« Links With Your Coffee - Saturday | Main | No We Didn't »

Academy Awards Preview

Bill Maher hosts the Academy Awards

Quicktime Video 2.1MB 1'27
Quicktime 7 required

Real Time with Bill Maher



Am I going to be the first one to ring in and call this offensive and in bad taste? Cause that's what it is. There's no place for this in civil society.

Offensive? I suppose, then, that it is the truth which is offensive, since this is the reality for muslim women.

More to the crux of the matter, I find islamic methodologies used to control women and female sexuality offensive, based upon the universally applicable idea that individuals ought to be able to control this kind of self-expression themsleves. We ought not to "dress our women".

Perhaps satire is not the most serious or thorough way to deal with the issue, but if anything, it may succeed in what Dawkins would call "consciousness-raising". We take a second look. I hope.

putting our noses where they do'nt belong is why we are in the situation we are in. I attened a lecture by James Earl Jones not too long ago on the topic of culture. One of the most important things itook away from it was that you cannot view a foreign culture through the prism of your own. We in the west hold freedom paramount to all else (at least in theory, in practice that's questionable as of late) in Islamic culture obedience to the teachings of the prophet are most important. Redressing a culture based on your own social mores is neither constructive nor productive.

Certainly I think its heinous that women are subjugated, but those women do not view it as such. It is part of their duty to God to be subserviate and humble. I recognize that its a system of controls, but inside of this system, perception is reality. In this time of change, I don't think its very advisable to provoke a people that already view the west as suspect. Prudence and timely discourse are a better path than ridicule and the subsequent outrage.

Offensive? Nah: "I find islamic methodologies used to control women and female sexuality offensive, based upon the universally applicable idea that individuals ought to be able to control this kind of self-expression themsleves. We ought not to "dress our women".

Yeah, we should be undressing them! We're not hypocrites! We really respect female sexuality.

But hey, everybody should be free to make a buck, hunh?

" . . . based upon the universally applicable idea that individuals ought to be able to control this kind of self-expression themsleves."

Hate to point out the obvious, but if this principle were "universally accepted" then there really wouldn't be much to discuss or with which to disagree. No? Can we say together out loud "cultural hegemony"?


"trying to pick up examples of the most extreme abuses of something doesn't explain how something has to or should be."

Where have we heard this before?

I think what weazl is saying is quite relevant. I'm not sure that picture is particularly extreme when it comes to pornography.

Is someone saying that any aspect of one's culture is off-limits to criticism? I didn't think so. It is yet another attempt to shield religion from any criticism at all. Sorry no free passes for religion.

Norm, I think you're missing the point. Do we want a dialogue or do we want to shield ourselves from other ways of thinking?

When I posted the quote, "trying to pick up examples of the most extreme abuses of something doesn't explain how something has to or should be."...

Those were not my words. I was quoting Weazl from another thread, where he was saying that the examples given of sharia law were examples of extreme abuses.

And then he posts here a link to some hard-core pornographic sites as an extreme example of how Western men respect women's sexuality.

The point that Canadia_Rower was making was not that he/she supports the depiction of women in these extreme examples given by Weazl, but that women should be free to not have to veil themselves and cover their feet and ankles without being called whores.

It seems that weazl is being a hypocrite when he rails against the use of extreme examples when talking about Islam and sharia law, but then engages in the use of extreme examples when referring to sexual freedom.

Although some Muslim women voluntarily veil themselves because of cultural conditioning, I would not want to live in a culture where this practice is dominant and thus run the risk of being denied medical service or being called slut because I want to wear a mini skirt. Religious fundamentalists everywhere around the world feel that the open display of male and female sexuality is perverse and something to be covered up and hidden, and they want to impose their sexual hangups on others.

