MistWizard comments

Judderman said: How can you say that the church is not in a position to determine guilt.

Okay, from now on we let the church determine guilt and just jail who they point to. Better now?

Judderman said: this is only one example from one country but is typical of the sort of behaviour engaged in by the catholic church from top to bottom,from the vatican to grass roots level.

I guess one example will have to do as all the other names appear to be a secret. But the church did not set out to protect him. They set out to protect themselves. Protecting Smyth was just a byproduct. CYA becomes more understandable when you look at the pedo hysteria and the fact that the church would be tainted by it no matter what. The church did not come clean because, despite the fact that the church has a better record than even SCHOOLS, they know they will be singled out.

Judderman said: lets not get pedantic and split hairs on terminology here

Its not hair splitting. You could also just call them gay priests since the abusers tend to target boys. But the gay community would be up and arms and for good reasons. Falsely branding all pedophiles is the exact same thing. We are talking about sex abusing priests. Its not that hard to get your terminology straight.

Yes Mistwisard "PEDOPHILES" I no you hate that word

No. I hate misuse of the word. Back in the 50s, gay meant also communist and spy. Its not at all helpful to the question.

At 6:40 am I guarantee there were lots of other places a geezer could sit. I think the priority seat thing is just an excuse.

SuperLib said: So the more we give in to silly (as you put it) demands from Muslims the more chance we will have of winning the peace.

Ummmmm....no. I indicated one thing. You extrapolating that one thing in such a fashion is a symbol of how riduculous you have been lately.

Look, if moderate Muslims burn the American flag, do you think that will American willingness to help them will remain unchanged? Please. In fact, you and I both know that if EXTREMISTS burn the American flag, MODERATES will take the fall. Such is the idiocy of the human race, and if you fail to account for it, all you get is trouble.

Avoiding pissing off your neighbor is being characterized as walking on egg shells. Man, I am glad I do not live next to such people anymore. I had to cross the Pacific, but man, it was worth it.

Brilliant strategy. That will certainly force the intolerant to become more tolerant.

I was not aware that you were beating your head against a wall that hard. Rest assured, I am not. All I am talking about is not stepping on the toes of the majority of peaceful Muslims. If you want to step on the toes of intolerants, so long as you don't step on the toes of moderates at the same time, go right ahead. I know that dart board and urinal inserts of Osama bin Laden's face did not have quite the effect you wanted. Too friggen bad.

Zenny11 said: In an ideal and perfect world it SHOULD work like that, there I agree.

Totally. But last I checked it still was not a perfect world. Somebody notify me if that changes.

Also, in a perfect world, 999 out of 1000 Muslims whose toes you stepped on would accept that you are just exercising your rights when you drew Mohammad. So when the 1 out of 1000 who gets serious about killing you make a death threat, they would chase him to the ends of the Earth. But this not being a perfect world, when you step on the toes of so many people, they find it rather easy to look the other way as a man who is scum even in their eyes threatens you life.

This is quite similar to the often expressed hope that one pays the consequences of dropping the soap in prison. One might justly hope for extra punishment for one prisoner, but why should another get rewarded? That aspect is over-looked and condoned for the sake of wrath. They do it. We do it.

But if you want the majority of Muslims firmly on our side fighting extremists, not drawing Mohammad is surely a tiny price to pay. Drawing Mohammad and sabotaging that chance is retarded any way you slice it.

adaydream said: I think the Pope is a hypocrite. He protected pedophile priests and acts so concerned. < :-)

One would think educated people at least could get their terminology straight. Pedophile priests are not a problem. Child sex abusing priests are.

And the spin. If anything happened it was the church protecting itself, not the alleged sex abusing priests. I say "alleged" because whatever cover-ups there were, the church is (thank God) not in a postition to determine guilt.

And I have asked several times for specific names of priests who were "protected" but everyone declines to name any. What I have seen indicates that few of these cases are as simple as people make them out to be.

Mexico needs martial law and needs to ask the U.S. to help enforce it.

Judderman, you have never been in a sex toy shop in Japan, have you?

MisterCreosote said: Seriously, I have to ask, as someone who has voted Democrat more than Republican, where in America did you grow up?

All you need to know is that is I grew up surrounded by war loving intolerant conservative rednecks.

But my comment has as much to do with comments here as anything.

thetruthhurts said: The simple question is should this cartoonist have the right to offend others without worrying about being killed or not?

Its not a simple question. That is why we use analogies. Having the right to do something does not necessarily mean society has to do something special to protect them doing it. All this woman started was a round of hate speach, some as the idiot pastor Jones, same as a KKK rally. If those people want to take their chances doing it, its one thing, but to expect society to grant them special protections above those already in place? No way. The FBI should not be protecting this idiot. She should hire her own bodyguards. Yeah, I know she is the one paying, but its government employee time being WASTED on her.

SezWho2 said: But at last, I think, we have reached the heart of the matter.

I don't know. Such an outrageous accusation would seem to indicate a simple desire to feel effectual by causing trouble. Does he really think we are anti-American? Does he really think he is so pro-American? I don't think he is really that dumb. So I think he is just being the conservative that can't enjoy a meal unless he knows someone else is going hungry and doing the "my group, your group" labeling thing and doing his best to just feel superior and to heck with anything that looks like a principle.

SuperLib said: So then you probably wouldn't care if the US government banned pictures of Mohammad.

That is whole different ball game. I am pretty upset with a whole host of government bannings despite the fact that most have nothing to do with me.

>Well when you completely remove the illegitimacy of the anger from the table then I suppose anyone "has it coming" for doing anything that gets anyone else angry, no matter what it is. Your defense sounds like what wife beaters say....she had it coming. Pretty silly justification, isn't it?

Well, let us suppose a husband hates natto and has declared it a thousand times. He comes home from work and the wife has cooked natto for dinner...again. If he beats his wife I think he should go to jail. But if she asks to stay at my place to avoid another beating, I will probably decline. Reason: It looks like she is making trouble to enjoy trouble, and that kind of drama, I don't need in my house.

MisterCreosote said: Why can't you get specific? Who are these rich that you speak of? 250 grand/yr is not that much.

There is no hard and fast answer, but anyone who knows beans about business will tell you that any small business making that much profit for its owners is cream of the crop and can afford an increase in taxes. 250 thousand is EIGHT TIMES what I make a year. If I can afford to pay the RIDICULOUS taxes I pay, they still got it easy by a WIDE margin.

What line of work are/were you in the States?

I left the States with a business degree. Hardly worked there at all. Don't tell me: you value one man's anecdotes over general knowledge of business right? Unless of course my anecdotes delivered the same results then you would ask my major, right? You are just going to say anything, and we all know that. You hope to score points for the GOP by means of any sort of positive message. You won't talk about the bills in election time. Yeah, we noticed.

Judderman said: i think it works both ways

I don't. The amount of yen invested by females compared to males is tiny. I would wager that most vibrators are bought by men and used by men on women rather than women buying them for themselves or using them alone.

Women spend too much on make-up and clothes to buy sex toys. And they spend too much time watching dramas to watch porn.

limboinjapan said: I Think one of the biggest differences and/or problem with hard line Islam compared to other religions and what makes Islam stand out is the violence and threats that are associated or attributed to it, is that there are numerous countries of which the governments actually indorse, promote and apply these more hard line views of Islam.

For once we agree. But this is, of course, almost but not quite balanced by the threats and violence of the so called "secular" governments of mostly Christian countries. Bombs from the air are not only outnumber terrorist bombings in tonnage and civilian deaths, but they even more cowardly. People of western nations, especially those of the U.S., smash more mirrors than a vampire.

WilliB said: How convenient it is to bury the head in the sand, isn´t it.

One would have to be incredibly loopy to think I have a secret desire to draw Mohammad.

We also have the freedom to run around town yelling FU to everyone passer-by. If you want to prove your free speech rights (and you dont, you just want to annoy people), why not do that instead, and see what it nets you. It would surely be braver than annoying people mostly half a world away.

