation where it becomes personal here. As well it shouldn't. So you have my apologies about the pig wrestling analog. Uncalled for as I could have been very much more diplomatic about it. Again, sorry.

 

[stratman]

Why should Mickey be in the public domain?

 

[jinjuku]

Why should Mickey be in the public domain?

link

Yes John, another op-ed by some 'nitwit'.

Basically Disney got it's start making cartoons and features based on stories that were in the public domain. When it came back around for them to contribute back...

 

[Johnd]

More drivel? No thanks.

Your first link was pure poppycock. I really don't have that much leisure time.

Here's a tip: next time you reference a source, ascertain that it's factual information rather than just an op-ed. It's Composition 101. It's not that Mr. Behan isn't entitled to his opinion. Of course he is. But everyone's got one. And you listed his op-ed as a source...just not credible.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

the Opus strip was censored due to wanting to be culturally sensitive to a group of people. Why this particular group and not others such as Hindu, Seeks, Christianity etc... is beyond me. I can only still go with my initial thought of cowardice.

One has to wonder what the reaction would have been if Lola had become, for example, a Mormon instead of Islamic.
Personally, I don't believe in singling out any particular religion for special treatment. I disrespect them all equally.

 

[jinjuku]

More drivel? No thanks.

Your first link was pure poppycock. I really don't have that much leisure time.

Here's a tip: next time you reference a source, ascertain that it's factual information rather than just an op-ed. It's Composition 101. It's not that Mr. Behan isn't entitled to his opinion. Of course he is. But everyone's got one. And you listed his op-ed as a source...just not credible.

You can simply disprove any of what I have linked to any time you please. Heres a tip: Just because you 'say so' doesn't make it so. Poppycock and drivel do not sweep matters of fact underneath the carpet.

 

[Johnd]

You can simply disprove any of what I have linked to any time you please. Heres a tip: Just because you 'say so' doesn't make it so. Poppycock and drivel do not sweep matters of fact underneath the carpet.

Huh?

I don't make the literary rules...I just try to follow them.

Why are you so emotional over this? My comment was simply that an opinion, published or not, does not a good source make. I say so...and that makes it so.

 

[Johnd]

Here you go Dave:

First, nobody including Muslims have a "right" to live a life without being offended,

As previously written, I just consider this pure sophistry. I do not find discussions that begin with double negatives, or more accurately, the lack of a right to not have an evil perpetrated upon one to be worthwhile endeavors. It's sophomoric argumentation at best...which I'm sure we've both advanced beyond.

Dark Ages mentality of Islamic fundamentalism

This we've covered, and which already you've conceded. It is not "all fundamentalists", but the extremists that are necessarily bad and dangerous. To lump others into this group is innacurate and a disservice.

So, it wasn't a "personal" attack at all. Hopefully you see that now. That's all.

 

[Tomorrow]

Here you go Dave:
I just consider this pure sophistry. I do not find discussions that begin with double negatives, or more accurately, the lack of a right to not have an evil perpetrated upon one to be worthwhile endeavors. It's sophomoric argumentation at best...which I'm sure we've both advanced beyond.


So, it wasn't a "personal" attack at all. Hopefully you see that now. That's all.

It's all about the competition, isn't it, John. I'm glad to see that ego thing is still working for you. It's really quite amazing that you try to cover your attacks with such profound, self-proclaimed innocence.