´óÏó´«Ã½

Any question as to why I would defend America over Europe on issues of freedom is surely now answered with this garbage. To so blatantly demolish individual rights to free speech could only happen in a part of the world which has elected leaders whose arrogance is equalled only by the disdain they share for their fellow citizens. It's been said that Britain has one foot in America, one foot in Europe. I would suggest that those who still value freedom in the United Kingdom decide now which side of the fence they want to be on in the coming years.

John it's only a PROPOSAL!! This law won't get passed in the UK.

By the way - try burning an American flag on the street sometime to see how much freedom of speech you have over there!

A google search shows these books which have been at one time banned in one US state or another:

-------------

Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
My Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth
The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth

Last time I looked the UK didnt have a PATRIOT ACT. you support that too John?

2
or making a religious joke or working in an abortion clinic or showing a minute portion of your breasts!
alan

Well said GCB.

Capt America here wants to wind his neck in.

Your disdain for europe is misplaced John. The UK and other governments opposed this move before and will again.

We have discussed on another thread the fact that none of us claim sole ownership of the moral high ground - if you insist on this unilateralist "america is might and america is right" vein - you become the stereotype you hate us conjuring up. I think it's crass, and would rather stick with the rest of europe, if this chest puffing is your freedom.

The Germans went to hell and back with the Nazis - give them a break. They are wrong to ban it but it's understandable why they should want to. You conceded this several weeks ago when we talked about Irving's return to Britain - why the tub thumping now?

GCB makes another fine point.

Once again Gay Christian Believer, you show your ignorance of America. There is a legal right to burn American flags in public as a political protest. It's true that a crowd of angry people may take it upon themselves to beat the tar out of you and if they do, they will be arrested and tried for assault. Whether they are convicted or not would of course depend on a jury.

BTW, according to law, the only acceptable way to dispose of an American flag which is worn out is to burn it. But that's another story. Right now as far as I know, there isn't anybody in prison for flag burning, improper disposal of flags, or homosexual practices by consenting adults. A law to prohibit the burning of an American flag in political protest would require a constitutional amendment, a very unlikely prospect.

Helen, the Patriot Act is actually a national security act. You may not belive it but the USA is in a war against a dangerous implacable enemy and is fighting for its very survival. In times of war, many ordinary liberties may have to be curtailed or eliminated altogether. It's not without precedent in the US. The US Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. Those people around the world who vehemently oppose what the US government is doing to protect its citizens against another 9-11 or worse should consider the likely consequences if it fails. Were the US to become blind with rage after one of its cities goes up in a nuclear mushroom cloud because its openness and generousity made it vulnerable to a devastating attack, there is no limit to the destruction which would be unleashed on the world. Nobody anywhere would be safe. Don't count on the illusion of limitless forbearance or civilian control of the military to protect anyone. The US government has the power to become the most destructive force the world has ever seen, and it has demonstrated by its actions twice before that it can and will use the full measure of its military might. That was one purpose of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to remove any doubt.

Gay Christian Believer, where were those books banned, in some public school libraries? In some public libraires? I'll bet it was always local, related to some publicly funded institution, and didn't last very long. Nobody was ever unable to gain access to any of them such as by purchasing them privately from bookstores. Yes there have been injustices now and again and these things happen here and there but they are invariably rectified. I had no trouble buying The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf for course work when I was in college and they were also in the public libraries where I lived. I also had no trouble buying Hustler Magazine. Your generalizations and finding singular exceptions to the general rule in a nation as vast as the US makes no sense to those who have a real understanding of that nation.

Gee Dubyah, if there is one thing America claims sole ownership of, it's ownership of itself. It will not cede its sovereignty to anyone including public opinion in any or all other nations or a would be world government or court. It will act unilaterally on its own behalf if it has to. This will include blowing up the world if it comes to that. There's an old saying that you are what you eat. I think in reality it would be more accurate to say you are where you were born. I can understand that people who live in close proximity to many nations of comparable or greater size and strength find that they need to accede to a consensus with them in order to survive. The US isn't in that position. It will kowtow to nobody. It won its independence by rejecting Europe, everything Europe was, everything Europe stood for. In over 200 years, that hasn't changed. It strengthened its mettle conquering a vast hostile continent against overwhelming odds. In many ways, its unique civilization surpassed the rest of the world a long time ago. The only reason it broke its isolation and engaged the rest of the world is that events in the mid 20th century starting with Pearl Harbor proved that two oceans were no longer enough to protect it from physical danger. 9-11 proved that its nuclear arsenal alone wasn't enough either. It must now go out and find its real enemies and kill them wherever they are, even in the remotest mountain caves in Afghanistan. Nobody can stop it and they could die trying. Protest all you want for all the good it will do you.