Face it. The election will primarily be about how rich Americans feel today and to hell with the bills. And Superman himself could not have fixed the economy in the 2 and half years Obama has had the presidency. In fact, nobody can fix the economy. That is all luck. All the government can do is not mess it up. I cannot say the government under Obama is any worse on that score than Bush. But at least under the Dems we are more fixed on cleaning up messes than we were under Bush and his cabal, who only created the messes.

SushiSake3 said: MistWizard - good post. Pity the majority of conservatives can't see reality as clearly like you do.

Thanks. But I think there are plenty on both sides who will choose pretty GOP lies to Democrats toeing the line between honesty and popularity. It say that because we both know total honesty is political suicide in any case. Most voters are children really.

Bebert61 said: But you see, things were much, much worse when Africa was under colonial control of the evil Europeans, right?

Well, that is not fair. One could easily think Africa that never experienced colonialism would not be this bad. But the Eurpeans left big black holes in leadership all over Africa and the worst of the worst have filled them.

And let us not forget the bad guys outsiders supported while at the same time assassinating much better people.

Anyway, I wish there were some solution to this sort of backwardness, but I have no idea what it could be and still be humane.

limbo, you cannot compare a religious requirement that has no real effect on none but the requiree with a custom done for a practical purpose!

You take your shoes off to prevent wear and tear on the floor and also to keep the floor clean. That is to the benefit of all.

Removing the veil or headscarf does not benefit society except to alay some petty emotion in some self-righteous individuals.

Besides, with the shoes, EVERYONE is inconvenienced for a greater benefit. With the headscarves etc. society inconveniences an unlucky few with no greater benefit. In fact its a detriment. If the French don't grow up with these things around, they will never learn tolerance for them.

SuperLib said: It must be comforting to know that you're willing and able to live in the confines of limited expression simply because you don't want to say the things you're not allowed to say.

Where did you get "not allowed to say"? I am allowed. I would be quite angry if I weren't. And I sometimes am over other things because my freedom of speech IS being curbed, but not about Mohammad at all. Its too bad you got blinders on about this because we have real free speech trouble and pictures of Mohammad is not one of them. Its a mere sideshow.

And nice job turning the concept of freedom of expression into a simple case of want and coincidence.

Nice job trying to twist this. I have things I want to say that I am not allowed, even right here. I got an inbox full of removed posts and not one of them is about drawing Mohammad.

But I can't say I believe you. If you WANTED to draw picture of Mohammad you wouldn't do it in a way that would be noticed because you know there's a chance you'd get killed.

Probably. But it hardly precludes the fact that I don't give a crap for pictures of Mohammad. There are many other things more dear to me that I don't express because they could get me worse than killed. And like I say, other things are getting curbed anyway.

Surely you can form an opinion as to the legitimacy of the anger. Either that or you just threw your weight behind every wife beater in America.

Slowly and carefully, explain how you arrived at that riduculous notion.

Yeah, it's just a silly little thing.

Yeah, it is. It serves no practical purpose to anyone in any way.

But seriously, don't ever do it or you might get killed. And you'll go to your grave knowing you got no sympathy from Misty because you were just asking for trouble for breaking their silly little rules.

No. Don't you read? They get no sympathy for setting out to make people angry and nothing more. If pictures of Mohammad will so much as keep the cockroaches out of people's houses, I will risk death from the minority who would threaten me. I am not chicken Super. I push boundaries all the time.

Me: I am FIERCLY free speech. Super: Well, obviously not.

Why don't you take that one up with the editor? He will most likely tell you that I am militant.

Dems are between a rock and a hard place. Voters are unforgiving and angry because the fire rages and Dems have not put it out. And the irrational state of anger may well lead them to putting back into power the very people who started the fire in the first place! Duh! How quickly people forget! The only positive message would be a lie. And such lies are a Republican trait, not a Democrat one.

Obama has done a good job on several fronts. Our image in the world has improved. He is not letting up on the rich, the only people who have a chance in hell of reducing our national debt. He has kept many more of his promises that W. But most of all he has not started any stupid crap like W. My main problem with Obama is bailouts, but W did the same thing! So the Dem leader looks good.

