Boazy, apparently, you can't tell the difference between a "show" and "film" (or what a porn movie looks like either it seems)...

So, Canada hosts a comedy film about sex at the Toronto Film Festival (it looks cool to me BTW), because it's some kind of inhuman rights gulag?

And that these films are just a tool to push an anti-faith-based agenda?

Seriously weird.

MR BOAZ: "...spikey (sic)...just makes an ad homimen. (Spikey.. don't bother I'm immune to them)."

Now lest you prove my point too readily, Mr BOAZ, can you tell me what specific parts of my utterance on the definition of a fact were ad hominem? And what particular parts were not factual?

Have you lost all ability to tell them apart? Or is this just another of your OLO ploys? After playing fast and loose with the facts, and been exposed, you attempt to turn that exposure into an allegation of ad hominen - in itself an ad hominen. Perfect irony (but probably too subtle for you).

Such an allegation might pass without scrutiny among the feeble-minded - but most reasonable readers of OLO I'm sure will not be deflected from an appreciation that you have a very weak grip on what constitutes a fact.

Spikey.. the last half of your post was in my view an adhominem.

Bugsy.. I'm wondering if you (and spikey) watched 60minutes 2night?

I'm not exactly surprise Bugsy that you 'like' that YPF show/movie and the fact that you chose to point to the rather irrelevant issue of it being a show or a film really contributed (not) to the topic.

Spikey.. if you wish to criticize me for factual error, then please provide some examples rather than just taking the cowards way of 'stating' it.

Am I factually incorrect on Islam? Am I factually incorrect on the legal actions against Ezra Levant and others in Canada?

Yes..I was "incomplete" about Green being physically jailed but making an issue of that is very cheap to say the least. He was convicted, by a court, based on a homosexuals complaint.. that's bad enough.

Mr BOAZ, you say "Yes..I was "incomplete" about Green being physically jailed but making an issue of that is very cheap to say the least. He was convicted, by a court, based on a homosexuals complaint.. that's bad enough."

I'm sorry, how can my correcting you on factual errors be a "cheap shot"?

Look again at your heavily-value-laden language: "he was convicted, by a court, based on a homosexuals complaint.. that's bad enough."

Pastor Green was convicted by a court on a person's complaint. Maybe you think homosexuals are not persons? If he broke the law, what does it matter what the orientation of the complainant?

How can it be a cheap shot ?

very simply Spikey... the source I referred to said

"Pastor gets prison"... do you honestly mean to say that 'gets prison' is not synonymous with 'goes to jail' ?

To find fault over that is pedantic in the extreme and is not correcting me on a factual ERROR based on my source, it is adding to the fulness of the story, and pointing out that there was an appeal which was succesful.

He was convicted on the basis of a HOMOSEXUAL persons complaint.. leaving out 'person' is quite legitimate like referring to a 'Catholics' complaint about job discrimination in Northern Ireland.
The orientation of the person is crucial for the story, hence it is legitimate to refer to them by that.

How is the persons sexual taste relevant? woooo..now THAT is a red rag to a raging bull to me.. it is ABsolutely relevant and central, because the law only CHANGED due to intense political lobbying and some might call it social terrorism by homosexual groups.
Outing, shaming, invading meetings.. shouting screaming, breaking the law themselves at the time... THAT is why it is absolutely relevant.

Hope that clarifies it.

I'm noticing a distinct tendency in these threads to hugely exaggerate, and massively generalize.

A tribunal in Alberta decides that a slap on the wrist is an appropriate remedy for some particularly inflammatory remarks about homosexuals.

From this isolated incident we are invited by Boaz to conclude that the globe is about to be overrun by NAMBLA.

>>In the USA the ACLU is defending...wait for it..NAMBLA. This is the same ACLU which fights tooth and nail against prayer in schools.. they support NAMBLA?<<

The idea being that once someone's freedom to insult people at will is curtailed, the doors are wide open to a torrent of totally unrelated abuses, because...

>>If we don't have 'A' limit or boundary..then where will it all end? we both know the answer to that. The changes to magazine advertising content 'adult' personals etc..and the plethora of hard core porn sites.. 'thats' where.. Then will be fulfilled the 'fall' part of "the Rise and Fall...of the West"<<

Reality check.

One court in Alberta tells off Pastor Boisson for overstepping the mark. Not a criminal offence, but an offence to a particular group of people.

Alberta's population is less than that of Melbourne. It was one case, determined on its merits. Since it was a tribunal, no decision is in any way binding on any other tribunal, let alone court.

Oh, and the Swedish case cited didn't actually result in a conviction, so proving that even in that bunch of radical Socialist welfare-niks, sanity does prevail.

Once again: what is this thread about?

Certainly nothing close to the end of civilization that Boaz fervently wishes.

And absolutely nothing of any substance.