Gay Christian Believer- It wouldn't even be proposed in the U.S. And you're pulling up the laws of old - does that mean that old laws in Europe are fair game in this discussion too? Just which nation do you think would win this debate, if it came down to it?

Helen Hays- This is the second time in the past month you've brought up the Patriot Act to me in entirely different discussions. I'll give you the same answer as I gave you then: no, I don't support it. Bush is wrong to breach freedom in the name of security, though I don't expect you'd be one to support the various pro-freedom measures he's responsible for, nor do I expect that you would be able to find any worse reasons to curtail freedom than reasons of national security. By the way, my blog is full of criticism for one breach of freedom or another, including that in America and around the world. My point in this thread is simply that America's doing much better in that regard.

GW- Geriatrics do not run Germany, and I have a feeling most Germans would not appreciate your implication that their experience of the war is responsible for their legislative policies. You say: "I think [what John says here] is crass, and would rather stick with the rest of europe, if this chest puffing is your freedom." There's no chest puffing involved, GW, and I'm surprised to hear you describe my position this way. I'm not American. I can't take any credit for the way the USA has protected the rights and freedoms of its citizens - like no other nation - and as an outsider who grew up in Belfast and moved to the States in 2004, I am in a fairly good position, I'd say, to assess both. You find it crass when Americans talk about the pride they have in their country, but I understand the merit of that pride better than most Americans I'd say, because I have a good basis for comparison. Your allegation of "chest puffing" is misevaluated.

Alan- Personally, I'd fight for the right of women to bare their breasts a little more.. and by the way Gay Christian Believer- I'm not being rude here, but why do you prefer to identify yourself using your sexual orientation? It would be a little odd for me to sign with reference to my sexual orientation. Just curious..

John i think i know why Gay Christian Believer uses that name, just to let people know where hes coming from and to let people like PB know there are gay christians out there. I wouldnt beat him up for it.

Um ... JW mentions laws of old? That list of banned books includes HARRY POTTER guys. It's hardly ancient history.

Helen- I'm not beating anyone up. I was just asking.

Hitchens- Interesting. Harry Potter was never banned in the United States. It WAS banned in a British school.... and one Georgia mother wanted to remove it from the kids section at the library. I think this casts doubt upon the whole list provided by GCB. In fact, perhaps GCB would be so kind as to share his source so that we can look at it?

Mark,

I think 9/11 showed quite clearly the extent to which USA lives in close proximity to the other nations.

The issue here is that all of us have to live together and as you rightly say (I paraphrase): "No nation should kowtow to any other" - that includes kowtow-ing to the wishes of your nation or mine. The rights and freedoms to live how you want are just as valid when other nations aspire to them.

The fact that the US is one of the world's nuclear powers and commands immense destructive power is in the public domain. So what?

In rejecting everything that Europe stood for; did that include the French Republic - a source of inspiration and indeed of the statue of liberty? As a point of order, the US also did not the reject the lamentable european habit of poking one's nose into other nations' business...

I am trying to be balanced -- it seems you could try a little harder in that direction.

John,

if the German legislation on Swastikas and Nazi symbolism is not informed by the wartime experience, then what is it informed by?

Millions of dollars were spent removing the world trade centre from the release of whichever spiderman movie it was. This move by the germans is in the same vein. I know it's an imperfect analogy, but I think you guys are bright enough to see where I'm coming from.

I do not think they will ban the swastika. It is an important religious symbol for Buddhists as well as Hindus. I think the Germans are particularly sensitive to it - indeed I remember the shocked embarrassment of one German visitor to seeing swastikas in the decoration of a Buddhist shrineroom in Dublin some years ago.
Banning this symbol or criminalising Holocaust denial is lunacy and I don't think it will get anywhere.
Global warming denial - now there's something that should be criminalised!