"This month, physicians have been beaten for treating female patients and women have been brutally attacked for not being veiled in Basra, Iraq."... This quote is from here:


That sounds like a false dilemma to me. Criticizing religion doesn't mean we can't engage in dialogue. How is it exactly that we are shielding ourselves from other ways of thinking? Is it ever okay to criticize religion? If not when, and in what manner, and how often? Should threat of violence be the controlling factor? Perhaps weazl would like to link to some acceptable examples of criticizing Islam and sharia law.

I don't know. I don't have the answer, but I strongly disbelieve the answer is us, westerners saying "all that you stand for is bullshit" and of course people in the muslim world saying "anything but the words of Muhammed is bullshit". I mean, if we really do want a change we should try and encourage any progress being done in say Turkey or Lebanon.

..and not just point out the bad things.

(Sorry for the double posting)

Straw Man. Nobody is saying "all that you stand for is bullshit" (in reference to islam), certainly not me, and certainly not the sketch.

What IS being commented on is the ownership of the right to clothe ones' self as one sees fit. Muslim women do not have that option in most cases, and this is a problem. Or do you believe it is not?

Further to Ben's comment about culture, I do agree that this method of dialogue, satire, is not the most serious or thorough way to explore the issue (as I have already mentioned). However, I think its criticism on the issue is not at all unwarranted, and certainly not "offensive".

If something is to be considered "offensive", the onus is upon those who would cliam it to be so to show where the harm is being done, or how the criticism is incorrect. I do not believe that either is possible from the islamic position on this issue, keeping in mind that it is not good enough to simply say "well, this is what we've always believed, and that's it." Some more rational, applicible explaination is required.

" . . . based upon the universally applicable idea that individuals ought to be able to control this kind of self-expression themsleves."

"Hate to point out the obvious, but if this principle were "universally accepted" then there really wouldn't be much to discuss or with which to disagree. No? Can we say together out loud "cultural hegemony"?


I did NOT say "universally accepted", but rather "universally applicable" as you yourself have shown in your first quotation of my post.

What i meant by that was, simply, that islam must show how their policy on the clothing of women can be construed as a rational course of action universally. How does the policy make sense when considered on its own? That's the point, which is entirely different from saying that anything had been universally accepted by anybody.

Yeah, so I guess showing people in blackface is not offensive, or showing Jews with hook noses and tails, or caricature depictions of Japs, Chinks, et al. C'mon people, sorry, but your idiocy and cultureal offensiveness (coupled with a high minded moral indignation and a hefty helping of condescension) is simply really tough to handle. I thought we were waaaaaay beyond this level of discourse, but clearly some of you on the other threads dispelled those illusions a while ago.

Sorry. (and for the moron Jo Ann, yeah I meant "Sorry," and yes, it's personal)

To Canadian Rower: What must Islam prove to you? Are you Muslim? Do you live in a Muslim country? What right do you have to even judge? How many Muslim woman have you talked to about this issue? Can you explain to the Muslim world why so many Western women are raped? Can you explain to the Moslem world why so many women are prostituted?

The hypocrisy is that you people spend your time blathering about the Islamic world when the societies around you are entirely corrupt and bankrupt and you feel that laughing to Jon Steward is your revolutionary activity to create a more just and equitable society. Puh-leez.


Why is it you have such a problem distinguishing between race and religion? All of the examples you gave are racial. One can change their religion but not their race that is the difference. Further as has been pointed out before and ignored by you is the fact that the you do it too argument, the you have problems too arguments are flawed. They only point out hypocrisy and are not evidence for your point of view. Why do you believe religion should be free from criticism?

Because the animus is the same. Jewish anti-Semitism is kinda primarily based on religion, yet with a racial component. And with this animus bad things can happen. Do I need to explain it further to you?

And while I don't think that religion should be free from criticism, to those who would rail against Islam I would give the same advice that I'd give the Christian wingnuts who rail against abortion. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. If you don't like Islam, don't become Muslim. Sorry.

