03-28-2008, 12:33 AM
I was mulling over today whether it was worth coining a new word for your approach, Jestrification. This would be where you can seemingly astutely grasp the finest nuances of complex ideas as long as they model your world view, but when asked to understand the simplest concept in contrast you regurgitate utter nonsense.
I did not equate Wright to Hitler. I did not compare Wright to Hitler. I did not link Wright to Hitler. I don't think Wright is like Hitler. I would actually enjoy debating Wright. I would attend Wright's church to see his sermons first hand. So, again, just to be very transparent, I did not compare Wright to Hitler. Are we clear on this now?
I asked you that question because I want to know what you consider outrageous, and where you draw the line. Forget Nazi's past or present as examples of racists and bigots. It is seeming to derail your thinking.
You have told me that Wright, Cone, Farrakhan or I guess anyone can preach whatever they like first, because it is merely a fire and brimstone sermon, second, because they might have a screw loose so nobody listens, third, there is no proof their rhetoric is harming anyone, and fourth when faced with clearly antagonistic and bigoted statements you conveniently find the broadest interpretation to couch them as vague references to "oppressors" or "the system" rather than who he is clearly targeting.
So you are either very, very, very open minded to the freedom for anyone to spew whatever hate filled, bigoted, racist crap they desire, or you have a double standard when it comes to defending liberals, socialists, communists, progressives, and other people who even remotely share your world view.
My views are different; I condemn all bigoted and racist speech whether it be Martin Luther, Louis Farrakhan, Pat Robertson, James Cone, Jerry Falwell, or Jeremiah Wright.
Quote:My challenge was whether Wright incited violence either by calling for it or by people commiting it in his name. Let's see how hard it is to pass that challenge with Mein Kampf, by either method.Whoa, stop. You got it wrong again.
I did not equate Wright to Hitler. I did not compare Wright to Hitler. I did not link Wright to Hitler. I don't think Wright is like Hitler. I would actually enjoy debating Wright. I would attend Wright's church to see his sermons first hand. So, again, just to be very transparent, I did not compare Wright to Hitler. Are we clear on this now?
I asked you that question because I want to know what you consider outrageous, and where you draw the line. Forget Nazi's past or present as examples of racists and bigots. It is seeming to derail your thinking.
You have told me that Wright, Cone, Farrakhan or I guess anyone can preach whatever they like first, because it is merely a fire and brimstone sermon, second, because they might have a screw loose so nobody listens, third, there is no proof their rhetoric is harming anyone, and fourth when faced with clearly antagonistic and bigoted statements you conveniently find the broadest interpretation to couch them as vague references to "oppressors" or "the system" rather than who he is clearly targeting.
So you are either very, very, very open minded to the freedom for anyone to spew whatever hate filled, bigoted, racist crap they desire, or you have a double standard when it comes to defending liberals, socialists, communists, progressives, and other people who even remotely share your world view.
My views are different; I condemn all bigoted and racist speech whether it be Martin Luther, Louis Farrakhan, Pat Robertson, James Cone, Jerry Falwell, or Jeremiah Wright.