Quote:Whats funny about this is, whenever someone asks you to clarify your opinion on something, you'll give them a lengthy paragraph lecturing them about how you've answered it all already
Aussie was asking me for a definition, not an opinion.
Quote:and that they need only look over what you've already said
Wrong again Gandalf. Here's a tip, look at what I actually said.
Quote:But whats really sad about this is we've been down this road so many times before. Previously I simply used to repeat myself or point to a link where I've already answered you - all in good faith. But then you would simply come back a couple of weeks, or months down the track and ask me the exact same question again as if you'd never even read when I answered last time. But as if thats not bad enough, you would even pull that annoying little "gandalf is deflecting" ruse. Or even worse, take my previous answers and twist them into something completely different - eg me being against executing gays for being gay became I want to kill gays for doing it mardis gras style.
But I digress...
Yes you do. You are ranting at me for ignoring what you say, while ignoring the quotes I provided of what you actually said.
Quote:I literally have no idea what you mean. Try start by explaining how the argument that Islamophobia = racism has anything to do with the merits or otherwise of 18c, and we'll go from there.
The racial discrimination act has been broadened to absurd levels, just like your efforts to redefine the word racism. Thus it would make sense if you support 18c when it comes to people criticising Islam, even if you oppose the Jewish lobby's efforts to do something similar.
Quote:My view however is that the two situations are different - even if its a subtle difference. First you have to look at what Bolt got sprung for - and it was a very clear cut fabrication (even if unintentional) on very specific facts that were not in question. The one that springs to mind was to claim that one of the people he attacked had German parents - which was very easily exposed as simply false. That was a clear fabrication that was used specifically to attack (vilify) someone. Without knowing specifically what Toben said, holocaust denial is not really about clear cut fabrications that you can point to like in the Bolt case, and in fact their tactics mostly involve casting doubt on the holocaust argument, and invoking of the "burden of proof" principle (ie "that piece of evidence doesn't prove that the holocaust happened - you need to show something else"). I don't think I've ever heard a holocaust denier produce a document or letter or any other piece of evidence that is easily proven a fabrication and declare it somehow proof that the holocaust didn't happen. Or similarly, come up with a historical "fact" to argue their point that is demonstrably false. If they did, then it might be comparable with what Bolt did. But that is not how deniers role - instead they simply sit back and nitpick the holocaust scholars when they trip up (and regretably, they have done) - to argue that there is too much doubt to say that the holocaust is undeniable fact. You may call it 'disingenuous' or even 'intellectually dishonest', but they are not out and out porkies like what Bolt did.
Do you have proof that this bloke's parents were not German?
Forum
Pages: 