3 of my very best friends are muslim women, or at least, have been raised to be muslim in an islamic country (Bahrain). I recently attended a debate with them on the subject of those Danish cartoons at my university. They too agree that the questionable doctrines of islam must be exactly that - questionable. We must question their validity, their soundness, with a view to the rational not the traditional (as Norm is trying to point out to you).

This is all, of course, completely and utterly beside the point, since I feel the argument has little to do with who anyone knows. I make no claim, as you suggest, that western society ought to be free from criticism and satire in a way that islam should not. Quite the opposite - we ought to fervently engage in such activities in an effort to improve ourselves. So your attack really has no receipient here.

Weazl, I exchange private emails with five Muslims. They all differ in how they anaylize what is going on. You would like to think that I am a moron because I am exposing your own ignorance and that hurts your feelings.

"Because the animus is the same" It isn't for me. Are you suggesting that because some fail to distinguish between the two that we all refrain from criticism of religion or is it just Judaism and Islam that get a free pass.

Do you spend your time as well discussing the "questionable doctrines" of Christianity? By definition, religions are not rational. So that seems to be an utter waste of time. And I think that argument should have to do with familiarity with a subject. And as I responded to Norm, if you don't like Islam, seems to me you shouldn't become a Muslim. But also seems to me that the "questionable" aspects of Islam should really be explored at length and challenged by those who would call themselves Muslims, like your friends (though you seemed to conflate a bit growing up in a Muslim country and their faith). I think it would be pretty ridiculous for me to spend a lot of time questioning the practices and beliefs of the Hasidim when their lives seem to function quite well without me.

And my "attack" does have a "recipient", it's called cultural arrogance and high minded prerogative, though maybe you didn't get the point.

The best way to improve yourself is to work on oneself, and spending such energy attacking others religious beliefs and practices really doesn't seem to offer much by way of self improvement. Sorry.

No, Jo Ann, how and why I think you're a moron was on full display on another thread. And by the way, I really don't care who you talk to, the inquiry was clearly intended for someone other than yourself. I know you have difficulty reading, but far as I can tell, your name isn't Canadian Rower. And you haven't hurt my feelings at all. You're simply a waste of time.

Weazl, What you need is a really nice female to help you to smile and laugh a little more. I know it's difficult to be such a booooorrreee... LOL

I DO believe that critically examining religious (or any) beliefs is a good way of improving one's self. Questioning anything is the lifeblood of intellectual refinement, and I'm not sure how it is you are able to brush it aside so easily. I would hasten to label anyone "arrogant" who feels that this sort of inquiry is not necessary, and yet is willing to attack others regarding those very beliefs.

Perhaps it is something to do with the quality of your inquiry in general which, judging by the personal attacks against others here, seems lacking.

If you'd like to talk about the deficiencies of other systems of religious or philiological belief, I'd be happy to do so. The only reason we're talking about islam is, well, because that's the subject of the thread.

Pix, I do understand what you are saying. Our cultural differences and sensibilities are not easlily understood. Your prensense and your words on this site enlighten me... I sincerely hope that you continue to express your views.. You are a high-level person who has a lot to say. Thank you.

Canadian Rower: the "personal attacks" are a spillover from another thread. And Jo Ann has been begging for my attention from the outset by quoting at the top something I referred to on another subject, and trying to goad me into responding. When that failed, she needs to directly interject in this conversation to get attention. When that isn't so fruitful, she makes reference to my supposed sexual needs. When that doesn't get a rise, she gives compliments to others using words well outside of her vocabulary (what is "prensense"?).

But on the subject at hand, I do think that there is a great degree of hypocrisy, highmindedness or condescesion, and you still never answered the charge of explaining to the Muslim world the subjegation of women in the West.

And similarly Norm was a holdover from the earlier discussion. A discussion that was a singular waste of time. Even this brief exchange has been more fruitful.

weazl, what subjegation of women would that be?

