to the new commenter

...whose comments have been deleted: If you need to insult me, please do so from your own blog. As for liberals attacking conservatives, you won't find that here either.

Since you've started off on the wrong foot, your comments will always be deleted.


laura k said...

"As for liberals attacking conservatives, you won't find that here either."

I mean on a personal, name-calling level. I disagree with most conservative politics, but that's not what you meant.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

Probably a member of the Bush youth....

Seriously, what goes through the minds of these people who think a) spreading "freedom" by force is a good thing and b) anyone who disagrees with this is a traitor.

I can accept an opposing view if it's logically consistent. Like the old pope for example. There's a lot that I disagreed with, but you could understand where he was coming from.

These people though have totally incoherent views. How can you "love freedom", and hate anybody who doesn't conform?

David Cho said...

Laura, I would just delete them and not take any time even to acknowledge their existance. It's enough that we have to breath the same air as they do.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

Although I think I answered my own question in a previous comment


laura k said...

David, sometimes I do just delete them, but other times I like to say something about it. I do whatever feels right to me. I thank you, as always, for your support.

Kyle: They don't call 'em sheeple for nothing.

David Cho said...

It becomes very difficult to have any semblance of dialogue when the other party engages itself in pure cliches , platitudes, and slogans. They do that when they find themselves short on substance and rhetorically charged gibberish is all they have left.

So slogans like "spreading freedom", "staying the course" make me cringe.

laura k said...

We're in total agreement there! I think most people have no idea what they even mean when they parrot those silly slogans.

Anonymous said...

It's a damn shame that the "moral majority" is so rude and vulgar these days. It seems like every progressive blog gets attacked one day or another.

Have you considered HaloScan comments? You can ban people from commenting in the first place...

laura k said...

Hi Samir. You're that cool blogger from the Southwest US, yes?

Maybe I should consider Haloscan. I generally just use what comes with Blogger because I don't like to spend a lot of time on this stuff. And I check mail so frequently, that I usually am pretty quick on the old delete button. But it's true that Haloscan would save me some work.

I'll put it on the list of things to look into.

Anonymous said...

It turns out we do have some wingnuts here in Canada...


At least there is this...





Crabbi said...

"They don't call 'em sheeple for nothing."

Here's an idea. Let's say sheeple incessantly and appeal to the bestial urges of the wingnuts. They may not believe in premarital sex with humans, but they sure do enjoy molesting innocent animals. So, I say if we're persistent enough, they will start to appreciate the ovine deliciousness of their fellow fundies. I'm hearing lots of "I love ewes"s. They can all do each other senseless, and leave the sheep - and us - alone. Everyone wins.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

ALPF: That in and of itself isn't necessarily being a "wingnut". If we call everyone on that side a religious nut, then we don't have a right to get offended when they call us commie scum.

Now, the people who wrote that website are probably not interested in debating things, but we really shouldn't sink to the same level.

I've mentioned it before, but I can appreciate the logic of a true "pro-life" person who believes that you aren't allowed to kill anyone ever. No capital punishment, no euthanasia, no war, no abortion.

What I can't appreciate though is a person who says abortion is morally bad, but dropping a bomb on a pregnant women in a foriegn country is a-okay. Yet this seems to be the majority of so called "pro-life" people.

On the gay marriage thing, the same thing applis. A person who believes in the sanctity of marriage who also opposes divorce, opposes my "living in sin" and the fact that I plan on having a civil marriage would have a consistent world view.

Again though, a lot of these people complaining about the "sanctity" of marriage are 3 times divorced and got married in Vegas the last time around.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't debate issues with people who have logically consistent opposing views. It's the opposite really, these are the only people you *can* debate with. The other sheeple are so screwed up that trying to even understand them gives me a headache.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's a good point. I'll add two more:

1 - "freedom/liberty/whatever the latest buzzword happens to be" has lately been quoted by those who are anything but free - the sheeple - as Radiohead put it 'a pig in a cage on antibiotics'.

2 - people who preach tolerance, the laugh with glee at pictures of Saddam in his tightie-whities. Seems only those opposed to the treatment of prisoners really were upset about the pics. Even CNN showed the pictures excessively, and in close-up range, while halfheartedly denouncing them. Hmmm - what message are they trying to send? In the meantime, the same people who preach peace and tolerance as part of their religion seem to be the same ones pulling the Sun off the shelves and insisting the guy's humiliation is deserved. Hey, he's in prison already! Let it go! I just don't get it.

