This is Shane A.'s Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Shane A.'s activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Shane A.
Somewhere North of up there, South of down there, East of back there, and West of out there.
Fortysomething looking for acceptance into the world of my imagination.
Interests: existing.
Recent Activity
Wil, So, this whole waiting for a moderator to approve a comment, I gotta a question on that. Are comments that endorse or are favorable to your viewpoint the only ones that are going to be publicly displayed or will dissenting comments that encourage an open, honest, and civil dialogue of debate be allowed? This question is in no way singling out you or your blog. It's just an apprehensive inquiry as I am wary of moderators on anything. Thanks.
1 reply
Thank you for reposting the pic, Wil. I would have probably never seen it otherwise.
1 reply
*Yawn* Eww, I broke one of your "sacred" rules. Oh, dear me. I guess that I'm just gonna have to sit in the corner and have a time out. Get real! I live in the real world where real debates and rebuttals happen. These debates include such accepted things as hyperbole, what they don't include is made up things like "Godwyn's Law" or "prime sacred rules of the internet." The internet is something that is used to facilitate day to day real world life, and may even be used to escape from it for a short while. It is not to be lived in, however. Yeah, it is best that you say "Good day" as it's obvious that your rebuttal well has run dry and you should take your leave. As they say, "you can't keep playing if you ain't got no money left." Thanks for a brief, but swell, run, though.....
1 reply
Not all the people who supported Chick-fil-A did it to support freedom of speech. Just wanted to point that out to ya...
1 reply
Do you even know why I made the distinction of "having friends who happen to be LGBT?" It's because sexuality never came up when we befriended. Common interests did. That's why I won't ask them about their views on Chick-fil-A, because it would evoke, and put the spotlight on, their sexuality. It's not that either us cannot deal with it, it's just that it is not an issue. Do you know why a lot of non-religious people cannot stand LGBT?? It's the perceived "LGBT agenda." Do you know why that is? Because a lot of vocal LGBT members put their LGBT status first, the content of their characters second. Instead of saying "I'm gay, accept me!" why don't LGBT members say, "I'm a person that is good and I have a lot of common interests. Accept me?" After that then let the LGBT factor come into play, if needed. For a lot of mainstream, on the fence people who are wary of LGBT it is not about the fact of being LGBT, it is about bad public relation, so to speak. As far reply to your Chick-fil-A bit, ertdfg took my words, so I will not duplicate.
1 reply
Hell's bells yeah, Man! Bring on the juice. If it's pouring, I'm soaring! :)
1 reply
Excuse me, but how is Wil a "coward" by standing up for what he believes?? How is he a "coward" for writing a retraction when he believes he was partly wrong?? A true "coward" would never stand up for a cause, let alone admit when he may have been wrong. And a true "coward' resorts to name calling, like "coward," and empty rhetoric instead of having a thoughtful and rational viewpoint. How is he backtracking, as well? Wil does not need to backtrack. He has enough people interested in what he says, along with enough fortification in his life to be comfortable with his own lot as well as be able to withstand any criticism for what he says or does. Do us all a favor and provide us with a shining example of how the right-wingers do far more for society that liberals do. That is except for telling us how they take care of their own or benefit foreign labor with OUR jobs. I digress, though, as this was not really an economic rebuttal. It is true that a lot of liberals are a "small bunch of small-minded loons" who live in the same bubble as the same could be said about right-wingers. As far as liberals being "jackbooted," I'm sorry, but what did Reagan and the Bushes do for civil liberties. Or shall I say "against?" Please come back when you find someone who can be your ration and intelligence. (sorry, I'm insult slumming right now) It can even be someone who shares your ideology as, contrary to popular belief, there are rational and intelligent people on the right, too.
1 reply
Even if it were up to the person to define what "harmful" speech is, the person has relatively no power to enforce a ban on it. Only a government or controlling body can do that. As far as I know, the government only bans free speech when it interferes with public safety, as like the often used example I cited above.
1 reply
Hate speech is not the opposite of free speech. One is an emotion, there other is an ability. Rather, hate speech would be the opposite of accepted speech.
1 reply
You can see what you can see in me. What I am is a guy who thinks that dialog, discourse, and debate is good for any issue. It does not matter how ugly or uncivil it gets as long as there is talk about it. Both sides and their staunch advocates REFUSE to understand the other. I try to live in the middle in a war between the left and the right who are determined to destroy each other. Sometimes I play Red Cross to the intellectual dead, dying, and wounded; but most times I open fire on both sides. Why? Because I want everybody to wake the fuck up and also because there aren't many places to duck for cover in the middle. It's sickening to have an ideology war when there needs not to be. I never sat down with anybody at Chick-fil-A. I ate there on the Saturday beforehand while I was shopping. I was alone and spent no more than ten minutes there. I ate and left. Boom, my support for free speech was done, next issue. As far as "damn good sandwiches" go, I've had better. As far as Wil's initial comments go, I was pissed but let it go. I respect a person's opinion, even if it is to insult me indirectly. Sticks and stones, right? No, I came here to comment back to Wil about his apology (I'm sure you've read that by now as has everybody since I seem to be the cause celebre on this post right now). I found ill-informed (IMHO) comments by other members and decided to try to set the record straight. You can say I like to argue, and this may be true to an extent. It is the ill-information and the misrepresentation of the facts that makes me want to "argue." I believed I went to CFA to support free speech, can you prove that I went there to believe otherwise? Or can you truly prove other people's intentions? Am I trying to prove how right I am? Well yes if everybody is trying to prove how wrong I am. Listen, nowhere in any of my posts, comments, or anywhere on the internet have I tried to convince a person who opposes me to change to have my viewpoint. I thrive on talking to people who have opposing viewpoints. I really hate... okay, maybe hate is not such a good word to use in here...don't like people who constantly agree with me. I don't want followers, I want contemporaries. I want people to disagree with me and say that I'm wrong. Let's talk about it. As far as you view of CFA goes, it is your right to want them ridiculed. However, you must get up the power to have them banned. Wishing they were banned is just not enough. More to you if you get that power. As far as Dan Cathy, getting sodomized, who knows, he might like it once he gets into a rhythm. (okay, shut the hell up, Shane) And, as far as whiskey goes, not for me. I'll take some Patron and a Dos Equis or Killian's.
1 reply
You're invoking a "law" (which is actually just an internet fad)based the espousing of an lawyer who fancies himself as a modern-day philosopher? A lawyer??? LOL You might as well of told me that you are giving up the debate. Same thing. I didn't even know who this Godwyn is. I had to research him. That is how important or popular he is with the mainstream (sarcasm intended). Please, I would no more subscribe or be bound by "Godwyn's Law" than I would expect an atheist to subscribe or be bound by Christian law. (isn't there a "law" that states that in any debate "Christian law" will eventually be brought up?) Besides, I could have easily used Idi Amin, Joseph Stalin, Caligula, Ho Chi Minh, etc. as an example instead of Hitler. To use a petty thing like "Godwyn's Law" undermines your ability to effective rebut my viewpoint. Of course, it doesn't really address my point. So... NO...thank YOU for playing! ;)
1 reply
<-----Eats at Chick-fil-A to support free speech and does not hate or is against LGBT personally...called a "bigot." <-----Eats at Starbuck's, shops at Home Depot, criticizes others who boycott those places because those places are LGBT friendly. STILL A BIGOT. <-----wonders why he is called a bigot if he shops at LGBT friendly places, even if that isn't his reason for doing so. STILL A BIGOT. <-----does not have any LGBT friends, but has friends who happen to be LGBT (there's a difference). STILL A BIGOT. (even though it's an insult to his friends who happen to be LGBT) See where I'm going with this?
1 reply
Just one thing, shortly, since I've already debated you. Remember, Adolph Hitler was a minor politician at one time. Point being, you may think that these mayors are minor politicians (and there were three or more), but that is how suppression starts. Remember, one of them, the mayor of the third largest city in the U.S., used to be President Obama's chief of staff and more likely still has his ear. That is power for such a minor politician. Be it the President or the local dog catcher, violation of a person's freedom of speech by a employee of the government in his/her official capacity as such is wrong on any level.
1 reply
Who defines "harmed?" If I call you a nasty name, I have "harmed" you; however, if I falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded building I have also "harmed" those who get trampled in the ensuing panic. I'm sure you know the difference in importance between the two.
1 reply
No Socrates, I don't regret a thing and I need not defend my actions. I will explain them if I feel I need to. I WAS NOT in solidarity with anyone. You can "call me out" all you want, it's not gonna change a thing nor would I care that you did. Those mayors blatantly stated that they wanted and threatened to ban Chick-fil-A specifically, as one mayor put it, CFA does not share the "values" of their cities. Nothing was ever mentioned of the reason being because that CFA violated a damn thing. How many mayors you know of "investigate" a business by publicly threatening to ban them and then ridicule that business? As far as the "press teams" go, they say "yes" to the politician that they work for, point blank. And where does everybody get this idea that I was for or against boycotting? I never mentioned such thing. The only thing that I agree with you on your spiel about me is that you stated that you believed that I was at times being a dick and at other times I was not. This I think is cool and respect you for.
1 reply
Do you know that the ACLU fights the law that makes pilot, train operators, or operators of public transportation get drug tested if they are in an accident while doing their jobs? Do you know that the ACLU is against registration for sex offenders? Those are some of the "bad" things that the ACLU does, but they are overshadowed by the good things that the ACLU does to promote free speech. Point is, when you give your money to the ACLU to further free speech you are also giving to further the "bad" things that the ACLU does. It is the same thing that when I gave my money to CFA to support free speech, I inadvertently and unintentional gave to further their "hate." Funny how that works, huh?
1 reply
And there aren't two reasonable sides why? Because you believe and say that there aren't? Ha! People like you will never believe people who say it's a matter of free speech no matter how much we try to explain it to you. This is because you want to pigeon-hole us in to one category: Chick-fil-A worshipers who are against same-sex marriage and "hayte dem gay queers." You do this because it makes you feel comfortable because you refuse to understand the real and different reasons that most people have for being on the opposing side. To do so might confound you. You can continue to blindly call me a bigot. This is not your freedom of speech, but your opinion, which I respect your right to give. Just remember; however, that I will not stoop or resort to calling you an insulting, defaming, and baseless label.
1 reply
Funny how you cited how Adam Smith's employer firing him for what he said is not a violation of his freedom of speech but neglected to mention how the government (via self-righteous mayors)tried to penalize Dan Cathy's opinion is not a violation of his freedom of speech. Do you know why? Because you can't. One "oppressor" is an employer who can't "violate" free speech because it does not have the power to grant freedom of speech, the other "oppressor" is the government, which does have the power to grant freedom of speech, thus it has the power to violate the freedom of speech. So, in fact, there is no "misunderstanding" when it comes to "our" knowledge of what freedom of speech is.
1 reply
Thank you for providing a reference, I stand corrected on not knowing any groups try to take pro-LGBT companies to task. I wish there were more people like you that will cite references in a debate rather than just replying with empty rhetoric. As far as not wanting OMM seeing traffic come from this site, why care? The context of why it would be coming from this site is true, why pander to what OMM members think or opine? I never said it was wrong for LGBT to boycott Chick-fil-A. It's not wrong. It is the right of any group or person to boycott any company that person or group wants with or without reason. In fact, I don't think that the word "boycott" was ever written by me about this issue on the various medias that I use. As far as the "right" is concerned, I neither advocate nor defend them, I concern myself with the center.
1 reply
See my reply to Hlots11 below as my reply to you is almost a duplicate.
1 reply
Yes, I understand the argument to be made that it was a different time back them. However, people must be willing to take casualties in the name of their cause. You can never escape the casualties if you are going to successfully fight for or defend your cause. It is inevitable. By waiting all these years to further the LGBT cause, thousands of LGBT members suffered and became casualties without lifting a finger to fight for or defend their cause. The proponents and recipients of civil rights for blacks did not wait for the right time, they fought for and defended their cause from 1865 all the way to the present. The Jews, Christians, the American colonies, nations of Africa, and all manner of oppressed groups throughout human history did not wait for the right time, they fought and defended in the here and now. Do you think that people like Martin Luther King,Jr., Gandhi, and, even, Jesus Christ would have laid down and rolled over if they knew that furthering their cause would mean their deaths. HELL NO! Like I said, there are casualties in any defense or fight for a cause. The smart thing is to figure if the cause is worth it and if the participants are willing to endure it. So, to say that nothing could have been done until mass media could inform the populaces is just a cop-out. As for Dan Cathy "opening his mouth," nothing would have happened if those mayors hadn't threatened Chick-fil-A, Mike Huckabee et al. hadn't of attacked, and the LGBT hadn't counter attacked. So, in essence, either nobody was wrong or everybody were wrong in this issue.
1 reply
Okay, I get that you weren't trying to generalize and you were mainly targeting people you know. I actually wanted to delete that part of my response;, however, I did not think about doing it in time. Hence, my addendum. Since you did explain your comments, I will say that maybe you should have been more clear on who you were targeting. As for agreeing with the Catholic Church making me a bigot, I never wrote that I agreed with it. I merely stated that I give to a Catholic-based charity. It does not matter to me who runs the charity. I give for a specific purpose; that being to honor Molly Hightower. If that makes me a bigot, then it makes her a bigot too. She died for her cause of helping the children of Haiti. What have you done for your cause lately? As far as the freedom of speech reason being, in your opinion, just an excuse or a farce, let me try to explain it where you can understand (I don't mean to sound condescending) At least three mayors of major U.S. cities stated that they would ban Chick-fil-A operations in those cities based solely on the private opinion of the chief operating officer of that company. They did not threaten the ban because of the company's operating principles because they would have done so earlier in time. These are mayors who represent the government. As it is only the government that can give, suppress, or otherwise penalize a person's freedom of speech, the mayors of these cities were trying to penalize Dan Cathy's freedom of speech by threatening to ban the company he works for and partly owns. Any government interference does not sit well with me, so I felt it was my conviction to support Chick-fil-A, and to an extent Dan Cathy, on this issue. As just merely saying that I support CFA on this issue was not enough (words are not enough and most of the time worthless), I realized I needed to support CFA financially at least once. If it had been just a group like LGBT railing against CFA I would not have cared about supporting CFA, but it was the effing government. Tell me, if a mayor, or mayors, had wanted to ban a company that advocates your cause wouldn't you want to show support to that company by any actions you could? Many others feel the same way that I do. That is why it was partly, not wholly, about free speech. Oh, and by the way, it was the first time I've eaten at CFA in at least five years partly because I do not like their philosophy. But just this once the greater issue of freedom of speech outweighed my personal opinion about CFA. That is why, to me, it was about freedom of speech. I don't care if you disagree as long as you understand. Lastly, I did not eat there on that Wednesday....I do not subscribe to the herd mentality nor will I be influenced by what a political pundit says to do.
1 reply
It's not a matter of finding a non-Catholic charity, it's a matter of that it does not bother me to have picked a Catholic charity. That is besides the point, however. I chose Friends of the Orphans to honor Molly Hightower. It had nothing to do about who actually ran the charity. I was actually against aid to Haiti because I felt that the attention was focused there and not toward the afflicted here in the Untied States. When I read about Molly shortly after the earthquake I change my mind.(It's nice to have the benefit of flexible beliefs) Do you not believe that any person or organization can do incredibly good things even though he/she or it has done, or is continuing to do, what would be viewed by some as bad things? Look at yourself. I am sure that you done bad in your life. I'm sure that the good that you've done has overshadowed and outweighed that. We are all flawed, but it is the great things we do that deem us good.
1 reply
But, see that's the beauty of the whole concept of an unabashed opinion. It requires neither discussion, consent, acceptance, explanation, nor a "reasoned" conclusion. It is up to the giver to decide if he/she wants to discuss, debate, explain, or otherwise follow-up to his/her opinion. If the person giving the opinion has followers who agree with the opinion, then a "reasoned" conclusion has been reached. I did not realize that you are Canadian and did not know about Chick-fil-A. I will try not to assume as much in the future.
1 reply
Oh, but it is a matter of freedom of speech when the matter entails mayors (government officials) of at least three major American cities threatening to deny Chick-fil-A operating permits in "their" cities based on their reaction to Dan Cathey's opinion. As a high school instructor, you should very well know that the issue of freedom of speech is not person to person, group to person, or group to group, but government to person. Those mayors were threatening to use the power of government to harm the interests of Chick-fil-A based on what the COO said, thus penalizing his freedom of speech.
1 reply