And again.....

One might wonder what the point of Leftist censorship is if the Leftist who loses an argument reeeally seems to want to continue it anyway. He's probably still trying to think of something to say against the basic biosocial facts having to do with the complementarity of the sexes. (Or his own illiteracy in not knowing of the existence of words like complementarity? Who can say....I need to be writing parables, but I'll spare some time again. After all, here I do not have to worry about censorship, illiteracy or sniveling about writing too fast for some little fellows.)

"Come on, tell the truth. You all missed mynym, didn't you? Well let me show you his latest bit of stupidity, wherein he takes me to task for opposing censorship by a public university while banning him from leaving comments here. It seem that our favorite little halfwit still doesn't recognize the difference between a private forum and a public one."

So he's borrowing my writing against him, apparently. The problem that is left on the social Left are the nitwits who deny the spirit of the writ. They are human, all too human, almost just humus. They are those who know not the spirit of the writ, until the verse that brings their hearse. They perceive, yet do not conceive, and so only deceive. Who will exchange the conceptual for the perceptual?

He lacks principle. How will you advocate to make laws without adhering to principles?

"The Constitution's free speech provision applies to governments...."

But a principle that the law is based on applies to all.

"...not to privately owned webpages, or family homes, or even privately owned businesses."

Why even bother having a section for comments or dialogue if one only wants a monologue? He has his little yes men, that is certain. Left2Right does the same thing, and so does the Panda's Thumb, all these Leftist blogs seem to censor. This does not surprise me in the least. If these people actually had power they would rationalize censorship based on their principles and then the law would begin to reflect that. He is arguing backward, that he law comes before principles.

"This webpage, on the other hand, is privately owned. I pay for the domain name and for the web hosting. So guess what? I decide what is allowed to be posted here and what does not."

I.e., his blogs reflect the principles he upholds. Imagine that, and one of his principles is censorship on a forum in which political speech takes place. The position that social Leftists come to is the exact opposite of the Founders. They seek to protect non-speech like pornography and do away with free political speech through the latest "reforms" in campaign finance and so on.

"Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want to anyone you want at any time or place you choose."

I didn't say it did. I say that a blog based on political writings represents the writer's principles. The principle on the Left is censorship, illustrated from the Panda's Thumb to this fellow's blog too.

"It means that the government cannot restrain or punish your speech except in certain very narrowly drawn circumstances. It is perfectly legal for someone to rant and rave about how much they hate gay people, for example, and I would fight for their right to do so free from government interference."

The government is not all that censors. (Ever go to the video store and see, "The uncensored version!" Etc.) That's a silly argument. Ironically, censorship almost always seems to draw more attention to the subject than not because then people think it is worth censoring. (

"That is precisely why I oppose hate speech codes at public universities. But if you rant and rave like that at my home, I'm going to throw you out on your ass..."

It's very easy to censor these days, first you invent some Gay© People and then claim that someone hates your People. Then you are just protecting "them," you see.

I think I shall invent some Smart People and protect them from this fellow's inanity. They might illustrate the inanity of failing to see that the issue is one of principle, as that is how laws having to do with free speech get written in the first place. But I do not need to invent a group of Smart People and then claim that he hates them. I do not have any need to censor this little fella. It's the social Leftists of the universities and the blogs Left2Right, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Panda's Thumb, etc. It is a pattern right in the university itself, thanks to its Leftward tilt. That is why it is ironic that this fellow tries to set himself up to criticize the university based on legality instead of principle to avoid his own hypocrisy. That is an inversion, the principle makes for the law, not the other way around.

By the way, hatred and such judgments about intents and motivations are irrelevant, someone can love gays and still be being ignorant and stupid, while someone can hate gays and still be factually correct. Is hatred or love going to change such basic biosocial facts as the complementarity of the sexes? Nope. So why do social Leftists mainly argue about everyone's intents, motivations, supposed phobias and feeelings in general? Well, it's all really rather silly and it seems to have to do with a pattern of neurosis. But that is another issue. Suffice it to say that even if someone hates or loves(!), that will not change some basic forms of knowledge or the facts, logic or evidence on a public policy issue.

But hatred....don't you just hate that? How does that make you feel?

I feel fine, but I think this little fella will pretty consistently be trying to tell me what my feely feelings supposedly are. Hatred....or whatever he's most likely projecting at the moment. Feelings are like that, they're subjective, personal and your own more than anyone else's. You start dealing only in them and you're saying more about your subjective Self than much else.

Do I feel the same need to try to tell him what his feelings are? Nope.