As for Dems in general, what have they done? I don't know, maybe not much. But better them the ones who messed the country up. There is no third choice so I would go with the Dems. And if you really care, do that and get politically active. We can't trust politicians of either side, but we can only trust Republicans to make the same messes they did under W.

dolphingirl, I think what he means is that with many of these things you don't need a woman at all, ie. dolls or just copies of female body parts, as well as videos.

I don't mind the upsurge of such things persee, but the upsurge in their poplularity is a problem. Men are generally born poor communicators and Japanese men are not getting the training they need to overcome natural male difficulties. The result is a poor sex life and that is not good for anything but the solo sex toy business.

Well, apologies from the current government and companies for actions in WWII are utterly meaningless. All that can really be expected is for the government and companies to recognize what happened (finally) and the only thing to apologize for is the delay in recognition. I supposed the government could also (forcefully) request individual apologies from any person who was actually behind their treatment, whether government or company person, if those evil sods are still alive.

If we talk compensation though, the companies should pay them back wages plus interest. The government should pay them for the government dragging their feet for 70 years.

But it says one of the men is seeking justice? Well, he should have hunted those responsible down and started a long time ago. And the slow torture and murder of Shiro Ishii would have been a good general start for everyone and easy too as that monster spend a lot of time yucking it up in America after the war getting paid by American companies (sick).

limboinjapan　said: Why must everyone else change to suit them?

No one is being asked to change with the masks and headscarves but the wearers!!! Why must they change to please everybody else???

MisterCreosote said: Hey MystWizard, the cartoonist in question is a woman. Now she faces a fate like that of Asma' Bint Marwan.

Her gender is not very important. Her playing with fire for no good reason is the point. I have no pity for how she gets burnt, but if anyone harms her I hope they get the max sentence.

I will put dollars to donuts that the teen driver of the bike is at fault. But Japanese law won't see that way no matter how he/she is at fault by any sensible standard. That means whether the driver of the car runs and gets caught, or stays, he/she will get railroaded by the system. No extra points for being a good samaritan. But if he/she runs there is a chance of not getting railroaded, and that is why they run.

I feel most Japanese will readily take responsibility for what they are responsible for. But responsibility is not meted out in a person to person rational manner in Japan. It is meted out in a "larger societal benefit" and if individuals get crushed to attain it, the system does not care. Its a pretty crappy way to handle traffic accidents, and they have not yet copped on to the fact that the larger societal benefit is not being obtained this way now if it ever was.

limboinjapan said: 1-) First school regulations do not allow any "hats" wile in school so that means not Kippah, cap, etc.

As far as I know the kippah was ok until what, 2004? I don't know about hats in schools in France. Oh well. I guess you can still have wigs over your kippah! And I wonder what other headgear for girls is going to be acceptable? A bandana is OK, just so long as you aren't Muslim? Won't that be fun?

Next in line will be Jewish braids and circumcision, because we would not want to see religious symbols in the shower room.

And another thing: The French WILL NOT become more tolerant for lack of exposure to these things. In fact, they will become LESS tolerant.

When some one move to a new place or country they must agree to follow that places rules

But that conflicts with the promise of religious freedom. For some, these things are not options, but rather religious duties, and they are being forced to shirk them despite the things not actually causing a problem.

SuperLib said: You mean like countering intolerance that aims to eliminate free speech?

Oh jeez! Must you be such a drama queen? I am more upset that I can't hear the F word on prime time TV, nor can I see full frontal nudity. Pictures of Mohammad? Don't care to see any. That said, I WILL draw pictures of Mohammad if I WANT to, but I don't want to. And most who do only want to to make someone angry...and then they cry foul when they succeed.

I am FIERCLY free speech. But I have no sympathy for people who just use it to cause trouble. Of course Muslims have a silly prohibition in this, but if you step on their toes just to step on their toes, don't ask me to protect you.

Eight grade is no longer a kid. I doubt this was self defense. Mostly likely they beat the roo to death for the fun of it. Odds are they would not think of doing that a person at all, but hey, doing this to an animal is bad enough. My punishment would be SEVERE.

illsayit said: Mist, youre forgetting quality of life.

What is that compared to premature death? Don't need the queen either.