The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

For discussions about religion, but not specifically Christianity.
Forum rules
For discussions about religion, but not specifically Christianity. Christians and members of any faith or of no faith are welcome, provided they treat others with respect at all times. Remember that detailed discussion about the beliefs of a particular faith will be difficult if no member of that faith is available to take part.

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Erminehead » March 23rd, 2012, 11:29 am

Pondero wrote:No, you are criticising my views, which is a form of censorship, especially when you think it wrong for me to hold them. I don't recall slandering any women.


Exactly. That's criticism Pondero. Censorship is something entirely different.

Pondero wrote:I don't recall slandering any women.


Obviously calling women prostitutes is perfectly reasonable in your world view.

Pondero wrote:In your politically correct world...


Politically correct. That stock meaningless phrase trotted out by every reactionary once their views are contested.

Sadly Pondero, it's your inability to see the difference between criticism and censorship which proves that you have little understanding of what free speech rally means.

E
"In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hoffer
Erminehead
 
Posts: 717
Joined: November 27th, 2007, 3:07 pm

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Pondero » March 23rd, 2012, 11:59 am

Erminehead wrote:
Pondero wrote:No, you are criticising my views, which is a form of censorship, especially when you think it wrong for me to hold them. I don't recall slandering any women.


Exactly. That's criticism Pondero. Censorship is something entirely different.

Pondero wrote:I don't recall slandering any women.


Obviously calling women prostitutes is perfectly reasonable in your world view.

Pondero wrote:In your politically correct world...


Politically correct. That stock meaningless phrase trotted out by every reactionary once their views are contested.

Sadly Pondero, it's your inability to see the difference between criticism and censorship which proves that you have little understanding of what free speech rally means.

E

I refute all your allegations.
This debate will go on for some time, hopefully for it to be meaningful, we have to turn down the rhetoric and concentrate on the content of what I wrote- seeing I am the one under attack.
I think if you read what I wrote in date order, you will find nothing to criticize me for.
Your current attitude leaves something to be desired, in the way you approach this subject.You jump to conclusions without examining the written word, and assume, falsely of course, that I have terrible character defects.
Learning from the past, anyone who wishes to be a dictator in the form of Big Brother, must crack down on small "errors" as if they're were dominant, large, important, with a terrible force, to crush any opposition.
This I believe, is what you and those of your ilk, are trying to do. :bye:
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12424
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Erminehead » March 23rd, 2012, 12:20 pm

Pondero wrote:I refute all your allegations.


Well there's another word you don't seem to know the meaning of.

Pondero wrote:This debate will go on for some time, hopefully for it to be meaningful, we have to turn down the rhetoric and concentrate on the content of what I wrote- seeing I am the one under attack.


Fair enough. Let's examine your words...

Pondero wrote:Sandra Fluke is a third year law student at Georgetown University who says she will have sex for money.


Both factually wrong and also libellous.

Pondero wrote:The woman in question is offended by his remarks calling her a slut, although she openly said she was willing to have sex for money.


Both factually wrong and also libellous.

Pondero wrote:Certainly she is a loose woman. Whether she does it for money or not we don't know.


Possibly the most offensive thing you have written on this thread. To illustrate, I have no idea whether you have sex for money or not Pondero.

Pondero wrote:I wrote what I wrote, believing it to be true at the time I wrote it. I will retract my opening statement when Hell freezes over.


So, by your own admission, now that you are aware that your words are untrue and libellous, you still stand by them.

Pondero wrote:I think if you read what I wrote in date order, you will find nothing to criticize me for.


Just did, and yes, there is plenty to criticise.

Pondero wrote:Your current attitude leaves something to be desired, in the way you approach this subject.You jump to conclusions without examining the written word, and assume, falsely of course, that I have terrible character defects.


I don't jump to conclusions Pondero. I simply read your words.

Pondero wrote:Learning from the past, anyone who wishes to be a dictator in the form of Big Brother, must crack down on small "errors" as if they're were dominant, large, important, with a terrible force, to crush any opposition.
This I believe, is what you and those of your ilk, are trying to do. :bye:


So. Criticism of Pondero stems from my secret desire to instigate a panopticon state. Now that, at least, is funny.

E
Last edited by Erminehead on March 23rd, 2012, 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hoffer
Erminehead
 
Posts: 717
Joined: November 27th, 2007, 3:07 pm

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Pondero » March 23rd, 2012, 2:12 pm

What did Rush Limbaugh actually say: he said:
" What does it say about a college co-ed.. who goes around before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex."

What did erminehead say:
"Where exactly did Ms. Fluke say that she would have sex for money? This seems to be an invention on Pondero's part."

Ah, so quick to jump to conclusions is erminehead, with malice aforethought it appears.

I discovered that Limbaugh apologised for saying she was a slut. Again erminehead thinks the apology is not sincere, and that it has more to do with losing advertising revenue. Limbaugh says in one of his radio broadcasts that he did not lose much in advertising.

What did I say about Ms. Fluke's lifestyle: later on in the posts after knowing that Limbaugh had apologised.I wrote:
"No live in partner was mentioned and her life has been scrutinized, but it doesn't prove one way or the other very much about her lifestyle. If she really needs the contraceptive device items herself ( or not) , it says something about her. But, she is a hypocrite in pretence, as she is connected to a strong nasty lobby group, at a Catholic university lobbying for things contrary to Catholic doctrine. She should be expelled immediately from Georgetown, and continue her studies at a secular university."

So, all this dispute instigated by erminehead, who has he luxury of sitting back criticizing and in a sense censoring someone's posts is really a lot of hot air. I notice erminehead does not contribute anything of his own to The Sandra Fluke Controversy posts except criticism of others.
As I said much earlier:
I wrote what I wrote believing it to be true.
As more facts came to light, in view of Limbaugh's apology, I adjusted my comments to reflect the truth as I now knew it.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12424
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Erminehead » March 23rd, 2012, 2:43 pm

Pondero wrote:This seems to be an invention on Pondero's part."


As it was. Because even Limbaugh did not go as far as you did. He simply characterised her words (which was bad enough). You went further and put the actual words in her mouth.

Pondero wrote:I discovered that Limbaugh apologised for saying she was a slut. Again erminehead thinks the apology is not sincere, and that it has more to do with losing advertising revenue. Limbaugh says in one of his radio broadcasts that he did not lose much in advertising.


Really? His radio bosses admitted that 120 advertisers had pulled the plug. But of course we already know that Rush is the very soul of honesty.

Pondero wrote:So, all this dispute instigated by erminehead, who has he luxury of sitting back criticizing and in a sense censoring someone's posts is really a lot of hot air. I notice erminehead does not contribute anything of his own to The Sandra Flike Controversy posts except criticism of others.


Apart from one little contribution. I was the first to point out that you were merely disseminating fantasy and that Mrs Fluke had never claimed to be a prostitute. Lies which you have yet to disown.

As you have shown absolutely no inclination to admit even that injustice to Ms Fluke (I believe hell and freezing over were mentioned), I shall leave it at that.

E
"In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hoffer
Erminehead
 
Posts: 717
Joined: November 27th, 2007, 3:07 pm

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Pondero » March 23rd, 2012, 3:37 pm

Pondero wrote:This seems to be an invention on Pondero's part."


As it was. Because even Limbaugh did not go as far as you did. He simply characterised her words (which was bad enough). You went further and put the actual words in her mouth.


They were not fiction. It was reported on the internet, which is where my information came from.
I did read the radio transcripts which were available at the time, but are hard to find now.

Apart from one little contribution. I was the first to point out that you were merely disseminating fantasy and that Mrs Fluke had never claimed to be a prostitute. Lies which you have yet to disown.

As you have shown absolutely no inclination to admit even that injustice to Ms Fluke (I believe hell and freezing over were mentioned), I shall leave it at that.
E

I have already explained that, and will not repeat myself.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12424
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Sprocket » March 24th, 2012, 9:48 am

Pondero wrote:No, you are criticising my views, which is a form of censorship, especially when you think it wrong for me to hold them.

Now you're just being silly. everyone has a right to express their views, and to criticise other people's views. You criticise my views often enough, but I don't accuse you of censorship.
A cat once got frozen to -273 C, but it's 0k now.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15803
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: The Sandra Fluke Controversy.

Postby Pondero » March 25th, 2012, 11:48 am

Sprocket wrote:
Pondero wrote:No, you are criticising my views, which is a form of censorship, especially when you think it wrong for me to hold them.

Now you're just being silly. everyone has a right to express their views, and to criticise other people's views. You criticise my views often enough, but I don't accuse you of censorship.

Any dictionary definition of the two words criticism and censorship shows that they do not mean the same thing.(I looked them up).I'll grant you that much.
However, it is possible to criticize a person so harshly by ridicule or by adopting a snobbish type of attitude in order to shut them up, to censor them in other words.I still believe it is a form of censorship, not of what they have already written,but of what they could possibly write in future. :scratch:
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12424
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Previous

Return to Talking Stick

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron