Re: Follow up to savage story Protest

[Guest guest]

Rather than pull this guy off the air wouldn't it be more beneficial

if he actually learnt something about autism, made a public apology

and perhaps even had a guest in, on air that could enlighten/educate

him and others regarding autism.

>

> http://wcbstv.com/topstories/michael.savage.autism.2.775519.html

>

> Jul 20, 2008 11:59 pm US/Eastern

> Autism Groups Plan Protest Of Savage In NYC

>

>

>

> Conservative radio host Savage is about to feel the wrath

of

> parents of children with autism. A massive protest is planned for

> Manhattan on July 21.

> AP

>

>

>

> Conservative Radio Jock Ignites Firestorm After Calling Autistic

> Children 'Brats,' 'Morons' On Syndicated Show

> Monday Rally Planned At WOR Studios In Manhattan

> By JEFF CAPELLINI & LEE KUSHNIR, WCBSTV.com

>

> NEW YORK (CBS) ¯ Conservative radio host Savage will have

his

> hands full on Monday.

>

> In response to his controversial comments about children with

autism,

> Autism United and angry parents will hold a major protest outside

WOR

> Radio studios in Manhattan on Monday afternoon, CBS 2 HD has

learned.

>

> They will be calling for the firing of the radio jock and asking

for

> a boycott by parents of children with autism of all stations

carrying

> his signal. Savage outraged the autism community recently by saying

> 99 percent of children suffering with autism are " brats "

and " morons "

> on his national syndicated radio show.

>

> During the July 16 edition of his show, Savage claimed that autism

> is " [a] fraud, a racket. ... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99

> percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the

act

> out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and

they're

> silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act

like

> a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz.

> Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and

screaming,

> idiot.' "

>

> Media Matters: Tack Action

> Savage Nation Report (audio file)

>

> Robbie Schwartzman is a 15-year-old from our area with autism. His

> father, Schwartzman, says Savage's attack on autism is both

> irresponsible and despicable.

>

> " I couldn't understand why someone could be so heartless and so

> insensitive, and also so ignorant for a national talk show host, "

> Schwartzman said.

>

> CBS 2 HD News reached out to Savage's producer, but no one returned

> our calls or e-mails.

>

> Schwartzman, like many other parents with autistic children,

> is now calling on radio stations across the country to pull Savage

> from the air waves.

>

> " It was so hurtful to all individuals with disabilities,

particularly

> those with autism, but I really think he should be removed from the

> air, " Schwartzman said.

>

> Media Matters for America on Sunday condemned Savage for his

> comments.

>

> " What Savage said was foolish, mean-spirited, and hurtful, "

> said J. Jioni Palmer, spokesman for Media Matters. " It's

unfortunate

> he would use his radio program to make fun of and belittle these

> kids. Instead of ridicule and cheap shots, the children suffering

> from autism and asthma and their families need support and

> compassion. "

>

> Talk Radio Network, which syndicates The Savage Nation, claims that

> Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. The Savage Nation

> reaches at least 8.25 million listeners each week, according to

> Talkers Magazine, making it one of the most listened-to talk radio

> shows in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The

> Hannity Show.

>

> Over 2 million children and adults have autism. One out of every

150

> children is diagnosed with autism today.

>

> Please stay with CBS 2 HD and wcbstv.com for more on this

developing

> story.

>

[Guest guest]

That's a dangerous line of thinking. If everyone was shut down that someone disagreed with, there would be no more communications industry or media of any kind. Savage isn't being obscene or threatening, just stupid. That is still legal.

It would be better to use him as a rallying point to educate people about autism, but do so in a rational way. Demanding he be taken off the air or angry picketing would only put us in bad company.

In a message dated 7/22/2008 6:00:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

He already says he is not changing his opinion and stands by it. He needs to go.AdministratorGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

" Rather than pull this guy off the air wouldn't it be more beneficial

if he actually learnt something about autism, made a public apology

and perhaps even had a guest in, on air that could enlighten/educate

him and others regarding autism. "

He already says he is not changing his opinion and stands by it. He

needs to go.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

I agree with on this and would like to expand on it a bit...