Gee Dubyah; The US shares long relatively unguarded borders with Canada and Mexico and that is all. Their governments pose no threat to the US. The threat comes from infiltration. Large numbers of illegal economic migrants from Mexico, terrorists from other countries traveling across both borders both legally and illegally. There are large numbers of small island groups in the Carribean. American coastal waters are fairly well patrolled. Other than that, there is a 3000 mile stretch of Atlantic Ocean to our east and the world's largest body of water, the Pacific Ocean 6000 miles across to our west. America's openness refers to its willingness to allow millions of strangers to visit for various purposes every year from being in transit during travel, to brief visits, to permanent resettlement. The US has a right to know who comes and why they are here and now that right should be exercised more than ever. Anyone unwilling to stick their index finger in a fingerprint reader for a second or two and supply vital data about themselves in advance should stay home or go elsewhere.

Nobody in the United States has an unconditional right to live "how you want." There are wide but clearly defined limits. Transgress them and there are consequences, sometimes dire consequences, not only for the people here themselves but for anyone conspiring with them beyond US borders. That includes entire governments and their hapless populations.

For those who like metaphors, I've said elsewhere that Europe's national bird should be the ostrich. It sticks its head in the sand hoping all trouble will go away by itself and it does its best to stay oblivious to what is actually happening, preferring to live its life in its own fantasy. Predators have no problem subduing it. America's national bird is the eagle. It soars far above the world searching out its prey. It can see the smallest movement from as far as two miles away and when it does, it swoops down with deadly results. In the prosecution of the war being waged against it, the US will find its prey anywhere in the world where people are plotting aginst it, against its people wherever they are, and against its interests wherever they are. And it will also swoop down with deadly consequences. The world should be indifferent to the relative handful of injustices done to those who mistakenly appear to be terrorists plotting against the US in its effort to successfully prevent another attack. It should be mindbogglingly fearful of the consequences if it fails. And by the way, the odds are definitely against it being successful indefinitely. It knows that and it already has plans in place for the aftermath. You won't want to be in any country even suspected of having had any culpability, they will all be "taken out" simultaneously and swiftly. And you can be sure if it doesn't stick to its plan, it will only be because blind rage in the reality of whatever happens to it will make things far worse. What are the consequences of anyone using nuclear weapons? It's hard for me to realize that to so many around the world, they are a pure abstraction, the era I lived much of my life in having been so preoccupied with them. Read Hiroshima Diary by a Japanese doctor who survived the atom bomb attack and helped treat the wounded. I read it when I was about 10 years old. That horror is only a slight taste of what could be in store for us all.

Please read some history Dubyah. When the US revolted against Britain, there was no French Republic. Napoleaon hadn't happened yet. The French Revolution hadn't happened yet. There was a Louis sitting on the throne of France. America's problems with the corrupt French begain almost immediatey after the revolution with the XYZ affair and have hardly abated since. America did not poke its nose into anyone's business until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor except to tell Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. That's what the Monroe Doctrine was about, that's what the Spanish American War was about. Given what happened in two world wars, the US had no choice but to take matters into its own hands or Europe's penchant for destroying itself through war at least once every generation for over a millenium would have resulted in another blood bath for a third time in the 20th century, the worst ever. And it almost did.

There is no rational way to be balanced when your nation is at war for survival and your own life is in jeopardy from it. To win a war, no matter how pure your motives, you must have a killer instinct, and you must be ruthlessly prepared to use it.

Apologies, I made a mistake about the dates of the republics.

Nonethelss,France and "the corrupt french" played a key role in aiding the new nation Americans with money and munitions, organizing a coalition against Britain, and sending an army and a fleet that played a decisive role at Yorktown.

Is this the rejection of all things european you were crowing about?

We are all tied up together, and your artificial aloofness and attempted moral superiority are bluster and boorishness, but if you impress yourself, bust a gut buddy.
I think the waffle about mighty Mceagles is a bit corny to be honest.

I think that given the acts against Humanity, the following should be banned: Nazi, Communist, US Republican, and US Democrat Symbols.

GW says: "I think the waffle about mighty Mceagles is a bit corny to be honest."

Of course it is, Dubyah. Americans ARE corny, aren't they. Especially when they talk about their nation and how great it is. Perhaps they should be like us Irish and fight for 200 years over a patch of land they can't stand to live in in the first place, and from where people have flocked in record numbers, never to return. Perhaps they should be like us Brits so they can despise their own country so much that there's a very good chance they'll lose part of it. Better, maybe, that they should be like Europeans where they so enjoy their national identities that they're giving it all up to form a new nation which can't ratify its own constitution.

Don't get me wrong: Europeans have some good reasons for this self-loathing. But don't hate America because it doesn't share your awkwardness at any hint of actually enjoying life and country.

Gee Dubyah; America is eternally grateful for the efforts France made to help win the revolutionary war for independence against Britain. How many times and how much do we have to pay them back before the debt is repaid in full? Isn't winning two world wars for them enough? When does it end?

Independence from Britain was just the beginning of the split, the psychology of it continued on developing, especially when the former colonists sat down to figure out how to govern themselves without falling into the same traps Europeans got caught up in. About the only thing of value they kept was English common law, the rest was entirely new invention. America is still an experiment and the results so far are promising.

Talk about moral superiority coming from Europeans is the height of comedy and hipocricy. Europeans have ALWAYS thought themselves superior to everyone else in the world including each other. That's how they justified their imperial conquests, their cruel exploitive colonial empires, their slave trade, and their perpetual wars against each other. And what about the superiority of their moral religions? Their Crusades, their inquisitions, their missionaries to save the savage heatherns. (In the movies I always root for the canibals to eat the missionaries.) Recollections of European history was what prompted me to write my "What I believe" line about microbes killing each other over which of them was most like the image of their imaginary god. Absolutely repugnant, all of it. And now they have the audacity to tell Americans that they can't fight to protect themselves when they feel under attack because they haven't received permission from Europe. Small wonder most Americans now say to hell with Europe, who needs it anyway. Too bad we can't saw our part of the world off. Many of us would love to fill the moat, raise the draw bridge, and man the turrets against all future invaders.

As for eagles, American spy planes, spy satellites, guided missiles, piloted aircraft, and predator type drone planes are just the beginning. Wait until you see what's coming off the drawing boards and into orbit above your skies next.

Mark,

you dont owe anyone anything except a little respect. In raising France I was countering your point about eschewing europe remember?

John

I dont hate america - I have a problem with fervent nationalism of any kind - it's outdated in the 21st century. It leads to those wars Mark says he hates, but lsiten to the way he is talking - predator drones and stealth planes mark? What are you some kind of caveman - dont talk to me about hating war it sound like you love it - i grew up in one and i know better - OK?

And Marks silly threats suggest he is a lot younger than I suspect he actually is.

If you look back this started because although I actually agree the germans shouldnt ban the swastika, i understand why they do.

You boys should put your pride where it belongs - on a 4th of july parade - and lets have a proper conversation. I wont be goaded into beating my chest, and you shouldn't beat yours.

Hmmm, something tells me Mark's ultimate aim here isn't to obtain your agreement....! That old thing about honey and vinegar only works if catching flies is the goal!

I am worried that the most famous episode of the most famous British sit com might be banned.

"I don't vant any of you soggy chips: I vant mine crisp und light brown."

["The Deadly Attachment", Dad's Army]

Would "Allo, Allo" also be affected?

"Heil, Hitler!"

"Heil, Hitler!"

"Klop!"

[Inaccurate because the Wehrmacht only adopted the Hitler salute, in the aftermath of the July Plot of 1944.]

These programmes might be regarded as "trash" by some but they're a damned sight funnier than anything the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Light Entertainment [so called because it's light on entertainment?] Department has commissioned, within the last twenty years.

Gee Dubyah, after France's help in the American revolution well over 200 years ago, what has Europe ever done for America? BTW, in case some of you don't know much history, while it is true that Britain abolished slavery about 30 years before the last of it was abolished in America in the south, Britain actively supported the Confederacy during the Civil War. Why? Because it wanted to keep America divided and weak. Look it up if you don't believe it.

American nationalism is in your sense a contradiction of terms. Americans trace their background from every nation and culture on earth. If there were one truely United Nation of the World, it would be America. Don't equate American patriotism with the nationalism of other nations, it's not the same thing at all. Besides, its an allegience to an idea and and ideal as much as to a piece of real estate.

I wish I was as young as you think I am. Let's see how many people can identify the Will's photograph in the thread about the Doomsday clock. That will prove who is old and young. And when that picture was taken, I was around 16 years old already.

Evie Conrad; at least the Seinfeld episode with the Soup Nazi is safe in America for now anyway. So is Hogan's Heroes.

Dubyah says: "I have a problem with fervent nationalism of any kind - it's outdated in the 21st century."

You're entitled to that opinion. But if your nation is the only one that holds the sort of values you endorse, nationalism is a fine way of supporting the things you believe in.

"If you look back this started because although I actually agree the germans shouldnt ban the swastika, i understand why they do."

My response to this depends on what you mean by 'understand'. Of course I understand their political reasons for wanting to stand against any hint of nazism, that much is obvious. But it doesn't make it right. The Germans, like everyone else, should be expected to do the right thing regardless of the circumstances. I think that much should be obvious too. (And by the way, I know you hate hearing about how America is right, but in the States such a law would be found unconstitutional and repealed.)

I can 'understand' the reasons that a man murder his cheating wife. It doesn't make it right, and I'm sure you'd agree. This law falls into the same category. I, like you, 'understand' why the Germans would want to ban the swastika, while condemning it as I did above.

They way you talk mark I think you "learned to love the bomb" (an oblique answer to one of your questions) a long time ago... So yeah , maybe no spring chicken after all.

But you want to watch that militarist talk - it doesn't sit with your stated hatred of war. Regarding America's special case - if thats what you think and it works for you the go right ahead, as Arsene Wenger (go google him if it's too Euro oriented for you) once said "everyone thinke he has the prettiest wife at home" - with the possible exception of Gay Christian Believer!!

But dont piddle down my neck and tell me it's raining.

So what if Britain had an agenda in the civil war - the US had one in the Suez Crisis. Everyone does it... Like I keep saying - none of us are better than the other.

If the Germans had told their people the entire truth right from the beginning after the war so they understood all of it, they would be so repulsed by the swastika that they would kill each other for the mere sight of it. It was their voluntary descent into barbarianism and rejection of civilization. They became animals by their own choice. As it was, they barely began to face up to it starting in the late 1970s and they still don't want to know it all to this day. They like to pretend that it was only their leaders who knew what was going on at the time, but the majority not only knew or strongly suspected, they also agreed with it as long as they didn't have to look at it. This all came out only about 10 or 20 years ago in a controversial book which proved many of them had souveneir photos and letters home to their families of their fond experiences in the good old days running the concentration camps. The Japanese still haven't faced up to their atrocities in the 1930s and 1940s. Their ignorance leaves them bewildered by the reaction and attitudes of their former victims in southeast Asia like China and Korea. They can't understand why they are so hated. I don't know what the answer is to deliberate self delusion on this scale about such grave matters. Hiding from the truth is probably the surest way to guarantee that it will happen in one way or another again one day and banning symbols won't stop it, they'll find new symbols. It's why the news footage of the refugees boarding the trains in Kosovo was such a nightmare for all of Europe, a 55 year old nightmare they were trying to put out of their minds forever. It was Auschwitz all over again right there in their face. No Security Council resolutions, no votes, no speeches, just come America, come fast, come now and make it stop any way you can as fast as you can. So much for the crap about international law.

Glad you've changed your name back from STRAIGHT JOHN WRIGHT to JOHN WRIGHT - your mockery of Gay Christian was in your name change, which was a silly antic on your part.

And I'm glad you changed your name back from Helen Hays to Helen Hays. I had you confused with the famous actress of the same name. That was a silly antic on your part as well.

Helen- I hold nothing whatever against Gay Christian Believer and hope I haven't offended him in any way. (I haven't, have I, GCB?) There's nothing wrong with identifying oneself via one's sexual orientation, but I did find it very interesting that he did so. That's a different conversation, though. My name change was just a nod to it, and a little fun to boot.

JOHN: I was offended by your name change as a matter of fact. I thought you were mocking my sexual identity when you amde an issue about this, which no one else has done. I accept now that this was not your intention. If I had called myself Black Christian Believer, would you have mocked me and changed your name to White John Wright? (If you are in fact white?) You might consider this a daft question but it's how I feel. I've experienced a lot of abuse for being gay and I don't ask for sympathy for that. I just ask that you hear my experience.

GCB- I apologise for any offence I caused you. I am simply intrigued that you would refer to your sexual orientation in your online identity. I'm also interested as to why 'Straight John Wright' is any less a valid way of referring to myself ... it appears to be a double standard: you can refer to it to make a point but I can't refer to it to beg the question. As I said, it's a conversation for another day, and one I'm genuinely interested in. Nevertheless, it was never my intention to hurt your feelings. I'm aware that it isn't an easy thing to be openly gay and I enthusiastically believe in and support your rights as being as significant and important as mine. Peace, kiddo.

Just been reading the spat between GCB and (S)JW. Hope u dont mind me barging in. John maybe I can help u understand, since ur "apology" managed to restate the orginal cause of the apology and BUILD on it! (Hilarious!)

Ok.

1 - John u seemed to have raised the issue of GCBs name.

2 - You then changed ur own name to apparently mock his name.

3 - If u'd started on here as SJW no one would have a problem with ur choice of name . . . but u changed ur name POINTEDLY.

4 - Someone makes a good point about the Black name. You wouldn't have raised that as an issue.

5 - So why DID you raise this as an issue?

6 - Are you a homophobe?

7 - Actually, from reading u on this post, i dont think u are a homophobe?

8 - So was IS ur beef with GCBs name?

9 - There's a guy on here called SIMPLE BELIEVER (Hi SB, hope u dont mind me bringing u into this) ... why dont you criticise him for not just calling himself Believer?

10 - THEN you could have called yourself Simple John Wright.

11 - :-)

John,

as a minor point raised earlier in this thread. I do love my country and I do love the life I lead in it.
Hey I love my wife too, but I'm not going to bore you about all of that.
My life and country (and my wife for that matter)and the things I believe (see Credo) are all things I can touch and feel - I don't live for ideas - the people that do tend to end up in places like milltown/arlington/flanders/normandy cemeteries. So yeah the emotional investment in the national entity that US citizens share is alien to me. And the fact that they have it is super, but it by no means imbues their administrations with infallibility - and the administration is the manifestation of the population's will. The same goes for most democratic governments - they are just people - I'm sure they are doing their best, but it will never be perfect.

I will be doing my best to ensure my government oppose the German proposal - you in the states can't affect it, as we can't do anything about your policies. But thats' democracy for you...

Re: Banning swastika

No. Play down the stupidity of those who use it for wrong reasons.

Lesson learned:

When I was a student in Ireland we had Religious Instruction classes in Grammar school. We got to realize however that if one took the chalk board duster and put a swastika on the blackboard there would be no RI that day and indeed it was quite likely that the whole school would be brought to assembly for a lecture.

One day a new RI instructor walked into the school - a young minister - green we thought and ripe for a swastika attack. So up went the symbol on the chalk board. We all waited his arrival in our class. He walked in looked at the board with no reaction, put his books down, told us what his lesson plan was, turned to the board and calmly wiped the swastika off as if he hadn't noticed it.

We were quite astounded and he had full control of that class from that moment forward.

I have seen many incidents here of teenagers doing similar things (usually in graveyards or on doors) and there is a huge blow up in the local press much to the enjoyment of the perpretators. I sometimes wonder if the 'leadership' shown by that RI teacher is not the correct example to follow today.

Regards,
Michael

ps: John, I did think your momentary switch of name was a bit .....

Clean apology needed?

Acceptance and forgiveness from GCB?

And then on to more positive things!

ps: Mark, I posted a question for you under "Michael Hull's Chair".

Oh for the love of God.

1) It should be obvious to anyone that my name change was tongue-in-cheek.

2) I did it as a way of begging the question, "Why would Gay Christian Believer refer to his sexual orientation in his name?"

3) I wan't expecting the answer to be, "Yes, you're right - it's ridiculous," or anything as pointed... it was a fleeting aside that wasn't meant to develop into anything to be taken this seriously.

4) There wasn't any malice OR any homophobic sentiment in my comments. If you think there was you are mistaken.

5) My apology to Gay Christian Believer was very sincere. I WASN'T apologising for raising the issue: if you people expect that, then you're even less interested in real, honest dialogue than I thought. I was apologising for the fact that his feelings were hurt by the manner in which I did it. I did not repeat the name change; I merely clarified the reasons I did it so that Gay Christian Believer would know it was not my intention to hurt him (and Gay Christian Believer is aware that my intentions were not malicious, as he states in post 32).

6) I'm a little disappointed at how flakey everyone is about this. Is it possible that we've gotten so sensitive about certain subjects that we can't handle seeing anyone bring their critical faculties to bear upon anything even mildly related because it may be construed as homophobic? The culture obsessed with apologies and nitpicking rolls on.

7) I'll reiterate that I'm not in the least homophobic. Oh how I hate repeating myself.

8) I'll reiterate my apology. I absolutely, categorically apologise GCB for your offence. That wasn't my intent. Clearly more has been made of this than either you or I would have liked. If you'd rather talk about this in private, my email address is johnwright@libertarianreason.com.

Now let's all have a big discussion over whether I really meant what I said or whether my apology is really valid or not.

Michael
How nice to see that you put me in a tidy convenient little box, put on the lid with a label on it, and wrapped it up in a ribbon with a neat bow tied in it. Sorry to disappoint you, I didn't say I was a secular humanist, read it again, I said I was a secular INhumanist. I always look for the silver lining in the darkest cloud, at least it's good for a laugh. Has it ever occurred to you to find consolation in the fact that in every atrocity of mass murder where people are brutally injured and killed, there is invariably a certain percentage of them who actually deserved it? Dr. Strangelove ends with the doomsday machine going off and killing everyone in the world to strains of Vera Lynn singing We'll All Meet Again, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When.... I guess that would be in heaven...or in hell. It was a rather religious movie in retrospect.

What do I believe in that's contained in the article by someone named Paul in Free Inquiry Magazine which you referenced in the other thread? Just about none of it.

I don't know about what secular humanists believe according to Paul. I have no belief in God, I am not a non-theist, I'm an atheist. I see no evidence for god's existance or any to even suggest that a god exists. Therefore I don't belive in god and my best guess is that god does not exist. No theory of god makes any sense in light of what I do know. Do I detest religion? Without a doubt, I detest all religions. To me they are cynical means for some people to control other people for their own benefit, a form of psychological and in some cases physical slavery including severe punishment for disobedience. I regard people who believe in god or religion as primitives irrationally fearful of inevitable death, morbidly preoccupied with the meaning of life, and having fallen prey to the priests of one religion or another who hand them comforting answers on a silver platter in return for their money, their time, or their willingness to go to war to die fighting for them. Ultimately, I don't believe in ethics either. I did not ask to be born, I do not feel guilty for having been born, and I don't feel that I owe anyone in this world anything for it, and nobody can convince me otherwise.

I've noticed that there seem to be two kinds of people in this world. Those who have never gotten over their infintile need to control everything around them and spout platitudes about changing the world (into what they can control), and those who accept it for what it is and try to find the best and happiest life in it as it exists. In genaral, I've observed that the first kind are almost invariably unhappy, perpetually grumbling about "comes the revolution", and usually lead failed lives. When they are in rare cases successes because they have "charisma" which means they've persuaded an army of fools to believe in and follow them, they are the most dangerous people in the world. Who has ultimately been responsible for more misery and death in history than Stalin, Hitler, Christ, Mohammed, Mao Tse Tung, Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, and their like? No thanks, not for me. Neither a follower nor a leader be, that's my motto. Sorry, I just don't fit in your fancy box after all, do I? That box is no more comfortable than any of the rest of them.

Re post 37. At 03:01 PM on 19 Jan 2007, Mark wrote:

"Michael
How nice to see that you put me in a tidy convenient little box, put on the lid with a label on it, and wrapped it up in a ribbon with a neat bow tied in it. Sorry to disappoint you, I didn't say I was a secular humanist, read it again, I said I was a secular INhumanist."

Mark:

You make so many typos and in other threads when I have pointed this out you have whined. So I assumed that this was a typo, accepted it as such and hence asked a perfectly rational question based on this assumption.

Had you wished me to assume otherwise you would have made it clear with emphasis as you have done above that you meant something other than 'humanist' - you didn't but that's just you.

The rest of your response is what it 'is'.

Regards,
Michael

ps: John I had meant to include you in the referenced discussion - I would still like to hear your thoughts but post them in the other thread where the reference to Paul and secular humanism is being discussed. Those wishing to comment on secular INhumanism can continue to do so here.

John: Your name change was hilariously funny, irreverent, cutting, and a welcome relief in these easily offended politically correct times.

Why do you bother arguing with these people? I gave up some time ago.

SG

Michael; I do not make any "typos", I merely use less commonly accepted spellings of some words. I'm glad I got that strate.

Straight White Stephen I dont think you got my joke there did you? Loosen up!

Stonewall don't mind Straight Stephen, he hasn't been talking much since someone put him in his place a while ago.

At 04:53 PM on 05 Jan 2007, Mark wrote in 'andy mcintosh update' thread: Cat got your tongue Maureen? You've been strangely quiet lately.

Glad to report that my tongue is ok but I fear, Mark, after reading post 40 above that something has got hold of your nose.

