Originally Posted by david H:
Once again we see the totalitarian mentality of so-called liberals. "I don't agree with that lets prosecute him." This bonnie is your Cultural Marxism. The use of social engineering, threats and the law to impose "equality of outcomes." I assume you would describe your liberalism as PC liberalism.

I'm not a liberal. You throw words around like liberalism, Marxism. cultural Marxism, PC not to mention accusing us of supporting paedophilia. You above comment made my hypocrisy meter explode.

You do exactly what you accuse others of. You spout out accusations about culturalism, liberalism, establishment cyphers etc in order to try and silence them.

Jack Black has made discriminatory comments based seemingly on ignorance and untruths. We are certainly allowed to discuss this.

Originally Posted by :
I told you on another thread that you establishment cyphers are mainstream and know it and therefore subject people you disagree with to a Cultural Marxist Inquisition. You are not really a decentralist but want those you disagree with to be prosecuted by the state. That is why you are always reporting posts.

I want civil debate and I haven't reported posts lately except when you accused me of supporting paedophilia.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
So you're saying it's OK for the Bear to sound off about Muslims, but that nobody is allowed to criticise anything connected to Israel or anything to do with Jewishness? Bit hypocritical there don't you think?

When did I say that? I criticised Bear for it. Although Bear does not make comments in the same league as Jack Black.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Seasider:
BonnieDundee
Well Hunter has said it but I'll ask it too.

Why is it ok for The Bear to run off at the mouth about Muslims, but no one else is allowed to criticise anything connected to Jewishness?'

Where did I say it was okay? It is nowhere near as offensive and vulgar however. Personally I believe in free speech unless it harrassment, defamation or inciting violence.

Originally Posted by :
And I didn't understand your concept of troll either.

Difficult to define it may well be, but as you accused Jack Black of appearing to be 'little more than a troll', then you must have had some idea of what you meant by that.

If you choose to insult people then it might be a good idea to know exactly what your insults mean.

Did I not just give you a reason in my above post? If you choose to be a smartarse it might be a good idea to read my posts first.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hunter:
So you're saying it's OK for the Bear to sound off about Muslims, but that nobody is allowed to criticise anything connected to Israel or anything to do with Jewishness? Bit hypocritical there don't you think?

I thought that I’d made it clear, apparently I haven’t so I’ll try again.

Let’s get the Muslim thing out of the way.

I intensely dislike Islam as an ideology for a whole shed loads of reasons. That is NOT the same as my disliking Muslim people or people simply because they follow the religion.

Now I can perfectly easily and perfectly comfortably understand how I can do so, possibly because I am doing so, but others, maybe the majority, possibly a minority and one that persist in twisting what is written, seem unable to do so.

I will repeat one more time. I dislike Islam, that does NOT mean I’ve got an consequential dislike of Muslim people, and I do not.

To further emphasise the point, I quite intensely dislike Roman Catholicism, that does NOT mean that I dislike members of the congregation of Roman Catholic churchs or most of the priesthood who are unquestionably. good and decent people. Capice?

Now to the meat.

I have also explained that what was at the heart of my confrontation with the member who on this forum uses the identity “Jack Black” was not his bringing in the religion and (so the race) of individuals.

It was his doing so and at the same time associating it with things that were or might be interpreted by some as being controversial, of questionable morality, of questionable ethics, or simply wrong.


Finally “Jack Black” went over the top and published what was a remark that without question breached the law concerning racist material, and I pointed this out in clear and uncertain terms.

Should I have engaged “Jack Black” and his anti-Semitic campaign?

I think that someone had to.

I believe that unless such things are challenged, although patently incorrect in the association of a particular race with wrong doing, nevertheless they do feed the desires of people who are already bigoted and prejudiced to further “justify” (in their imagination) their warped views, and so raise the level of hate they already feel.

There is also a real danger that for others they raise a question, an illegitimate question since it is itself based on rubbish, that maybe there IS something in this “Jew equals Bad” ethos after all, and THAT more than anything else must be shown for the black lie that it is.

My regret is that “Jack Black” was not interrupted in his anti-Semitic mission earlier in time, and that by my doing so has caused embarrassment for the forum admin team.

For that I do and have already apologised on this thread. For confrointing “Jack Black” and his anti-Semitic mission I have no regrets at all.

I would like to thank the people who have contacted my with encouragement and support in this matter, there have been several, and not all forum members but those who know me from elsewhere and have, like me, been appalled at what was being written by “Jack Black”.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
You are not really a decentralist but want those you disagree with to be prosecuted by the state.

Btw this is a bold faced lie, I have said time and time again I do not. Please apologise or you will be a liar.
[Rep]

Please explain how I am misjudging you?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:

Did I not just give you a reason in my above post? If you choose to be a smartarse it might be a good idea to read my posts first.

Oh I did read it, but as I said it didn't make sense, so maybe I am not 'smartarse' enough.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by david H:
Please explain how I am misjudging you?

I think it goes past misjudging. I do not wish to make bigoted opinion illegal and have told you this several times.

Originally Posted by :
Oh I did read it, but as I said it didn't make sense, so maybe I am not 'smartarse' enough.

Oh no you're more than enough.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Seasider:
Oh I did read it, but as I said it didn't make sense, so maybe I am not 'smartarse' enough.

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:


Oh no you're more than enough.

Why thank you, BonnieDundee :-)
[Rep]