On that note:
If the US really wanted to treat the guy respectfully, as they say, they could (a) dispense with the photographs and (b) get the guy some boxers. It's more comfy when the boys have some room.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

And of course, don't forget we have sheeple on our side too, unfortunately.

I can think of a few high profile ones, like the guy who filed a lawsuit about some California city (or was it a school board?) because there was a cross somewhere in the city coat of arms, which of course set off the "culture war" blowhards on the right-wing-sheeple-news network.

I'm not interested in trying to make everyone in the world believe in the same things I do. For sheeple though, conformity is an obsession.

laura k said...

I'm hearing lots of "I love ewes's.

LOL. Crabby, you are so funny.

Kyle: The reason those people are wingnuts is not because they're against abortion. (Thanks for the link, ALPF - I won't post that stuff but I have to know it's out there.) It's because of their overblown rhetoric. IMO, comparing the Nazi extermination camps to women terminating unwanted pregnancies IS wingnut-ness. The term "partial birth abortion" - which has no medical meaning whatsoever - is wingnut-ness.

I appreciate what you're saying about consistency, but there are other criteria. Just being consistent doesn't give people a pass to try to remake society according to their own morality.

laura k said...

"If the US really wanted to treat the guy respectfully, as they say, they could (a) dispense with the photographs and (b) get the guy some boxers. It's more comfy when the boys have some room."

The photographs are illegal under the Geneva Convention.

Type of underwear probably isn't specified, though garments are supposed to be humane and not humiliate or cause undue discomfort. So maybe Boxers are called for. :)

Anonymous said...

You're right, but the problem is the Geneva Convention is another one of those sets of rules that apparantly applies to everyone except the US. Didn't you learn that from Network News? ;-)

After all they've done to the guy with the photographs, they better make those boxers silk.

laura k said...

Mm, I know it all too well. See my next post.

Anonymous said...

Kyle: I thought I was being respectful by only referring to him as a "wingnut"! I did not think it polite to repeat my actual thoughts. People who think that their "traditional marriage" will some how be compromised by allowing same sex unions... that is just nutty. How is my "traditional marriage" affected? I absolutely respect differing opinions, it's probably the reason I enjoy reading wmtc.

I still think that guy and others like him are lunatics.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

"I appreciate what you're saying about consistency, but there are other criteria. Just being consistent doesn't give people a pass to try to remake society according to their own morality."

I'm not saying give them a pass, it just means at least you can understand the opposition. That way, you can create valid arguments to present your point of view. You probably won't change their mind, but you might convince a third person watching your argument.

However, it the debate falls to the level of name calling and threats, then the third person will either become apathetic to the whole debate or make their choice on something totally superficial like who had the nicest hair.

laura k said...

Right. I do take your point, Kyle, if the opposition is rational.

You can't discuss abortion with someone who compares abortion to the Holocaust, or gay marriage with someone who is out-and-out homophobic. You can't create valid arguments, because they're not rational.

I'm with ALPF: they're lunatics. :)

If you can engage people like that in rational discussion, my hat's off to you, truly. I sure can't.

Sass said...

Aww, man! I feel like the kid who missed the big fight on the playground cause he was busy elsewhere...
I'm sure this commenter deserved to be deleted, but I always miss the good stuff!

laura k said...

Don't feel bad, Sassy. I don't think anyone saw it but me. He probably never even saw his comment posted! That's how quick I am... ;-)

Anonymous said...

I read an interesting article written by Rep. John Conyers (Dem.) where he said Bloggers were journalists, in the Constitutional sense, thus having the rights of "freedom of (the traditional) press".
If that is the case, Blogging as a public forum should accept any and all comments, no matter how disagreeable or repugnant.
Steve Lee polyscibase

laura k said...

John Conyers may be correct, but your opinion does not follow logically. Conyers is saying bloggers are journalists, but you are saying all journalists operate in public forums, which they definitely do not.

No newspaper, magazine, or other media outlet is obligated to accept and publish all comments. None of them do and none of them have to.

I am - and no blogger is - under any obligation to be insulted or harrassed.

Everyone is free to have her or his own blog and post whatever she or he wants there. That's totally different.

If you want to read my policy on comments, you can find it here. Thanks for stopping by.

laura k said...

Steve, perhaps what you're thinking of is Blogger.com's obligation to publish all blogs, no matter what the blogger's view? They do that.

Although, as a private business, they are under no obligation to do so. If they rejected a blogger's content, that person would be free to publish on the web with different software.

Individual bloggers are no obligation to do anything. It's a pretty self-directed enterprise.