Replies

I like to debate solutions but I don't like mindless "nuke them all" statements being liberally tossed into threads.

You would have been distressed and wringing your hands during the First and Second World Wars too, then. When a nation is under attack or at war, the popular sentiment of the people tends to become very aggressive. The enemy is demonized, e.g., "Huns," "Japs," etc, and many voices are heard demanding the annihilation of the enemy and everything associated with the enemy.

It just so happens that this particular enemy defines itself first and foremost in terms of its religious core. Therefore, it is understandable and natural that the popular sentiment of the people who have been targeted would also engage the struggle at the level of religion.

What you see as prejudice and bigotry I see as a rational survival mechanism and response of a people under violent attack.

Will Mecca be nuked? Of course not. But the enemy must be engaged and destroyed. In the heat of that effort, hyperbolic comments such as "nuke Mecca" from ordinary citizens are to be expected.

But that isn't what this thread is about. This thread is about the whiny, snivelling anti-FReepers who pout like three year-old children because Jim Robinson won't alow them free access to vandalize his home. Invariably, when they run away to form their own "completely uncensored" political debate site, it ends up a disaster as they begin to turn on and devour each other. The amusing thing is, they are wholly unable to see that they are the problem, and that's why there are no longer at FR.

I've said before that these dipwads would be incapable of setting up a workable government that allows liberty while maintining essential order. Their anti-FReeper sites prove it, albeit at the level of words. May their failure rest at that level forever. Chaos and cannibalism in the realm of words is of no great consequence; chaos and cannibalism in the realm of life is something else entirely--and not to be desired by any rational person.

What you see as prejudice and bigotry I see as a rational survival mechanism and response of a people under violent attack

I would call it emotional, not rational. And my original point was that those views are strictly uncensored as far as I can tell. Call it rational or call it venting, it's there and the mgt seems to like it that way.

This thread is about the whiny, snivelling anti-FReepers who pout like three year-old children because Jim Robinson won't alow them free access to vandalize his home. Invariably, when they run away to form their own "completely uncensored" political debate site, it ends up a disaster as they begin to turn on and devour each other.

Over and over again. Has anybody been keeping count?