Well I do agree that to an extent the media is objectifying women and they feel the need to fit this role occasionally, however, they are not forced to do this...

The same with your porn example, these people are not forced into the porn industry, at least not normally, and when it is forced it is, you know, against the law... same thing with rape... In our society we do not see the rape of a women as acceptable behavior... this is the crucial difference you seem to fail to grasp... In our society the idea is that they are free to make there own choices, any force involved is against the law.

This is the point, the women in islam are FORCED to behave a certain way, they aren't allowed to make their own choices.

So your trying to compare to things that cannot be compared, your comparing the forcing of women to wear these things and to subjugate themselves to the men in muslim countries, it is legal there... here the subjugation you are refering to (Rape) is illigal... now can you understand why your comparison isn't valid?

Now the reason at the moment we are critisizing islam is because it is the topic of this thread. In other threads christianity is attacked for its idiotic practices... You claim we shouldnt point fingers? Why not? Its not like we're saying, we're perfect and the rest of you are horrible. Our society is far from perfect, but that isnt the point, the point of this thread is not about our society, its about theirs... Your trying to say that we cannot critisize others unless we're perfect? Thats foolish, no one is ever perfect, and we can spend time critisizing other things and also spend time on self improvement.


Well, I guess that's between you two then. I didn't mean to drag other matters into this, so I apologize if that's what i have done.

My response to your point is that I agree. There does exist subjugation of women in the west, and I abhore it. However I feel that the potential exists in the west as well for a women to be free about her choices in a way that simply does not exist under the practices of islam. And so this was the issue raised by the sketch... and I agree with the raising of it, and I agree with the sketch's implicit claim that it is a problem with islam. I'm sure we could find myriad other media depicting the problems western women face, and I, assuredly, would say the same thing of it.

The assumption here seems to be that my agrguments against islamic doctrine are culturally-based - that I simply want to see "their" culture replaced with "mine". While it may sometimes be the case that I find elements of western culture or ideology to be superior to that of islam, it isn't simply BECAUSE they are western. Rather, it is because they reduce harm or increase the potential for benefit, and it could easily be the other way 'round if islamic ideas showed themselves superior in this way. Such is the underpinning of basic critical thinking in ethics.

Only in the most extreme cases are women forced to be veiled. And it is NOT a requirement of the Quran, but has been interpeted as such from the requirement of modesty. In fact, veiling was a habit in that part of the world for over three thousand years BEFORE Islam and may even be found worn by the innkeeper Shamhat in Gilgamesh. Therefore you're false understanding of the "requirements" of Islam perhaps render your entire line of argument null and void. Secondly, whether something is illegal or not really doesn't stem critique of the situation, now does it? It would be quite reasonable to argue that Western laws simply FAIL at their aim to protect women from abuses and therefore other measures prove more effective. Now your culturally arrogant Western perspective would have to answer for this, but rather then engage in some hypothetic debate about what the West or the Islamic world has to "answer for", I think it best to simply stop with the arrogance to think you can judge so effectively other cultures and ways of living, especially when the West is right now engaged in a path of moral reprehension abominable by almost any standard. Those who say they really care about issues of importance would be well served addressing the scores of rampant disgraces in your own back yard than surfing the net for instances of Islamic excesses and feeling self righteous in boasting about how "things need to be changed." It amazing the cultural arrogance, when it's easy to write an entire laundry list of things that would be far worth your time.

And Canadian rower: your idea about the cultural supremecy of Western Ideas and your little economics/ethical formula of utility sounds like you just learned it in an economics or ethics class. I think a little upper level classes would challenge such a facile view of the world, namely that cultural norms are by definition normative, and it's is cultural imperialism to think that your utility curves are the same across the globe. Sorry.

Because Weazl is a coward and uses my typo "prensense", to evade any questions or any other pschyological questions directed his way, it is clear that he is not, in fact, a lawyer, and does not, in fact, have a lovely companion with which to exchange thoughts, and that he is a frustrated male in need of a little female companionship, of which he is otherwise devoid of. ;)

No need to apologize, although i'm sure it was not an apology in earnest.