Ancient Vulcan sayings...

" The true test of ones belief in freedom of speech is to defend the

right of someone that you don't agree with to speak... "

" When the rights of one are impinged the rights of all are in

jeopardy... "

I don't remember really who said it (Ben lin maybe)

But frankly since 9-11-2001, ease with which good, well intentioned,

rational people support actions that strip others of their rights and

protections scares me more than any terrorist threat... because it means

that the terrorists have already won...

Ender...

At 06:09 PM 7/22/2008, you wrote:

That's a dangerous

line of thinking. If everyone was shut down that someone disagreed with,

there would be no more communications industry or media of any kind.

Savage isn't being obscene or threatening, just stupid. That is still

legal.

It would be better to use him as a rallying point to educate people about

autism, but do so in a rational way. Demanding he be taken off the air or

angry picketing would only put us in bad company.

In a message dated 7/22/2008 6:00:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

no_reply writes:

He already says he is not changing his

opinion and stands by it. He

needs to go.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

wrote: " Rather than pull this guy off the air wouldn't it be

more beneficial if he actually learnt something about autism, made a

public apology and perhaps even had a guest in, on air that could

enlighten/educate him and others regarding autism. "

Rhetorical question: When Hitler was running Germany in the 30s and

40s, do you think that he would have been able to open his mind to the

facts about the minority groups he was trying to eradicate from the

face of the earth, made a public apology and then inspired others to be

open minded?

In my opinion, Savage is equally dangerous and is a loose cannon

without a doubt.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

Ender Wiggen wrote: " I agree with on this and would like to

expand on it a bit... Ancient Vulcan sayings... " The true test of

ones belief in freedom of speech is to defend the right of someone that

you don't agree with to speak... " ... <snip> ... "

The Ancient Vulcan saying is actually a reworked comment by Voltaire.

QUOTE: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death

your right to say it.

ATTRIBUTION: Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694–1778), French

philosopher, author.

Raven

Co-Administrator

[Guest guest]

Comparing Savage to Hitler is even greater hyperbole that what he has admitted his quip about autism was.

Hitler was a power-crazed psychopathic genocidal maniac. Savage is a jerk.

Hitler wanted to rule Europe and beyond. Savage just wants ratings.

They might be alike in that both were supported by a minority in their own countries, but that's it.

But seriously: Hitler comparisons are cliche and highly offensive because they demean one of the greatest examples of true evil we have seen on this planet.

Rhetorical question: When Hitler was running Germany in the 30s and 40s, do you think that he would have been able to open his mind to the facts about the minority groups he was trying to eradicate from the face of the earth, made a public apology and then inspired others to be open minded? In my opinion, Savage is equally dangerous and is a loose cannon without a doubt.RavenCo-AdministratorGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

That would happen by natural market forces. If Savage became too outlandish, he would lose listeners and sponsors. Then he'd have to change his tune or go off the air. Or, he could manage like left-wing radio and find rich patrons to keep them broadcasting when they should have otherwise failed.

Another way to look this is to look at Iran. Iran ruthlessly suppresses all media that is not strictly up to their code. Merely accessing "politically incorrect" websites is enough to land someone in deep trouble like we can't understand in this country.

A system in the US would undoubtedly be one intended to avoid offending anyone. This would be ripe for lawsuits and complaints that would eventually shut all media down. That would be a loss for everyone.

I think it is better to let him keep talking. If he apologizes, fine. If not, also fine. If he keeps it up, he will make himself look more and more the fool and he would bring himself down.

The last thing I would want to see is a travesty like Imus or Dog the Bounty Hunter where Savage is dragged around the press, literally having to crawl over broken glass soaking in vinegar, when others saw so much worse and cause actual physical harm and get away with it.

In a message dated 7/23/2008 12:29:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Yes, but on the other hand, if a good segment of the population demonstrates that his brand of foolery will not be tolerated, that suppresses other fools like him from asserting themselves and being the dominant opinion and prevailing point of view. AdministratorGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

There were many reasons for this, and it mostly happened on the West coast.

