“There's no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”
by Shlomo Aharonisky




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

quote of the day – michael z. williamson

Say something negative about a homosexual, and you will suddenly find yourself being accused of "hate speech".

Criticize Our Glorious President, and you are obviously "racist".

Point out that our government is heading down a fiscally unviable path, and you will be labeled a "terrorist".

What do all of those examples have in common? People are attempting to silence you by means of social ostracization. Why? Because they disagree with what you have to say, and have no better argument to bring to bear against you than calling you names. Make sure you understand that point – you have a difference of opinion with some people, and rather than rationally consider the positions and present a reasoned argument, those people would rather force you into silence through societal pressure.

Force. Granted, force that is purely based on your willingness to accept the titles of "hate speech" or "racist" or "terrorist" and all of the social baggage that come with them, but force nonetheless.

And that blatant use of naked force makes those people exactly the same as the kinds of folks Michael Z. Williamson is talking about here:

Those particular Muslims need to get over it. This is the 21st Century, not the Dark Ages, and they need to accept that large numbers of us have no interest in or outright distaste for their god and prophet (may bees pee on him). People DO have the right to burn the US Flag, crap on their holy book (or any other holy book), call them names and otherwise express positions that are valid, invalid, well-considered or off the cuff.

So regardless of what anyone thinks of West’s statements, I believe they are necessary, and I endorse their presence, without comment on their content.

You have every right to be offended at whatever your little heart desires. Anything. Everything. Whatever. I do not care. I do not, however, have the right, nor should you have the ability, to force me to do anything on the basis of your irrational, emotional response to something I have said. You may not like what I have to say. You may not agree. You may not even listen. But you have no right to stop me from saying it (unless I am doing so on your property, or various other analogues). And I would not have it any other way.

This concept is probably why anti-rights cultists fear and hate us so much… Not only do we have the unmitigated gall to disagree with their authoritarian pipe-dreams, but we also have the willpower and the hardware necessary to keep them from forcibly silencing us. Which, when you get right down to it, was one of the primary reasons the Second Amendment was added to the United States Constitution.

3 comments to quote of the day – michael z. williamson

  • divemedic

    That is my litmus test for any population: The degree to which the population tolerates behavior that is different from the popular one held by that population. For example:

    – Christians are generally not freedom loving, in that they do not tolerate (and attempt to use force to oppose) gays, alcohol, rock music, and a host of others.

    – Similarly, liberals. They do the same with gun ownership, many forms of speech, and people with money.

    I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

  • Uhm, dude, not sure what sect or subsection of Christianity you are using for your stereotyping, but I can tell you that the Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians have no problems at all with the last three, and the last three of those sects have increasingly-smaller problems with the first.

    Now, if you want to talk about Southern Baptists or Fundies, you are right on the money, but I would hardly claim they constitute a majority, or even a plurality…

  • Braden Lynch

    I agree with Linoge, mostly. Christians are not oppressive over most of the listed items and their only real responses are to declare something is sinful and confront and/or shun those who will not correct their errors. For instance, the Bible states that drunkeness is undesirable (a lack of focus on God) and clearly indicates that all sex outside of marriage is sinful (e.g. pre-marital sex, extramarital affairs). Further, it identifies the sin of homosexuality as particularly egregious to God. Anyone (or any Christian denomination) that tells you that homosexuality is just perfectly fine with God is flat out wrong. Personally, I had to leave my Presbyterian roots behind because they found it easier to get along with the culture then to stand for what is right in God’s eyes.

    What is so important to note is that Christianity is a completely voluntary religion (forced conversion is simply impossible because a person is making an active choice to genuinely accept Jesus) and if you accept Him, you will acknowledge your sins and will work to correct them.

    Now, my sins are many and substantial, however, that is something I work on with my God.