Chesty has been deemed a radical conservative with unrealistic ideas of morality and

[chesty]

I made one statement that we had done that and cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact is isthat it can be done. Will it be donw, doubtful we are to politcally corrected to do so. I would venture to say that our country has lost the will to do that which is necessary.

I am fairly certain that Idid not threaten her, but post the link I remember saying something like tried convicted and executed upon conviction. I never personally said I would harm her. But post away and prove me wrong.

If I personally threatened to personally kill her I will apologize. But that doesn't change my mind or lessen my views of her.

 

[smallmovesal]

would it make it all better if i got "radical" on your ass chesty?

 

[chesty]

Bring it on smalls, you can get radical on my ass anytime!

 

[musclebrains]

that first sentence reminded me of my school daze. he-he.
yes you are correct, chesty wanted strongchick banned for treasonous statements. i do not dispute this.
i said chesty would defend your right to tell him to shut the fuck up. i did not say chesty would defend your right to make treasonous statements. not that i agree that her remarks were treasonous.
i just think its funny to tell chesty to shut the fuck up because you dont like his choice of vocabulary and then turn around and talk about free speech, which is what buddy did. im curious to see if buddy told strongchick to shut the fuck up when she said the usa deserved 9-11. or was it the fact that he agrees with her that he didn't. its very difficult not to be hypocritical.
if you believe strongchick has the right to say what she said, then you ought to back chesty as vehemently as you have back her.
what a catch 22. everyone agrees with everyone. now thats freedom of speech. just ranting.

Sorry, but get back in your school desk. You've just attempted a specious argument. You're trying, by overliteralizing, to equate the insistence that Chesty cease from threatening people (even wishing death on SC) with an effort to squelch free speech.

Free speech does not extend to terroristic threats. I'm sure Chesty would agree with this since, analagously, he argues that "treasonous statements" are in themselves indictable offenses. In fact, a terroistic threat is actionable while stating an unpopular opinion, even if it supports the enemy, is not.

Please write, "I will not engage in specious argumentation" on the blackboard 400 times.

 

[smallmovesal]

Please write, "I will not engage in specious argumentation" on the blackboard 400 times.

i will smack your ass with a paddle while you write...

 

[spongebob]

Sorry, but get back in your school desk. You've just attempted a specious argument. You're trying, by overliteralizing, to equate the insistence that Chesty cease from threatening people (even wishing death on SC) with an effort to squelch free speech.

Free speech does not extend to terroristic threats. I'm sure Chesty would agree with this since, analagously, he argues that "treasonous statements" are in themselves indictable offenses. In fact, a terroistic threat is actionable while stating an unpopular opinion, even if it supports the enemy, is not.

Please write, "I will not engage in specious argumentation" on the blackboard 400 times.

i can say that your overliteralizing my attempt to overliteralize.
but seriously, if chesty literally threatened strongchick then i would like to see it. when i was asking you to defend his right to free speech as you have done with strongchick, it would only be in the context of the law, not threats.
if you look at my first post and read the qoute by buddy, he makes no mention of chesty threatening strongchicks life.
buddy sez " stay but shut the fuck up, and dont use derrogatory and insulting remarks"
now all i said was you want him to stay as long as he talks the way you agree with. no where did i suggest that anyone was trying to squelch free speech.
i'll stick to my original post. if you believe in strongchicks freedom to say what she said, then believe that chesty has the right to curse her and use what ever derrogatory word he wants to. i just believe that your not because you dont agree with him but you agree with her.


p.s. can i quit writing "i will not engage in specious argumentation" now.

 

[smallmovesal]

p.s. can i quit writing "i will not engage in specious argumentation" now.

*smack* not until i say so!

 

[spongebob]

The "shut the fuck up" remark was in response to Chesty insinuation that SC should be killed. Threatening or suggesting someone should be killed goes beyond the constitutional right to express an opinion. In fact, many courts in the US would find a person guilty of uttering death threats.

It would be something akin to me saying to you spongebob... you dont know what the fuck your talking about, it would be nice if someone took your head off with a double barrel 12 guage......

does that feel good spongy?? SHould we allow everyone to just spew whatever garbage they want outta their mouths cause their a mod?! or should we try to behave like civilised adults.

Chesty can exercise his right to free speech all he wants, but he shouldnt have the ability to use his weight as a mod to justify statements about board members that threatens their lives.......

if chesty said that then i'd like to see it. then i would not argue.
i could careless if someone said that to me, but thats me.
louis farrakan sez death to whitey. but hey, fuck that turd anyway.
anyway im not trying to be shitty, i was only commenting on your one post, and like i said i didn't know you were referring to his alledged death threats of strongchick when you told him to shut the fuck up.
peace.

 

[spongebob]

*smack* not until i say so!

in that case i'm not even gonna ask to stop. keep it coming woman.

 

[musclebrains]

i can say that your overliteralizing my attempt to overliteralize.
but seriously, if chesty literally threatened strongchick then i would like to see it. when i was asking you to defend his right to free speech as you have done with strongchick, it would only be in the context of the law, not threats.
if you look at my first post and read the qoute by buddy, he makes no mention of chesty threatening strongchicks life.
buddy sez " stay but shut the fuck up, and dont use derrogatory and insulting remarks"
now all i said was you want him to stay as long as he talks the way you agree with. no where did i suggest that anyone was trying to squelch free speech.
i'll stick to my original post. if you believe in strongchicks freedom to say what she said, then believe that chesty has the right to curse her and use what ever derrogatory word he wants to. i just believe that your not because you dont agree with him but you agree with her.


p.s. can i quit writing "i will not engage in specious argumentation" now.

Clearly not, it hasn't sunk in and I don't see any real sense in repeating myself.

If you can't see the difference in Buddy's telling someone angrily to shut up with their threats and ad hominem attacks and Chesty's trying to get someone kicked off the board, permanently silenced in short, then there's nothing to discuss. (We don't even have to talk about terroristic threats. ) You insist on comparing a "shuttup and discuss things rationally" to "get this piece of shit off the board" forever. And that is specious.

If it's not different to you, fine. I'm not interested, by the way, in going back and dissecting the language. Anyone who read the threads knows that one person was asking for civility and the other person was asking for extermination. Both people got hot under the collar.