First off, there was a fear that some might be saboteurs. A possibility, but not one that really played out. Another reason was that they were obviously different from European Americans. You could really tell a person of German decent, since Germans were the largest ethic minority that came from Europe at the time of WWII, but you could tell a Japanese. The fear was that as the war dragged on, mobs would attack them. There were attacks against German shops and some people on the East Coast. The Pacific campaign was much fiercer and bloodier, so there may have been something to it.

Now, I'm not supporting the internment. It happened and there were reasons why it happened. The people who lost everything should have been given back their property straight away.

Bush put the country only on semi-lockdown. All flights were grounded, but other transportation such as cars and trains were still running. Movement wasn't halted, just slowed down a little. It made perfect sense and was a rational thing to do. It would be awfully hard to drive a train into a nuclear powerplant, but a 747 would do a lot of damage if aimed at the right place.

It wasn't McCarthy-istic, it was a temporary shut down of a demonstrated threat. We did not have a round up in this country of Muslims probably because the people would indeed not have stood for it. Now, I would have liked to see those with ties to known terrorist groups rounded up and investigated, maybe even exiled and the Madrassi who preached death to America to its students closed down and the teachers expelled. That didn't happen and we may yet pay a price for it.

The trouble is, McCarthy had a point. There were Communists in the US working against national interests. The problem was that he declared it openly and claimed to have a list of names, which he really didn't. He should have kept quiet and let the FBI build cases against some of the more prominent Communist groups and then exposed them when they could be taken down.

That didn't happen and we have paid a price for that.

In a message dated 7/23/2008 12:53:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

After pearl Harbor, all the Japanese in America were rounded up and stuck in interment camps for the duration of the remainder of the war.Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

" It would be better to use him as a rallying point to educate people

about autism, but do so in a rational way. Demanding he be taken off

the air or angry picketing would only put us in bad company. "

Yes, but on the other hand, if a good segment of the population

demonstrates that his brand of foolery will not be tolerated, that

suppresses other fools like him from asserting themselves and being the

dominant opinion and prevailing point of view.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

You can easily defend what the allies said, except for Stalin, as opposed to what the Axis said. For one thing, Hitler had made it plain and clear in his book Mien Kampf, what he intended to do. He openly stated his aims of wiping out the Slavic people, turning the French into a race of "chefs and waiters," and also what he was going to do to the Jews. Hitler was the aggressor, launching the war for his own aggrandizement and to conquer other nations and loot them for the benefit of Germany.

Roosevelt and Churchill operated in countries where free speech was barely impinged. Opposition to the war was rife in newspapers and especially in Congress, but to a lesser extent in Parliament (I suppose it is hard to talk about negotiating with an enemy who is actively trying to bomb your country to a wasteland). Hitler rose to power using his party thugs to terrorize dissent into silence, as did Mussolini. Once in power, they use secret police to keep dissent quiet.

Even so, the Nazis were only the majority power in a few German states. They rose to power through terrorism, intimidation and the machinations of certain industrialists who thought they could control Hitler like a puppet and make themselves rich. For most of their time they were a minority party. They held power because the other parties knew that if they made more than a token resistance now and then, they would be sent to the camps, or their district would be combed for fresh soldiers, slave labor and even women taken to SS "recreational camps" where they were raped over and over by Nazi ubermen to produce the next generation of supermen.

The Nazis never truly relied on freedom of speech. They were a radical party intend on taking power. They were cracked down on several times. What saved them? They were saved because the Communist Party was a much larger and more organized threat which was receiving support from an outside nation: Russia. The Nazis were domestic rabble willing to bust Communist heads. Germany was so chaotic and in such turmoil that they made their deal with the devil and let the Nazis have more freedom, but this was not freedom of speech, it was an attempt to save Germany from a dire evil by employing another known evil.

Divine Right as practiced by the Japanese is a global phenomenon that goes back to the earliest days of human civilization. "Who says you have the right to rule" says claimant #1. "God says so, he told me himself I was his son after my mother gave me birth," says claimant #2.

As for concentration camps: Few died in the US internment camps. The Japanese camps, however, were places of horror, torture and executions. Both soldiers and civilians ended up in these places where the vast majority were beaten, starved and tortured to death. They were forced to build roads in jungles where 10's of thousands died (the movie Bridge on the River Kwai bears as much resemblance to the truth as night does to day, hate that movie), others were simply underfed and their health neglected, where more died in the camps that were rescued. You can tell that even the Japanese knew what they did was terribly wrong when they began purging the camps ahead of the advancing Americans. They would try to kill everyone in them so there would be no witnesses to their barbarity. They were successful quite often.

This was nothing new for them, however. When they took over Korean, they treated the Koreans very badly. They didn't care because the Koreans were an inferior race to the Japanese, so they deserved what they got. The cycle was repeated in China as well. Just read about the horrors of Nanjing, where the atrocities including bombing markets with biological weapons and using humans as living guinea pigs to test new conventional as well as chemical and biological weapons on. Just like their Nazi allies, they didn't waste money on anesthesia on these "logs" as they were called.

In a message dated 7/23/2008 1:17:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Further, how can one defend what Hitler said AND what Churchill said AND what Roosevelt said, AND what Stalin said, AND what Mussolini said, AND what Hirohito said, AND what Franco said etc. at the same time and expect for their to be any sort of resolution to things. Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

" But frankly since 9-11-2001, ease with which good, well intentioned,

rational people support actions that strip others of their rights and

protections scares me more than any terrorist threat... because it

means that the terrorists have already won... "

Yes, but something nearly all of us here cannot conceive of was the

last time an attack took place on American soil and what happened

afterwards.

After pearl Harbor, all the Japanese in America were rounded up and

stuck in interment camps for the duration of the remainder of the

war. These people were told to pack only what they could carry and

were made to report to trains and trucks which took them away. While

they were gone, they lost everything they had. After all of this,

some were asked to demonstrate their patriotism and fight in the war

on the American side, and one wonders if these select few would have

been shot as traitors if they elected not to serve once inducted.

Many of those who did refuse to go into the armed forces in the first

place were further separated from their familes into still other

camps.

Bush could have done the same this time around. After all, the number

of people killed in 9/11 actually exceeded the number killed in Pearl

Harbor. Except this time around, he could have rounded up people

because of their religious affiliation in addition to their

ethnicity.

Yet he didn't do it. The reason? I don't think the constituency would

have stood it.

So instead, he put the country on lockdown. And this lockdown was not

that much different from the McCarthy era during the Cold War, not

was it much different from people told to be on the lookout for

agitators and agents during WWII.

WWII was arguably the most nationalistic period in US history, with

propaganda films agrandizing the war (- we won nearly every battle -

and no blood was seen in the pictures of troops fighting - and

factories were shown building squadrons of planes, lines and lines of

trucks, fleets of ships - and let's not forget the USO and Rosey the

Riveter).

We saw none of that in the aftermath of 9/11.

So I think it was a trade-off.

We have our security with a loss of some freedom, but in exchange for

that, a whole ethnic minority doesn't lose ALL of their freedom, and

we are spared the propaganda.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" The Ancient Vulcan saying is actually a reworked comment by Voltaire.

" QUOTE: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death

your right to say it.

" ATTRIBUTION: Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694–1778), French

philosopher, author. "

And for the record, I believe that this saying rolls easily off the

tongue and sounds really good to the ears, but taking Raven's example

of Hitler, if the whole world fought to the death to defend Hitler's

right to say that all Jews should be exterminated, what sort of

historical implications would we have seen?

Further, how can one defend what Hitler said AND what Churchill said

AND what Roosevelt said, AND what Stalin said, AND what Mussolini

said, AND what Hirohito said, AND what Franco said etc. at the same

time and expect for their to be any sort of resolution to things.

As much as freedom of speech is something which ought to be preserved

and highly regarded, one is sometimes forced to choose sides, and

this inevitably means that someone's speech will get squashed.

Going back to WWII, let's remember that the people in Germany heard

nothing else but the propaganda that Hitler's propaganda minister

churned out. From THEIR perspective, they were right to believe as

they did, and could not understand our point of view until their

noses were rubbed in the concentration camps when the war neared its

end.

From Japan's point of view, the Emperor was the living incarnation of

God and could do no wrong because nothing that comes from God could

be wrong. Ergo to the Japanese, what they did could not be wrong at

all, and what Hirohito said could not be wrong at all.

Should we have fought to preserve Hirohito's right to state his

opinion that any Oriental who was not Japanese was inferior and ought

to be subjugated to Japanese will?

Let's remember what actions Hitler's and Herohito's words inspired

people to do. Everyone in both or their armies, when questioned about

the war crimes, explained that they were just following orders from

the highest levels.

If these two and Mussolini were shut up before they could get

started, the whole war could have been avoided.

There ARE indeed times when other people's opinions need to be

squashed and trampled, and Savage's opinion fall into this category

in my opinion. History records Hitler making similar statements

before he issued his first ethnic cleansing

order...which...coincidentally, was against the mentally ill and

physically grotesque. (Hitler needed the beds for the casualties he

predicted would come from the planned war. And so he worked up a

propaganda campaign against those who were permanently hospitalized.

By having them all euthanized, he got his beds, and saved his nation

the expense of having to care for all of those people.)

Administrator

[Guest guest]

You might have noticed I quickly changed my mind when I saw that the

guy has no remorse. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt at

first, incase they had just made a foolish mistake out of ignorance.

However the solution is tricky, pull this guy off the air waves and

people say you are stopping his freedom of speech; but where do we

draw the line? How far can people go saying not only stupid but

damaging things and still hide behind 'freedom of speech'. I know

there have been similar discussions on these forums before

regarding 'freedom of speech' and just how twisted it has become.

Also just pondering if Hitler was to be about in this day and age, I

have to wonder how many would defend his right to freedom of speech?

Certainly has me pondering.

" Rather than pull this guy off the air wouldn't it be

> more beneficial if he actually learnt something about autism, made

a

> public apology and perhaps even had a guest in, on air that could

> enlighten/educate him and others regarding autism. "

>

> Rhetorical question: When Hitler was running Germany in the 30s

and

> 40s, do you think that he would have been able to open his mind to

the

> facts about the minority groups he was trying to eradicate from the

> face of the earth, made a public apology and then inspired others

to be

> open minded?

>

> In my opinion, Savage is equally dangerous and is a loose cannon

> without a doubt.

>

> Raven

> Co-Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

wrote: " Hitler was a power-crazed psychopathic genocidal

maniac. Savage is a jerk. "

Savage is a power-crazed psychopathic maniac. That's what radio

ratings are all about.

wrote: " Hitler wanted to rule Europe and beyond. Savage just

wants ratings. "

In this generation, if you rule the airwaves, you can easily rule the

world.

wrote: " They might be alike in that both were supported by a

minority in their own countries, but that's it. "

A minority isn't what got Hitler elected to his position in Germany.

And 8.2 million guaranteed followers on radio is not, in media terms, a

minority.

Raven

[Guest guest]

The problem only arises at all because there is an elite class with a

voice in the mdia while most folks' speech is ignored on a large scale

+ only heard by the folks they meet.

The solution is, have freedom of speech but combined with an automatic

right to respond challenging the content of the speech with equal

prominence. " Automatic right " is the key term.

where do we

> draw the line? How far can people go saying not only stupid but

> damaging things and still hide behind 'freedom of speech'.

[Guest guest]

>

> As much as freedom of speech is something which ought to be

preserved

> and highly regarded, one is sometimes forced to choose sides, and

> this inevitably means that someone's speech will get squashed.

>

> There ARE indeed times when other people's opinions need to be

> squashed and trampled, and Savage's opinion fall into this category

> in my opinion. History records Hitler making similar statements

> before he issued his first ethnic cleansing

> order...which...coincidentally, was against the mentally ill and

> physically grotesque. (Hitler needed the beds for the casualties he

> predicted would come from the planned war. And so he worked up a

> propaganda campaign against those who were permanently

hospitalized.

