Well, extreme historical circumstances often provide the most crystal-clear framework for making a case-in-point argument regarding human nature.

Do I have to object?

Oh, well you said:

You mean like when “Mein Kampf” was published—that kind of minimum quality control? (Sorry for sticking with my framework here. )

And you said:

But my point is that even though that statement IS true, at least the TRUTH cannot be ENTIRELY SUPPRESSED as it is in totalitarian situations.

…and I don’t think I said you did…

“Loudness” is entirely dependent on individual perception and choice.

If I choose not to hear you (or anyone), you (and they) are not loud at all. No doubt there are numerous sites on the internet specifically dedicated to espousing hatred of one ethnicity or religion or nationality or sexual preference—but I don’t hear them at all because I would not frequent those sites. Those inclined to frequent such sites probably already have their minds made up on those topics and nothing short of a life-changing event will dissuade them from their self-chosen world view. On the other hand, if they espouse those same views in a general public forum—such as this one, which I do frequent—I will gladly take them on head-to-head so that their vileness is exposed for what it is. Usually though, there are plenty of others in line for the job more vocal than I and way ahead of me—so I just leave it at that.

I’m not arguing that freedom of speech by itself or the Internet by itself will eradicate totalitarianism—however, I will argue that the more wide-spread the truth, the more wide-spread public support it generates. I don’t know if the Internet might have prevented Hitler’s rise to power—but it likely would have made it more difficult for him to conceal truths and fool the entire population as someone, somewhere—even an un-edited, non-controlled, un-educated person would be capable of posting the truth about the situation—and the more it was confirmed and verified, the more it would spread. And THAT is what was not even possible back in the “good-old-days” of vetted and filtered centrally-controlled publishing.

even the "gentle art of persuasion" gets an ugly, shrill voice if it must use a megaphone to make itself heard. in an environment where huge amplifiers are set to 11 twentyfourseven the gentle art of playing an acoustic guitar does not even have a chance of proving its beauty.

what i am complaining about: when reading the newspaper, listening to the radio or watching tv i am expecting experts to voice their opinions so that i can form an educated opinion.

I think there are still plenty of credible pundits out there too if you just look for them, however, personally I do not even begin to rely on them to form my opinion—I look at the facts presented by them—I look at the facts presented by the opposition as well. True, I have limited ability to verify the facts, but I can at least apply common-sense to derive a level of plausibility. I try to dismiss or minimize any emotion-based rhetoric (as I do here also) unless I’m totally just “playing”—horsing around. And when Paul makes some outrageous statement with absolutely no backing logic—such as “being a Muslim is un-American”—I dismiss it out-of-hand. If he had provided arguments, maybe I would have argued—but as it was, I probably assumed he was just wise-cracking in some way that made humorous sense in his mind even if I didn’t see the humor—that or he was trying to lead into some point with a controversial statement that he knew would not bear up under close scrutiny. I’ve seen this type of rhetorical device used by lecturers and professors etc. Not saying I agree with it—but it doesn’t “rock my world” either.

I would question your use of the work “reports” here—Paul doesn’t so much “report” as throw rocks at a hornets nest to see what kind of buzz he can create—and he usually succeeds from what I can tell. That he often gets “shot down” is all just part of the game, eh?

Also as a side note - Quebec City is the only walled city in North America.

Heck, I don't even agree with myself a lot of times.


I remember a number of threads where two people are chatting, and interspersed between each comment were Paul's nonsense. The two posters just keep on chatting and ignoring, and Paul keeps commenting. It's like watching a game of keep away.

That's the proper approach to offensive posts in my opinion, unless you're truly a Moderator. Or, if you like, blow the whistle if its in violation of the rules.

I remember a number of threads where two people are chatting, and interspersed between each comment were Paul's nonsense. The two posters just keep on chatting and ignoring, and Paul keeps commenting. It's like watching a game of keep away.

Hmmm.

To me that's like saying to keep swimming, even though someone's dropping turds in the pool.

[sorry for being a spoilsport. i should either play the game or go away. point taken. pointless whining isn´t helpful with anything.

I have limited response time at the moment, but I want to say that even after all this time, I think perhaps there are some things I say that do not translate well--either because of the language difference, or (more likely I think) cultural differences. I certainly was not implying in any way that you are a "spoilsport" or that you should even indulge yourself in Paul's silly games anyway

And I do get your point about the shrillness of the tone today--one only has to flip through the majority of the daytime or early evening (hell, anytime day or night) television channels in America to see the sheer idiocy that passes as "entertainment"--and even I am guilty of getting "sucked in" to it once in a rare while--but mostly the talk shows just turn my stomach--they're aimed at lowest-common-denominator bottom-feeding mentality--and it does not reflect well on our direction as a society I think.

But I'd rather suffer that than have someone else dictate what is sufficiently culturally "worthy" or of sufficient quality--it reeks too much of censorship.

And with censorship comes immense power. And with immense power comes inevitable corruptions (as conventional wisdom would have it--and I see no reason to disagree).

The "quality" material is, and always has been, "out there" for those who seek it out. The trick is to lure them away from the bread and circuses long enough to care.

"thin-skinned loudmouths"?

Thankyaveddymucho.

right there, at the entrance to the bar and grille, it says:




so, nobody twists your arm to come into this place.
if you don't like what you see, simply leave.

What happens if you put yourself on ignore? . . . .

Look, we all know who the guys are here that jump down someone's throat at the tiniest provocation; they're always looking for something to go off on and paulb's their favorite target. He has become the poster boy scapegoat for bullies.

Well, I have argued with paulb too many times, so I assume I am in your bully category.

Heck, I don't even agree with myself a lot of times.


I remember a number of threads where two people are chatting, and interspersed between each comment were Paul's nonsense. The two posters just keep on chatting and ignoring, and Paul keeps commenting. It's like watching a game of keep away.

That's the proper approach to offensive posts in my opinion, unless you're truly a Moderator. Or, if you like, blow the whistle if its in violation of the rules.