[cannon7]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, I wanted to address this, what do you feel has crossed the line into "personal"? All my criticisms have been of your ideas, not you as a person. It is not up to me nor is it up to anyone else to walk you through why you're wrong, finding those answers is your responsibility, but people have certainly tried. Your ideas/points/opinions have ranged from false to complete nonsense.

"You're wrong" is not a position. Well, it is, but it's a position typically held by a six year old who lacks the intellect to elaborate. Guess I expect more substance, but that's just me. Maybe you've won everyone over as their hand wavy moral leader.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You blamed the CBC and by extension the government for Don's firing, it was fully explained why this was wrong and didn't make sense.

No I didn't. Re-read the comment. The sentence starts with "imagine". In the United States if that scenario had played out it would be a first amendment issue.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You then mentioned "the chilling effect" which, again, is not true or representative of the situation.

Laziest. Rebuttal. Ever. Care to explain why? You have yet to even try to make a case. This is the problem with your debating in general, "you're wrong" is not a position worth considering. I linked to the article on "the chilling effect" to benefit those unfamiliar with the term, would you like me to quote the relevant bits?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You used an incomplete definition of racism, and when provided with the correct definition, you shrugged it off.

I didn't define racism. My point was that the term "racist" is thrown around so much and stretched so thin that the dictionary can't even keep up. Look up the word "irregardless", it's definition is "regardless" -- people use words wrong, or hell, make them up. Hardly a basis for anything.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You've suggested immigrants don't care about this or that most don't even know who Don Cherry is. Not only is there evidence in this thread refuting the former, but you couldn't possibly know the latter.

Are you arguing that the exception proves the rule here? Would be par for the course.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You've claimed people who assume he was talking about immigrants of differences races are the racist ones, this ignores basic logic and Cherry's statement.

No. Again, you completely miss the point.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You've suggested we're in "thought crime" territory. This is false, the consequences were based on what he said, not what he might think.

Yeah, and that's ridiculous. Sorry.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You've repeated mischaracterized other posters points and ideas while suggesting people are mischaracterizing Cherry's. This is not only hypocritical, but it's one of the reasons why your contributions have not been effective. This includes framing someone who doesn't like intolerance as "intolerant" and suggesting that anyone has implied Canadians don't talk to immigrants.

Yup. That's what I did. If you're only capable of a literal interpretation, I guess.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, I'm sorry, but if you want to "push the discussion" and not simply have people tell you that you're wrong, stop spreading false information, stop applying the wrong definition of things that are already defined, and stop mischaracterizing others with the constant, tiring, "no, it's actually you who is intolerant/racist/bigot" etc. etc. It's hard to have a discussion under these circumstances, so, do you actually want one?

Again, these are criticisms of your ideas. Who you are is and has been irrelevant to the conversation, so please stop pretending it's personal.

I don't go around calling people racist. The point was to make the case that those who are could themselves be perceived as racist and as such should maybe think before they post. Clearly you missed the point. But that's OK, I'm used to that by now.