> By having them all euthanized, he got his beds, and saved his

nation

> the expense of having to care for all of those people.)

>

>

> Administrator

>

2 things. freedom of speech does not come without bearing the

responsibility of what was said. He got to say it and he was free,

but commerical listeners don't have to support him or his ideas.

2) in reading about Mr Savage, I found he had a mentally impaired

brother Jerome. It seems, he defends himself by saying he loved his

brother. What seems clear is that Mr. Savage seems to want to grab a

piece of the Autism pie for himself. If he meant to attack a greedy

medical community then that is what he should have said. instead he

push on pain points. (fraud on the part of bratty children)and

fatherless children (since the divorce rate is 85%) I conclude like

everyone here that Mr. Savage thought contoversey might revive a

dying career. In my mind he should go along with his career and

never be seen or heard from again.

[Guest guest]

>

You could really tell a person of German

> decent, since Germans were the largest ethic minority that came

from Europe at

> the time of WWII, but you could tell a Japanese. The fear was that

as the war

> dragged on, mobs would attack them. There were attacks against

German shops

> and some people on the East Coast. The Pacific campaign was much

fiercer and

> bloodier, so there may have been something to it.

>

>

>

>

>

A few comments. I was visiting my step mother in the hospital at the

time; so in public. At the hospital waiting room in paramus NJ

muslims were cheering the television (in America!, Visiting our

hospitals and availing them self of care! Nice stuff)

Recently I flew from Boston to Atlanta an in US flight (obviously)and

almost 50% of the airport foodstaff were muslims. My we are

forgiving!! When I mention my father was born in Iraq (and I do not

look middle eastern I have to mention that as a jew, we were kicked

out of the country Nazi stle 60 years ago. Yet no one bats an eye in

contentental flights while women wearing birkas wait on you. Odd

indeed

[Guest guest]

Soapbox Mode: on

What you're saying is very true but you are

missing the point which is that Hitler, Herohito,

Mussolini, Stalin, McCarthy, etc were able to do

the things they did because they had silenced

opposing positions... They would/could not

permit any suggestion that their position was not

the correct one... From their point of view it

was... but their point of view was when examined

from a broader perspective was horribly and

tragically wrong, and because they had silenced

all opposing views these evil men were allowed

the to hold sway much longer they should

have. If the masses had been permitted to hear

alternate points of view these mad men might have

been seen as the monsters they were and removed

more quickly and with less destruction then was ...

The thing is that everyone believes himself to be

right, fair and good... no one sees himself as

evil... the reason for the First Amendment is

insure that if some one that " evil " gets in a

position of power they are not permitted suppress

opposing points of view, the idea being that

sooner of later the masses will realize what is

happening and force a change... The founding

fathers realized that even the most benevolent

rulers can became tyrants and built a system that

intentionally fosters and protects decent to

prevent their republic from stagnating the way so

many other cultures had in the past...

The way to deal with some that is spouting ideals

that is wrong or you simply don't agree with is

to educate the masses to the truth and your own

point of view... Sooner or later the masses

should be able to workout for themselves who is right...

That is my point... to keep the system in balance

we can't permit any one or group to completely

suppress the views of another ever because next

time it may be your views that are being

suppressed... So even thought some people are

completely and insanely wrong we have to allow

them a say regardless of our own feelings

This is way so many people are working so hard to

dismantle the basic fabric of the US Constitution

and Bill of Rights both from within and

without... When allowed to operate as intended no

group can maintain permanent control of the

system... and that scares people that seek and

want to maintain personal power and control and

can not accept that it was possible for them to

be wrong... Our system assumes there will be bad

choices made from time to time and provides

mechanisms to correct them without major upheaval.

If every one in the world were guided by a sense

of logic, honesty and fair play it wouldn't

really matter but the world is ruled by people

that don't have the compulsive honesty that is

common in Aspies and are willing to suborn any

system to archive and maintain a position of

advantage over their peers. That is why it is so

important that people that can understand why of

how the the system was intended to work so we

don't disable something that might appear to a

nuisance this in fact a necessary safeguard to

prevent the system from being manipulated to

allow one group to maintain an advantage over an other...

Soapbox Mode: off

I really do understand your point but the system

is intended to protect of from ourselves,

regardless of how well meaning our intentions

are. When you act to suppress open debate of any

point of view, you are inviting some on to in the

future suppress your point of view.

Ender

At 01:17 AM 7/23/2008, you wrote:

>

>

> " The Ancient Vulcan saying is actually a reworked comment by Voltaire.

>

> " QUOTE: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death

>your right to say it.

>

> " ATTRIBUTION: Voltaire [François Marie Arouet] (1694–1778), French

>philosopher, author. "

>

>And for the record, I believe that this saying rolls easily off the

>tongue and sounds really good to the ears, but taking Raven's example

>of Hitler, if the whole world fought to the death to defend Hitler's

>right to say that all Jews should be exterminated, what sort of

>historical implications would we have seen?

>

>Further, how can one defend what Hitler said AND what Churchill said

>AND what Roosevelt said, AND what Stalin said, AND what Mussolini

>said, AND what Hirohito said, AND what Franco said etc. at the same

>time and expect for their to be any sort of resolution to things.

>

>As much as freedom of speech is something which ought to be preserved

>and highly regarded, one is sometimes forced to choose sides, and

>this inevitably means that someone's speech will get squashed.

>

>Going back to WWII, let's remember that the people in Germany heard

>nothing else but the propaganda that Hitler's propaganda minister

>churned out. From THEIR perspective, they were right to believe as

>they did, and could not understand our point of view until their

>noses were rubbed in the concentration camps when the war neared its

>end.

>

> From Japan's point of view, the Emperor was the living incarnation of

>God and could do no wrong because nothing that comes from God could

>be wrong. Ergo to the Japanese, what they did could not be wrong at

>all, and what Hirohito said could not be wrong at all.

>

>Should we have fought to preserve Hirohito's right to state his

>opinion that any Oriental who was not Japanese was inferior and ought

>to be subjugated to Japanese will?

>

>Let's remember what actions Hitler's and Herohito's words inspired

>people to do. Everyone in both or their armies, when questioned about

>the war crimes, explained that they were just following orders from

>the highest levels.

>

>If these two and Mussolini were shut up before they could get

>started, the whole war could have been avoided.

>

>There ARE indeed times when other people's opinions need to be

>squashed and trampled, and Savage's opinion fall into this category

>in my opinion. History records Hitler making similar statements

>before he issued his first ethnic cleansing

>order...which...coincidentally, was against the mentally ill and

>physically grotesque. (Hitler needed the beds for the casualties he

>predicted would come from the planned war. And so he worked up a

>propaganda campaign against those who were permanently hospitalized.

>By having them all euthanized, he got his beds, and saved his nation

>the expense of having to care for all of those people.)

>

>

>Administrator

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>> Yes, but on the other hand, if a good segment of the population

> demonstrates that his brand of foolery will not be tolerated, that

> suppresses other fools like him from asserting themselves and being

the

> dominant opinion and prevailing point of view.

>

>

> Administrator

>

I agree calling attention and money to yourself by being an ignaramus

should be curtailed. He makes money by being an idiot and a person

with little humanity. There is no social check-list we live in an

anything goes society. The biggest shock earning the biggest sum. If

one had to worry about their reputation, as you did in the 50's and

even a bit in my era, people would stop tripping themselves in there

haste to insert their feet in their mouths. (hey, why can't they get

hoof and mouth disease?)

[Guest guest]

" The last thing I would want to see is a travesty like Imus or Dog the

Bounty Hunter where Savage is dragged around the press, literally

having to crawl over broken glass soaking in vinegar, when others saw

so much worse and cause actual physical harm and get away with it. "

I still disagree with you, but am not going to press the point too

much. I think seeing things in terms of " degrees " is not a good way to

look at things. Some may cause physical pain which is bad, but let's

say those people are not in existence. Then it is Savage & Co. that

look bad...and get away with it.

To my way of thinking, why not just say " What's evil is evil and what

is good is good " and try to do away with the evil no matter how it

presents itself?

Administrator

[Guest guest]

said:

" You can easily defend what the allies said, except for Stalin, as

opposed to what the Axis said. "

My point is that if someone is going to say....

" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your

right to say it.

Then that person cannot pick and choose where to apply that credo or

else he does not really stand for the philosophy that nothing should

be censored.

A person who goes by that credo has to let everyone speak, and that

means letting in all the views that are offensive to humanity. I

think we were given a conscience for a reason. If something sounds

bad or evil to our ears, then it is probably bad or evil. It is that

simple. If bad is bad and evil is evil, then why do we need either

one of them? Get rid of both and shut up the people who make bad and

evil pronouncements.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" The solution is, have freedom of speech but combined with an automatic

right to respond challenging the content of the speech with equal

prominence. " Automatic right " is the key term. "

This is a solution worth considering. Great suggestion Maurice.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Your whole post makes great points Ender, but I disagree with this

part of it:

" What you're saying is very true but you are missing the point which

is that Hitler, Herohito, Mussolini, Stalin, McCarthy, etc were able

to do

the things they did because they had silenced opposing positions...

They would/could not permit any suggestion that their position was not

the correct one... From their point of view it was... but their point

of view was when examined from a broader perspective was horribly and

tragically wrong, and because they had silenced all opposing views

these evil men were allowed the to hold sway much longer they should

have. If the masses had been permitted to hear alternate points of

view these mad men might have been seen as the monsters they were and

removed more quickly and with less destruction then was ... "

Go back to Nazi Germany and see how the extermination was done. Do

you think the Nazis snuck into homes in the middle of the night and

quietly snuck the Jews out to the camps?

I doubt there was anyone in a major German city who didn't know what

was going on. There are stories of citizens throwing rotten fruit at

the Jews as they were carted off in broad daylight.

Anyone with a conscience knows that what was happening was wrong, yet

no one stood up for these people. (And lets not forget homosexuals

and gypsies and 6 million others that the Nazis also killed).

Now your point is that if people weren't suppressed, they could voice

their opinion is a good one. But what stopped them even though they

WERE suppressed? Any of those people could have decided " I am going

to hide tthese people from the Nazis. " Or " I am going to sabotage

Hitler. "

Some did, but most did not.

The reason?

They were too timid to stand up for themselves, and freedom of speech

was worth less to them than their own deaths.

Society is full of cowards.

That is my point.

So if you shut up the brave bully thugs before they get entrenched

and popular, you are much better off.

Otherwise you might wind up having to overthrow a whole regime to

restore the freedom of speech which caused you to lose the freedom

you had in the first place.

Look at Autism Speaks, the organization which claims to speak for all

autistics. If you speak against them on their message board, you are

banned and your IP address is blocked.

If every autistic would have made an attempt to shut them up when

they first came into being, we would not have the fight we have

against them now.

As it stands, corporations are sinking millions of dollars in Autism

Speaks which is working just as fast as it can to make sure that all

autistics are aborted before they ever get born.

The are an evil organization, and if they would have been squashed in

the beginning, as I suggested, none of this would be happening now.

Administrator

[Guest guest]

Raven wrote as a response to : Rhetorical question: When Hitler was running Germany in the 30s and 40s, do you think that he would have been able to open his mind to the

facts about the minority groups he was trying to eradicate from the face of the earth, made a public apology and then inspired others to be open minded? I agree that he could be just as dangerous as Hitler, but does that mean that he should be booted off the air when in reality that would give him the media response he is probably dying for. It has already been said that he would not care if people make a fuss over what was said, and he proved that to be true. Of course one cannot change another person's point of view about a topic, but does that mean that we should give up trying and in a way obliterate the problem instead. I think this again would go back to point, I think, that it would be a dangerous course of action.