Turn on thread page Beta

Michael Savage Was Banned Only Because ‘Enemy List’ Was Too Muslim watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I've clearly shown that Savage a) publicly advocated mass-murder and b) is a hypocrite when he made a more recent statement to the effect that he didn't advocate violence. As far as I'm concerned my case is pretty watertight seeing as I used his own words. Anything else you say is just typing practise.
    A case for what? That his words are not infallible? That he has not never contradicted himself? Whoever thought that those things were true? The fact that neither have any bearing on whether he should be banned from the UK seems to escape you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by favh)
    A case for what? That his words are not infallible? That he has not never contradicted himself? Whoever thought that those things were true? The fact that neither have any bearing on whether he should be banned from the UK seems to escape you.
    Owsy is the sort of person who would ban anyone from the UK who makes a vaguely controversial statement about multiculturalism/Islam/mass immigration or whatever.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Owsy is the sort of person who would ban anyone from the UK who makes a vaguely controversial statement about multiculturalism/Islam/mass immigration or whatever.
    No, Oswy is the sort of person who would ban anyone from the UK who made specific public statements constituting the advocacy of mass-murder. Right-wingers, true to form, too willingly misrepresent their opponents' positions and thus fight strawmen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    No, Oswy is the sort of person who would ban anyone from the UK who made specific public statements constituting the advocacy of mass-murder. Right-wingers, true to form, too willingly misrepresent their opponents' positions and thus fight strawmen.
    Firstly I am not a right-winger. Secondly it is clear that Savage's remarks were not a serious comment. Thirdly, Savage does not have a large, fanatical, violent following who seriously want to kill 100 million Muslims or whatever he said - plus I doubt Savage actually wants to kill 100 million Muslims. Savage is a fringe, rude loony who no doubt plays upon this fact to get money and listeners in the competitive conservative American talk-show genre. All this ban you support did was further enhance Savage's name in Europe, I had never heard of him before, nor had many Americans. Even the Guradian supported Savage "The ban on Savage is so far from being a comprehensible act, so staggeringly capricious and stupid, as to defy evaluation."

    All the ban did was create an idiot into a free speech martyr and no doubt the free publicity considerably enhanced his already oversized ego.

    I would be interested to hear Owsy's views on the ridiculous ban enforced upon Geert Wilders upon his arrival at Heathrow.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Firstly I am not a right-winger. Secondly it is clear that Savage's remarks were not a serious comment. Thirdly, Savage does not have a large, fanatical, violent following who seriously want to kill 100 million Muslims or whatever he said...
    You certainly talk like a right-winger but I'll take your word for it. It's not clear to me that 'Savage's remarks were not a serious comment' and that strikes me as a feeble defence, but it's his problem anyway. He made a pretty clear and public statement which advocated the mass-muder of Muslims, he's a grown-up and has to face the consequences of what he says as far as I'm concerned. It also makes little difference as to whether he has a large, fanatical, violent following, inciting murder is inciting murder. If Savage advocated the rape of teenage girls and it was your daughter who got raped by the impressionable sociopath that happened to be living in the neighbourhood you'd probably not care that Savage didn't have any obvious 'large, fanatical, violent following'.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Oswy is an anti-white racist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Oswy is an anti-white racist.
    That's an ad hominem.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cappuccino)
    That's an ad hominem.
    No it isn't. Something only qualifies as ad hominem if it's a direct attack on the arguer when dodging a specific argument e.g. x point is wrong because you were once caught stealing. My point was simply an accusation (and quite a pertinent one at that).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    No, Oswy is the sort of person who would ban anyone from the UK who made specific public statements constituting the advocacy of mass-murder. Right-wingers, true to form, too willingly misrepresent their opponents' positions and thus fight strawmen.
    So would you ban from Britain Marshal of the RAF Sir Arthur Harris:

    "The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany"

    or perhaps Sir Winston Churchill:

    "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned[80] gas against uncivilised tribes"?

    It seems to me that this absurd policy would have practically emptied this country of many of its greatest men.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Oswy is an anti-white racist.
    I don't believe anyone should be subject to negative treatment or disadvantage on the basis of skin-colour, ethnicity or race.

    You, however, as a BNP advocate, support their policy of seeking the departure of as many non-white (non-ethnically British if you prefer) people from Britain as possible, which clearly is a racist policy.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I don't believe anyone should be subject to negative treatment or disadvantage on the basis of skin-colour, ethnicity or race.
    Considering that every comment you make seems to be in strife of denying the British people their identity, I'd disagree.

    (Original post by Oswy)
    You, however, as a BNP advocate, support their policy of seeking the departure of as many non-white (non-ethnically British if you prefer) people from Britain as possible, which clearly is a racist policy.
    No I don't. LOL. That's that post shot down.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Washington Post)
    "They leave me no option except to pursue my defamation complaint against Jacqui Smith. In time, I will clear my name, receive an apology from the British government - or the Queen - deliver a speech before the British Parliament and present the British people the gift of freedom of speech, for which their forefathers died. By my example, they will see how far their own nation has fallen under the rule of these coelenterates" - jellyfish, Mr. Savage says.
    This told me everything I needed to know about the man. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Considering that every comment you make seems to be in strife of denying the British people their identity, I'd disagree.
    But British people are different to white people, aren't they? Hasn't this point been argued by you or something? It's not racism because British people aren't white.

    At worst he's anti-British, or does that suddenly mean anti-white? It's a bit confused, non?

    But anyway, it's quite ironic how the more spinless source in OP's post was the Daily Mail.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Considering that every comment you make seems to be in strife of denying the British people their identity, I'd disagree.
    I don't believe that being British as an identity has any essential connection to ethnicity as you'd have it, which is as white people. If you want to make your Britishness a matter of your being white or 'ethno-British' then do so, the rest of us are not compelled to buy into that absurd racist fantasy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I don't believe that being British as an identity has any essential connection to ethnicity as you'd have it, which is as white people. If you want to make your Britishness a matter of your being white or 'ethno-British' then do so, the rest of us are not compelled to buy into that absurd racist fantasy.
    You do know what "ethnicity" is, don't you? It's not a subsitute for "race" and has numerous cultural connotations.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    You do know what "ethnicity" is, don't you? It's not a subsitute for "race" and has numerous cultural connotations.
    Yeah, I do actually, which is why I said "ethnicity as you'd have it" because I know that the BNP and their supporters use ethnicity as if a simple substitute for race.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oswy)
    I don't believe that being British as an identity has any essential connection to ethnicity as you'd have it, which is as white people. If you want to make your Britishness a matter of your being white or 'ethno-British' then do so, the rest of us are not compelled to buy into that absurd racist fantasy.
    If I went to Kurdistan I'd never be a Kurd. I'd be a European-Iraqi/European-Iranian/European-whatever (dependent on which nation-state I'm in). As would my children, my children's children, my children's children's children, and so on. Being ethnically British is a case of being English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh. So you'd most probably deny this on the grounds of these not being nations. You're trying to deny the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh an identity. Just like Saddam Hussein wanted to deny the Kurds an identity. You're no better.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    If I went to Kurdistan I'd never be a Kurd. I'd be a European-Iraqi/European-Iranian/European-whatever (dependent on which nation-state I'm in). As would my children, my children's children, my children's children's children, and so on. Being ethnically British is a case of being English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh. So you'd most probably deny this on the grounds of these not being nations. You're trying to deny the English, Scottish, Irish and Welsh an identity. Just like Saddam Hussein wanted to deny the Kurds an identity. You're no better.
    No, all I'm doing is denying that 'being' British is reducible to skin-colour or whoever your distant ancestors might have been.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    No, all I'm doing is denying that 'being' British is reducible to skin-colour or whoever your distant ancestors might have been.
    Indeed, British is after all the vague legal entity as defined in your passport. What about the English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 28, 2009
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.