It appears to have grown significantly longer.

Prrrr,
Maureen

Yeah Maureen, I'm turning into a regular Cyranose de Bergerac. Must be all the blarney I've been around lately. Pinocchio had the very same problem.

David:

Huh? I hope you aren't referring to that debate we had a while back on egoism. The one were you ran off and sulked and didn't come back until relatively recently? That debate? The one that I carried on long after you ran away? That debate? The one in which I wiped the floor with your blunders? That debate?

Seriously?

LOL!!!!!!!!!

SG

now children

Hilarious Stephen. I stopped chatting on here for a while because pb's illogical rhetoric became too painful. In your case, if I recall corectly, you had to have some basic logic explained to you on the issue of male violence against women and then we didn't hear from you for a while. Good to see you back.

Or maybe you were that guy Stephen Green under andothe name for a while? He treated us to some abusive comments for a week or so.

David:

You stopped debating in that post on egoism because you ran away and sulked like a child because the debate wasn't going your way.

On the post about women and men no one explained any basic logic to me. Just who had to explain what to me?

You didn't hear from me much after that because a sick 3 month old child was taking up my time.

No, I'm not Stephen Green.

The G in my name is for "Graham."

Have a good day.

SG

Dearest David:

I just had a little look back at the debate you mentioned and perhaps you feel I had to be instructed about quantifier shift fallacies? If so, perhaps you will note that I asked a question of William - was he tempted by a quantifier shift fallacy. I wasn't making a statement. Since he and at least one other person seemed to use "men are more violent than women" and "more men than women are violent" interchangably I wondered was there something askew in the background of their thought process. So I asked a question. If you then notice I replied after Williams reply to me and I addressed his comments and those of "Gill" - and I never actually got a response. So, I never actually just disappeared.

Now, if you insist on giving your own different interpretation of these fairly clear facts you might just completely convince me that you're errors in memory are surpassed only by your shaky grasp of basic English.

SG

Dearest David:

I just had a little look back at the debate you mentioned and perhaps you feel I had to be instructed about quantifier shift fallacies? If so, perhaps you will note that I asked a question of William - was he tempted by a quantifier shift fallacy. I wasn't making a statement. Since he and at least one other person seemed to use "men are more violent than women" and "more men than women are violent" interchangably I wondered was there something askew in the background of their thought process. So I asked a question. If you then notice I replied after Williams reply to me and I addressed his comments and those of "Gill" - and I never got a response. So, I never actually just disappeared.

Now, if you insist on giving your own different interpretation of these fairly clear facts you might just completely convince me that your errors in memory are surpassed only by your shaky grasp of basic logic.

SG

Stephen, you'll enjoy the David Irving interview. He rewrites history too!

What a mature reply, David; I must say. You've outdone yourself!

Dearest Davy Oxo:

The debates are there for any one to read if they wish. I know what happened, as does any rational observer.

If you feel that you are such an expert in history, then perhaps you should become a history teacher when you grow up.

SG

Anyone else detect a bit of Goodyism creeping into this spat - esp now with SG ganging up with mate JW?
But this one is VERY BORING for the rest of us!
David
We'll understand if you just ignore them.

Alan:

So boring you took time out of your life to read it and join in?

Genius.

Anyhow, I can hardly be accused of ganging up on David with anyone. John can join in if he likes, but I didn't invite him to and it wasn't organised. It's a free message board and whoever likes can reply to any comment. From your treatment, along with others, of PB in particular I could accuse you of the same thing. Hey, Kettle, this is Pot - you're black!

David made a few ignorant claims about my bevahiour in previous threads and I had to put the record straight. With that accomplished, there isn't much more to be said, so keep your knickers on.

Enjoy yourself.

SG

Stephen I notice that you are often very rude to people on here. I'm hoping you won't be rude to me for pointing that out. Just wondering if we can all learn to debate and disagree without getting personal and aggressive?

Veronica:

I'm not aware of being rude to many people here, David certainly - he deserves it - but I'm not aware of being "rude" to many others. I admit I am a fairly rude person, but I make no apology for that. I say what I think and I don't mince my words. The more thinned skinned amongst you might write me off as "rude," but as far as I'm concerned the world needs more people like that.

SG

I nominate John, Stephen and David for the next edition of Big Brother.

Touche! Billy

LOL...

SG

can i just point out to alan and veronica that it was david who started this spat with stephen g......

JIM