This amounts to "bitches be lyin". And you wonder why you're on the block bot?
I think this moves you to level 2. Congrats.

Sorry, in my second post I meant to
point out that you NOW know, as I told you in my first post. I realize that wasn't clear. It's 4:00am in Tokyo and I've been up all night with the flu, so please forgive me for not being very coherent.

But, as I asked, do you think you made a mistake in writing this story without thoroughly researching all the angles?  When I watch TV or read the news, I'm always aware that what I'm watching or reading  may not contain all the info I need to form an opinion. I am also aware that reports are edited to make them more sensationalistic. I usually read several different versions of the story, especially if it is a negative one, or one that makes claims that blacken someone's reputation. You however seem quite happy to assume oolon either had a hand in editing that report so that it would mention the levels yet leave out any mention of the difference between them (highly doubtful) or else he's now lying about the fact it's been edited in a way he's not happy with.

I'm more than just a little sick of commenters on this blog constantly calling those they disagree with liars when they *have no reason to lie*. If he were happy with the BBC coverage why would he now be complaining about it? What possible reason would he have for lying about the piece being edited? Further, we all know TV shows liberally edit stories to make them more sensationalistic- why drop your skepticism now, and deny that it could have happened in this case, too?

Sorry, but I think you're biased because you don't like oolon, and it's effecting you're journalistic integrity. At the VERY least you should contact oolon (you can find him easily enough over on FtB comments section) and ask him yourself- don't take MY word for it - go find out for yourself.

FYI, I have no stake in protecting oolon's reputation. I don't know the dude, never interacted with him, and had no idea who he was before this. I simply saw something I thought was unfair and unbalanced, and commented on it.

That's the problem with making blanket statements without quantification. You can't say "Men aren't raised to hate women" anymore than you can say "women aren't raised to hate men", because it can and does happen. If you are interested in being honest and truthful, then you need to stop making blanket statements and start quantifying.

Because I told you just now. Why do you think I posted that? It looked like you didn't know, so I thought I should let you know what he has been saying. If you want to read the comments he wrote, just go over to Butterflies and Wheels or Almost Diamonds and read the blog posts on the topic, because he's been discussing it in the comment section over there for the last couple of days. I'm sure that if you ask him yourself, he'll answer.

Question: as a blogger, do you think you are obligated to present all the facts of a situation to give your audience a well-rounded view? And do you feel it is your duty to do research so as to find all angles of the story before you publish it? Further, if you do accidentally miss an important piece of information that if left out might skew the reader's view or give them a mistaken impression do you feel it is your duty to edit your post or otherwise correct the error?

TV programs regularly cut and edit interviews to suit their own needs and/or agendas. oolon's claim is perfectly consistent with this well-known practice. d I'd say that if you're going to flat out accuse him of lying, you'd better have more evidence than "because I think he's a liar" and a better reason for him to lie than "because he is a liar".

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but ordinary claims like "my interview was cut short by the BBC" should not.

Empathy means understanding how someone feels from their point of view. That is, even if something would not personally bother you, you can still acknowledge their pain and feel sympathy for the person who is experiencing that pain.

But when someone expresses pain, your only response has ever been, "That wouldn't hurt me. Why do they care? They should just grow a thicker skin and get over it already." Clearly, you, Cephus, are completely lacking in empathy. Time and again you show that you feel your own personal standard is the standard that should be applied across the board to everyone, despite the fact that you know that you are particularly hardened.

And a lack of empathy is a HUGE part of the problem. People who cannot empathize with others cannot call themselves humanists.

When a boy has a misogynistic father, that is usually what winds up happening though. So yes, it can happen.

You did not, anywhere in that post, acknowledge that leaving off that information was the choice of the BBC and that oolon was not responsible for the way the BBC presented it. To be fair, you really should have pointed out that oolon himself was upset with the way the BBC edited him.

Oolon said that they cut the part of his interview where he explained the levels and the criteria for each. It's not his fault that they left that part off. If you're going to be upset with anyone, be upset with the BBC.

Apparently level 3 is "just annoying", or something to that effect. If I were put on someone's block as "just annoying" it would make me giggle. I'm rather proud of being annoying to the people who don't like me. :)

I live in Japan, which is one of the most secular countries in the world. I rarely if ever meet a Japanese person who believes in a god or who is anything more than culturally religious. But that doesn't mean I see Japan as my "community". It takes more than a belief or disbelief in a god to make a community. You have to share other values, and have other things in common, too.

I'm an atheist, but I've met plenty of atheists who don't share my values. I don't see myself as being in any way obligated to consider them a part of my community, nor are they obligated to be part of mine. In fact, I'm perfectly fine with just completely ignoring their existence.