Perhaps you'd like to challenge my "little formula" for me then? SHOW ME HOW ISLAM IS NOT HARMFUL IN ITS DOCTRINE. Show me how women DO NOT have their freedoms restricted simply because they are women.

Is that facile enough for you? Or perhaps you believe in covering the faces and bodies of female members of society, controlling their sexuality, their life's work, their capacity to produce children, their education, their very behaviour.

I eagerly await your education.

And for the record, if it is my cultural ideals which drive my notions regarding women, then let me tell you straight away what I ought to believe them to be: confined to the kitchen, compliant with husbands, loving with children, and modest in general. This is what I was (strictly) brought up with...

Clearly, it is not a matter of surroundings, it is a matter of rationality as best as we can produce it. I wish you could understand that, but it is too convenient NOT to do so for the sake of your beleagured argument.

Show you how Islam is not harmful in its doctrine? There's really no claim that it is harmful in its doctrine. You want proof? 1.2 billion people. 20% of the world's population. If it were so horrible, think so many people would be buying?

By the way, how does Islam control either their education or their ability or capacity to produce children? How does Islam control their life's work?

I think you haven't had enough discussions about the doctine of Islam with your three "best" friends.

"1.2 billion people. 20% of the world's population. If it were so horrible, think so many people would be buying"


Only about 36% of eligible voters in the U.S. vote.

Some people are so indoctrinated that any points of view outside of their comfort zone set them on fire... so a bunch of femi nazis want freedom... screw them, right? Since Weazl doesn't understand the nuances of language... well, nevermind.. LOL

If I could advance some facile proposition, our little boy, Weazl, might understand... lololol.. I am having fun tonight with Weasl.... I haven't read the words of such a simple-minded uptight little asshole in a long time.. oh, my ;(

Ok, time to stop playing with Weazl... it has been fun, but... LOLOLOL

Islamic women are denied education in many countires as a tenet of faith. I think Colin Powell said it best:

And for a academic studies which indicate how muslim women are systematically denied education, see:

Unfortunately, I just figured out that these last three links require a membership, which my university pays for all students, so you probably won't be able to see it. But you will be able to see the first page, and that they are bone fide academic studies.

There are similar studies into how birth control is used/not used in islamic countries, and of course the imfamous "honour killings" for non-compliant women who decide they either don't want to be married or do not want children. For more information on that, see:

Back to the argument, you suggest that the sheer number of muslims must somehow serve as evidence to the soundness of doctrine. Could not the same be said of the culture of the west of which you are so reviled? I ask you, what relevance is there in evaluating the soundness of a belief by showing how many believe it? There are millions of americans who believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that the rapture will happen within their lifetime. Are you saying they are correct?

what relevance is there in evaluating the soundness of a belief by showing how many believe it?>>

Excellent point.


I guess showing people in blackface is not offensive, or showing Jews with hook noses and tails, or caricature depictions of Japs, Chinks, et al.>>

The difference between that and this (Maher clip) is simple. Those are intentionally offensive and exaggerated caricatures. This was a dramatized depiction of a Muslim woman's reality. No exaggeration necessary. Yes, it seems utterly ridiculous in the red-carpet context, and that is exactly the point.

Norm was a holdover from the earlier discussion. A discussion that was a singular waste of time.>>

Norm isn't just a holdover from another discussion. He's the one that runs this site and allows you to speak so freely here.

I posted again to that earlier "discussion". Since you allude to your superior knowledge of Islam, help me learn more about it. I would be interested in a thoughtful and well-reasoned reply, if possible.

Sorry. The fundamental flaw in your argument is the extrapolation of abuses that take place in the Muslim world as being inherently intertwined or endorsed by the doctrine of the religion. That's like saying that Judaism is inherently racist and segragationist (Palestinians are subject to form of apartheid with Israeli-only highways and checkpoints among other things), violent, and disrespectful of either international law or human rights, because the state in which Jews are located, a JEWISH state, has an ABYSMAL record in this regard (and I could flood the thread with posts from human rights organizations, UN resolutions, World Court decisions, et al.). It is a fundamentally flawed logic that conflates the doctine of a religion with those who practice that religion.

You have been quite respectful and sincere, but alas this should be my last response on this matter. Good luck in your studies, and struggle for self enlightenment.

And, by the way, if I were you, I wouldn't quote Colin Powell on anything. He's a proven liar, killer, puppet and fool.

Speak so freely? Maybe that's why my posts are being held for review though I have used no obscenity unlike those who have addressed me.

The clips posted on the site are nice and entertaining. But so much for the free marketplace of ideas. Horowitz and the NaZionists at would be proud.

And Canadian Rower, I tried to leave a post responding to your question in very polite way, that included links. But apparently it didn't make it past the censor. And the post was even less offensive than the previous one that was allowed through. It has been nice chatting, but simply not worth it. You people can attack Islam for the so called deprivation of rights, but can't even accept points of views that differ from yours even slightly. Nothing to be proud of there, despite the fact that on the overwhelming number of issues, we'd probably agree. T'is to be expected on a right wing site, but pretty disgusting here. Sorry.


Not wot worry! It was good chatting with you too. Although, of course, you're wrong about me. I have changed my views more than willingly in the past (i.e. i never used to be an atheist, nor did I have problems with faith), I just don't see why I should do it here.

Actions taken without sound evidence (i.e. anything done purely on faith and/or tradition) trouble me greatly, especially when they're so clearly harmful actions. I don't see why I should have to allow such things to pass uncriticized. You or anyone here have not shown sufficient grounds to allow the actions. That is all that is going on for me... it certainly isn't about pride or defending a cultural norm or all this stuff you have accused me of.

Sorry, Canadian Rower, my post was a little confusing. The first half of the post was meant for you. The second half meant towards those who screened and failed to post my response to you. Sorry that the lack of a paragraph break or other indicator suggested that I was accusing you of not tolerating other points of view. I disagree with many of the things you raise, but I don't accuse you of not tolerating dissent. Good luck.

The only comments held for review here are those that contain 3 or more links. The reason they are held is because spammers use the technique of posting comments with multiple links to promote their sites.

Well then after you read it and found that it wasn't spam, why didn't you post it?

Well asshole, it's because I don't monitor this blog 24 hours a day.

Yeah, Norm, well done. Like my query really deserved that response. Grow up, however may years may have passed you by.

Ok, so it has been shown that speaking freely is the policy around here.

I appreciate it when people like "weazl" contribute to message boards. I wish that he/she was a little more articulate, and a little less rude, but message boards are boring when everyone agrees. By getting into well-reasoned debate, I have the opportunity to challenge my ideas and opinions, more clearly define them, or perhaps even change them.

But the recent threads that "weazl" has contributed to have a common problem. I quote:

"The fundamental flaw in your argument is the extrapolation of abuses that take place in the Muslim world as being inherently intertwined or endorsed by the doctrine of the religion. That's like saying that Judaism is inherently racist and segragationist ..., violent, and disrespectful..."

Just as in the other thread of discussion, instead of clearly and logically explaining why Islamic abuses are not inherently intertwined in the religious doctrine, "weazl" changes the focus to Judaism. But we are not discussing Judaism, we are discussing Islam.

In the other thread, instead of explaining why Sharia law is democratic and non-misogynistic, "weazl" directed attention to the "inherent racism and misogyny in the US Constitution".

This angle does not make a solid argument. I'm not very knowledgable when it comes to specific characteristics of logical fallacies. Norm mentions them quite frequently, and I have to go look them up. But I believe that the informal fallacy being committed here is akin to "Two Wrongs Make a Right". It's a fallacy of relevance.

This is about Islam. Judaism and the US Constitution are irrelevant.

But I'm still holding out for a well-reasoned reply, weazl. Maybe you can do it, if you try. Just stick to the subject. I don't need to be told about how terrible every other culture is. I know it. We're ALL f*cked up. But let's stick to the subject: Islam. Sharia laws. Incompatibility with democracy. Inherent misogyny. Prove me wrong. Logically. I welcome it. I want to be shown that Islam is not as disturbing as I believe it to be. Other religion's customs (however insane they might be) are irrelevant. Stick to the subject.


You are no longer welcome to post comments on this site.

hmm. oh well.

Weazl was just a troll. I did a Google search and found where he used to post and harrass people at another site. It was the same Weazl, alright, using "sorry" and "moron" and says he is a lawyer (J.S.) He was just a low life and we were falling for his little game. Just be thankful that Norm got rid of him before he wasted anymore of your time.

You can see what you might of missed out on here:

Jo Ann: I can see that if this person was the same individual posting on the frontpagemag site, you could certainly call him/her a troll.

The problem is, most people don't know how to appropriately deal with "trolls". There are many message boards that I visit besides onegoodmove. If I come across a post that offers nothing to the dialogue, and only adds insults, then I deem that person to be a troll. My reaction-- every single time-- is to do nothing. I simply ignore this person's comments. Unfortunately, others do not follow suit. They mistakenly take the troll seriously, and try to engage them in a dialogue. More insults follow, from both sides. The troll taunts; they taunt the troll back. Talk about a waste of time.

I never engage in this type of behavior. Ever. You will notice that most of weazl's posts (up until the end, when those who were playing with him/her were behaving just as badly) were not truly troll-like. So I assessed weazl's words and showed them to be a logical fallacy. I invited weazl to respond by using relevant examples. Perhaps weazl would have responded with more drivel. But now we'll never know.

My advice is: Always ignore trolls. This means POST NOTHING addressed to the individual. And never use insults or logical fallacies yourself. Good rules to live by on the internet.

This is Norm's site, so he can get rid of whoever he wants. I would do the same thing. But I stand by my earlier statement that message boards are boring when everyone agrees.

Toner: That WAS an excellent video. Thanks for posting it.

Jamey, I assure you that this was the same person. I ended up looking around that site and it was obvious that this was the same person. I even found out what his real name is, but I would not want to expose him as that wouldn't be right. He really is a criminal defense attorney. He is actually quite clever, and starts out by sounding reasonable. Then once he has his victims hooked, he reels them in. A troll is not always that easy to spot, because being a troll does not mean that the person is stupid. They may be perverse, but they are not necessarily dumb. I miss Yank in Oz a lot because he used to like to toy around with the trolls a bit, and he had me laughing, and I miss Yank's posts a lot. As for that frontpagemag site, there is a severe lack of substance being posted there. It is pathetic.

Anyway, there have been a lot of dissenting voices at this site who have never been banned. I find the level of discourse here to be for the most part high level, interesting, and often very humorous. And I don't reallly enjoy an environment that is too sterile. But then I even enjoy the pompous, outrageous Bill Maher, so...

Anyway, I think that I am getting too old to try to point out every logical fallacy made by someone. I did enjoy reading the way that you pointed out his logical fallacies. Yes, there is a naughty side to me, I know.:) I, for the most part, enjoy what most people post here, with few exceptions. I don't take it all that seriously all the time, although I do at times. Depends on my mood. Hopefully what is said will occasionaly change someone's mind and make a minor improvement in the world, but I am beginning to wonder. All I can really say is that this is a weird weird world.

Oh, and as for dissenting voices, I really miss Hannah.

Hi!!! Very nice design, by the way!!! I think ... What do you think about my?


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives