Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

104. Re: Blizzard's BlizzCon Apology Oct 29, 2011, 16:42 Bhruic
Generally, you don't call someone you like a "total hypocrite"

I'll assume you were using the general "you" there? Because me liking someone wouldn't stop me from calling them a total hypocrite if that's what they were being.

I'm in no way being hypocritical - I have pointed out the distinct difference in the two scenarios so the fact the you choose to persist in claiming I am is further proof you have a bone to pick with me.

You haven't done anything to demonstrate that you are not. You are relying on the first amendment to support your position that people should be able to say what they wish without being "attacked" by organizations like GLAAD. But the exact same first amendment gives the right to organizations like GLAAD to make such "attacks". If you are for the former, but against the latter, that is a hypocritical position.

The only thing you've done so far is argue the degree of severity of each case. Fine, I'll grant that GLAAD uses their freedom of speech in more extreme ways than posters here have done. But that's more a situational issue than relevant to the matter at hand. Posters here have no influence to enact the sort of repercussions that an influential organization like GLAAD can. But even if they could, but weren't, how would the severity impact on freedom of speech? Your only argument would have to be (and has been) that the free speech that GLAAD is using shouldn't be acceptable. Which just leads right back to selective free speech.

I'm a bit surprised that someone who generally debates intelligently resorts to low-brow derailing tactics rather than addressing the point.

You didn't seem interested in addressing the point, you seemed more interested in issuing insults. Once someone starts insulting me to try and make their point, I take them much less seriously.

or do you wish to keep being pithy and obnoxious?

Apparently I'm making an exception in your case.

So now, did you want to discuss something of substance

If you want people to discuss substance, perhaps you shouldn't claim that you'll stop addressing their substance if they do discuss it.
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo