PDA

View Full Version : Free Speech Defeats British Again



AstroNoodle
19-07-2009, 07:11
Michael Savage: Pack your bags for England! (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104396)

Wodin
19-07-2009, 10:46
More like common sense comes to the fore again in Britain. It was a pretty stupid decision to ban that turd. I am very happy that the policy has been reversed and that now our Government will not prevent people, howsoever stupid and unpleasant they might be, from visiting.

I do hope however, that when this guy visits, if ever, and when the Hammas leadership visits if ever, or when an equally unpleasant bible basher preacher from the States visists, they would be monitored by our security services, and the moment they say something that breaches our hate laws, then the book is thrown at them, very hard.

Bels
19-07-2009, 17:31
I'm sure MI5, MI6, MI7 and MI8 will be monitering.

Carbo
19-07-2009, 23:47
I'm sure MI5, MI6, MI7 and MI8 will be monitering.

How many times have I told you not to mention MI8 around the Russians?

Anyway, Savage is a repulsive personality. Another sewer pipe sucker. He spouts a combination of blatant racism, lies, and ill thought out bar room philosophy.

In short, he's a c*nt.

However, I defend his right to be a c*nt in public in Britain.

The idea of banning him was ridiculous and an absolute blow to the idea of freedom -- but, in saying that, this government has about as much idea of freedom as.... oh, I'll not go there. But anyway, a defeat for decency, for sure, but a victory for freedom.

DDT
20-07-2009, 03:04
More like common sense comes to the fore again in Britain. It was a pretty stupid decision to ban that turd. I am very happy that the policy has been reversed and that now our Government will not prevent people, howsoever stupid and unpleasant they might be, from visiting.

I do hope however, that when this guy visits, if ever, and when the Hammas leadership visits if ever, or when an equally unpleasant bible basher preacher from the States visists, they would be monitored by our security services, and the moment they say something that breaches our hate laws, then the book is thrown at them, very hard.

Yeah that's right you little speech Nazi! You go, girl!

PS The toads who call for "your hate Laws" will be in turn for their time in prison.:floating:

Wodin
20-07-2009, 09:16
Yeah that's right you little speech Nazi! You go, girl!

PS The toads who call for "your hate Laws" will be in turn for their time in prison.:floating:

If a speech nazi is one who believes that nobody should be allowed to say things which are offensive to others, or say things that might encourage others to take action which is not sanctioned by Law against some other segment of society, then I am indeed proud to be one.

How that will land me in prison, together with any other opponent of hate speech, is not clear to me though. Fortunately, it seems unlikely that those who hold views similiar to yours will be in control any time soon.

quincy
20-07-2009, 09:48
I'm sure MI5, MI6, MI7 and MI8 will be monitering.


don't forget MI9;)

J.D.
20-07-2009, 18:58
If a speech nazi is one who believes that nobody should be allowed to say things which are offensive to others, or say things that might encourage others to take action which is not sanctioned by Law against some other segment of society, then I am indeed proud to be one.

.

Everything is offensive to somebody. 'Hate Laws' smack of pre-fascism.

And so does the idea that only things sanctioned by law are permissable.
In the best case that would be an extremely long list, but never an adequate one.

DDT
20-07-2009, 21:42
Yes, agreed the list never ends and when you are able to put someone on the "list" you can be sure that you will be on the list too some day. Unless you are willing to obey every whim of your government giving up your right to disagree.

"Hate speech" and "hate crime" laws are nothing but population control laws! They do not add safety. They do not stop crime! They simply make one class of society more "equal" than another.

trebor
20-07-2009, 22:07
Yes, agreed the list never ends and when you are able to put someone on the "list" you can be sure that you will be on the list too some day. Unless you are willing to obey every whim of your government giving up your right to disagree.

"Hate speech" and "hate crime" laws are nothing but population control laws! They do not add safety. They do not stop crime! They simply make one class of society more "equal" than another.

I'm not sure i agree.
I wouldn't want terrorists comming to the Uk. Full stop. Weather they preach or not. They are undesirable and we shouldn't allow them in.
What about convicted peadophiles? An extreme case scenario but what would you say then? Can we put them on them on a 'list'?

DDT
20-07-2009, 22:31
Terrorists and convicted felons (pedophiles) are already stopped or restricted from entering. We don't need hate laws to stop them. Hate laws are specifically for the average citizen.

Bels
20-07-2009, 22:44
The point is that Britain shouldn't have this list.They should simply shutup, and let them come in where they have the capability of watching them knowing where they are, anddealing with them where they are within their power. I believe they already do that, but some idiot has slipped up here to allow the media to bring it to attention to the public. It has has happened for many hundreds of years in Britain, but somehow this particularattention has been brought to the media where it doesn't belong.

crom
20-07-2009, 22:48
Hate crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Portal.svg" class="image"><img alt="Portal.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/Portal.svg/32px-Portal.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/c/c9/Portal.svg/32px-Portal.svg.png

this gives a pretty good view of the legislative condition in many countries without too much paranoia

DDT
20-07-2009, 22:50
Michael Savage is a different case and certainly beyond doubt harmless. Homeland knows this! It is purely political.

Philip73
21-07-2009, 00:42
I'm not sure i agree.
I wouldn't want terrorists comming to the Uk. Full stop. Weather they preach or not. They are undesirable and we shouldn't allow them in.

Already have plenty of UK passport-carrying terrorists. Don't mean Islamic ones either - just the Northern Ireland variety.

DDT
21-07-2009, 11:00
Personally, i don't hold too much hope in a country or people that has sank so far into the depths of depravity that they have outright banned Rodeos from their shores, anyway!
Are there any Real Men left in the UK?........... If so speak up.



I can only say that I was done a favor when my ancestors' prison sentence was, "Transportation"!

Thank you,
you Pommy B**tards.

Carbo
21-07-2009, 11:31
Personally, i don't hold too much hope in a country or people that has sank so far into the depths of depravity that they have outright banned Rodeos from their shores, anyway!
Are there any Real Men left in the UK?........... If so speak up.



I can only say that I was done a favor when my ancestors' prison sentence was, "Transportation"!

Thank you,
you Pommy B**tards.
Oh, God, you are Australian.

My estimation of that country has just plummetted.

Wodin
21-07-2009, 11:38
Yes, agreed the list never ends and when you are able to put someone on the "list" you can be sure that you will be on the list too some day. Unless you are willing to obey every whim of your government giving up your right to disagree.

"Hate speech" and "hate crime" laws are nothing but population control laws! They do not add safety. They do not stop crime! They simply make one class of society more "equal" than another.

Hate speech and hate crime laws also deter people from whipping up a rabble to, for instance, hunt the jews, or deter individuals from preaching "death to the Kufr", or people from encouraging a purge of gays, or the pagans, or the abortionists, or the catholics, or the brown skinned, or the disabled, or the old...

That sort of population control I fully agree with.

Russian Lad
21-07-2009, 14:58
Do not know about Australia, Carbo, but what England has become? Like we say in Russia: "The circus has left but the clowns have stayed":


Last week, Jacqui Smith admitted she was not up to being home secretary, saying she should have been given some training for the job before being named.

"When I became home secretary I'd never run a major organization," she told Total Politics magazine. "I hope I did a good job but if I did it was more by luck than by any kind of development of skills. I think we should have been better trained. I think there should have been more induction."


I mean, Home Secretary is not exactly a minor position. I am stunned.


Hate speech and hate crime laws also deter people from whipping up a rabble to, for instance, hunt the jews, or deter individuals from preaching "death to the Kufr", or people from encouraging a purge of gays, or the pagans, or the abortionists, or the catholics, or the brown skinned, or the disabled, or the old...


Wodin, putting the gays and the old into one basket is rather rich.

Wodin
21-07-2009, 17:13
Wodin, putting the gays and the old into one basket is rather rich.

RL, why is that? It seems to me that both gay people and old people have been, in many regions of the world, discriminated against at some point in time.

Now I recognise that you are homophobic, apart from all the other prejudices you evidence on here, but I still expect you to understand that it is concievable that some demagogue might take it into his head to whip up a rabble against either group....

Carbo
21-07-2009, 17:21
Do not know about Australia, Carbo, but what England has become? Like we say in Russia: "The circus has left but the clowns have stayed":

Last week, Jacqui Smith admitted she was not up to being home secretary, saying she should have been given some training for the job before being named.

"When I became home secretary I'd never run a major organization," she told Total Politics magazine. "I hope I did a good job but if I did it was more by luck than by any kind of development of skills. I think we should have been better trained. I think there should have been more induction."


Well, yes, some of our MPs leave a great deal to be desired. And the Labour government is becoming increasingly pathetic as it limps on to inevitable defeat next year.

Perhaps we should get a few more gymnasts and youth activists into the cabinet, eh?

Further, I would put the majority of our MPs up against the majority of US Representitaves and Senators. I watch some of these guys perform on US TV, with interviewing which is far, far kinder than in the UK, and think that half of them would just be laughed out of the country as complete idiots if they ran for Parliament. Most of them are clueless on public policy. Clueless. And they fumble and mumble around answering what are really very gentle lines of questioning compared to the Rottwiellers of British TV like Paxman and Humphreys, who seem these days to start every interview "Isn't it true that your party is a bunch of w@nkers and you, personally, are a lying cnut? ANSWER ME NOW!"

J.D.
21-07-2009, 22:41
As an American I have to say that British legislators sound impressive, and not just compared to Bush.

As for hate crimes, what's the difference between a white guy killing me, (a white guy), and killing a black guy. 'Hate laws' would say their is a differnence. That is discrimination (or reverse discrimination if you prefer) on the part of the law. There is no need for this distinction in the law, and it opens the door to an ugly path (not to mention mixed metaphors).

Carbo
21-07-2009, 23:32
As an American I have to say that British legislators sound impressive, and not just compared to Bush.

As for hate crimes, what's the difference between a white guy killing me, (a white guy), and killing a black guy. 'Hate laws' would say their is a differnence. That is discrimination (or reverse discrimination if you prefer) on the part of the law. There is no need for this distinction in the law, and it opens the door to an ugly path (not to mention mixed metaphors).
I think you're mistaken, if you don't mind me saying, J.D.

A hate law is nothing to do with race and everything to do with motive. If I, as a white man, get into an argument with a black man who, for instance, spilled a drink over my girlfriend, and I ended up punching him, it clearly wasn't race motivated and nothing to do with "hate laws". If, on the other hand, I see a black man walking through the street, and me and my mates kick the bejeezus out of him for no other reason than he's black, then that is a hate crime.

It's very difficult to ascertain whether something is a racially motivate crime or not, but I think you'll find, contrary to what the far right and the paranoid conservatives among us think, that the police err on the side of caution, only labelling something racially motivated if there is corroborating evidence.

Meantime, that hasn't really got much to do with the Savage case. He was banned for fear he would incite racial or other hatred. I do think there should be something somewhere to prevent people from publicly calling people to arms, to organize or to generally move against other parts of the population or institutions. However, these laws should be enforced as loosely as possible, and, in most cases, not enforced at all, because free speech is a precious thing, one of the most important pillars of our society, and is also, worryingly extremely easy to erode and take away.

AstroNoodle
22-07-2009, 08:47
I think you're mistaken, if you don't mind me saying, J.D.

A hate law is nothing to do with race and everything to do with motive.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Watch out; the pigs are standing on their hind legs and living in the farmers house.

Coming from someone who uses the "c" word frequently in recent posts, Carbo's opinion on thought-control laws means less to me than it ever could have before.

It will be an interesting trick figuring out how to protect one's own family from the path which unreality theorists are intent on dragging everyone who disagrees with them down.

Carbo
22-07-2009, 12:56
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Watch out; the pigs are standing on their hind legs and living in the farmers house.

Coming from someone who uses the "c" word frequently in recent posts, Carbo's opinion on thought-control laws means less to me than it ever could have before.

It will be an interesting trick figuring out how to protect one's own family from the path which unreality theorists are intent on dragging everyone who disagrees with them down.
Well, if I may deal with your second point first -- your complaint my rather trenchant stance and pungent language of late -- I would like to ask, what on Earth do you expect?

I have grown tired of humouring idiots with their idiotic ideas that are not so much ill considered as not considered at all. And what I’m really beyond doing is making reasoned debate with the hysterical, red-faced, aggressive howling of the American Far Right, which has eschewed reasoned debate and prefer to peddle lies and ideas that were discredited half a century (at least) ago and simply shout down the opposition. I’m tired of liberals and centrists being nice, and trying to not “lower themselves to that level.” It doesn’t work. These people continue their screaming and just feed off the perceived weakness.

The congressional Republican party, along with the so-called grass routes of Free Republic et al, don’t concentrate on actual policy but on raw ideology, obstruction of real policy and shouting loudest. In fact, in recent years, the GOP has actually made a virtue out of stupidity and ignorance. People who actually understand the minutia of public policy, economics, or sociology, and people who are actually, you know, intellectually equipped to run the country, are derided as “elite” if they’re Democrats, or ideologically unsound if they’re Republican, at which stage they suddenly face a very well funded primary challenge. Risible ignoramuses Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, on the other hand, “understand the needs of ‘the base’”.

Yet at the same time, their lies are so brazen, and their arguments so lacking in logic, that it’s easy to swat aside if you’re willing to get your hands dirty; but all too often, those against the far-right try to take the moral high ground and end up being cudgelled to death by loud words and naked aggression.

Under these circumstances, I believe that Liberals and traditional conservatives need to face up to the fact they’re not going to win the battle by discussing the benefits of specific policies, ideas or scientific and economic developments, and generally being nice. They’re going to have to get their hands dirty against these demagogues, zealots and fanatics, fix bayonets and start gouging some guts.

DDT falls into both the idiot with non-considered opinions camp, and the screaming far-right fanatic camp, and I have decided to deal with the fascist pig* in the manner in which he deserves. If you don’t like that I call him nasty names, then I’m sorry, because I think that in the right circumstances we could debate interestingly. But I’ll not stop, because to do so would be to concede defeat.

*Sorry for calling him a fascist pig when he has no right to reply, but, on balance, it’s fair.

Meantime, even if you disagree with this, what would you do if someone accused you of being complicit – nay, the cause – of child rape? What? You expect because I’m not a conservative on many issues that I’ll ask us all to sit on the grass and sing Kum Ba Yah and smoke a peace pipe? Of course I’m going to use unpleasant words in response to that. Really, in that moment, I completely lost my temper and wanted to use significantly more than colourful language. I was afterward extremely embarrassed to have lost my temper about something a faceless, idiotic fascist would say on a forum, but at the time I was furious, and looking back, given the insult, I think understandably so.

Of course, in the same thread, you were a big disappointment. If you had just said “I believe homosexuals are evil because the bible says so, and therefore they should be adopting kids,” then I could have understood and accepted that. But you didn’t. You used the same pseudo-scientific research as DDT, which was later categorically proved to be incorrect, and then relied on exactly the arguments the Nazis and Bolsheviks used to make their points to the masses.

That’s a very disappointing performance from someone I thought was a smart and considered person who I disagreed with, but with whom enjoyed the process of disagreeing.

I know this post has been terribly self indulgent, but I hope that gives you a better understanding of my position.

Meantime, I suspect I know what the paragraph below means, but could you please explain it more transparently?


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Watch out; the pigs are standing on their hind legs and living in the farmers house.

Wodin
22-07-2009, 13:19
Under these circumstances, I believe that Liberals and traditional conservatives need to face up to the fact theyre not going to win the battle by discussing the benefits of specific policies, ideas or scientific and economic developments, and generally being nice. Theyre going to have to get their hands dirty against these demagogues, zealots and fanatics, fix bayonets and start gouging some guts.



I disagree. Liberals and tradional conservatives will in the long run "win the battle". If for no other reason, that's because the positions taken by these are kinder, more humane and therefore more attractive to more people than the far right (or far left) alternatives and provide a better quality of life to a wider section of the people.

I do however agree that one should not be nice to demagogues.

Incidentally...great post Carbo

Carbo
22-07-2009, 13:26
I disagree. Liberals and tradional conservatives will in the long run "win the battle". If for no other reason, that's because the positions taken by these are kinder, more humane and therefore more attractive to more people than the far right (or far left) alternatives and provide a better quality of life to a wider section of the people.

I do however agree that one should not be nice to demagogues.

Incidentally...great post Carbo
Thanks.

I suppose my point is that the conservative media in the US is now dominated by demagogues. How can you be nice and reasoned when dealing with Glenn Beck or Anne Coulter?

Increasingly, the party is likewise. Michelle Bachmann isn't smart enough to understand proper debate. She's just going to scream like that hysterical "love versus fear" school teacher in Donnie Darko.

Liberals in the US need to face up to the fact that the political landscape has changed, and they need to change tactics with it.

Meantime, none of this applies in the UK, where the Conservative party is filled with a great many very smart people who are keen to engage in sensible debate.

I really don't agree with John Redwood, but I love to read his views on his blog, which is excellent.

Wodin
22-07-2009, 13:37
I just wonder whether the view we have of US Rebublicans isn't a bit skewered...whether or not the shouting, screaming talk show hosts on Fox are really representative of mainstream Republicanism.

I was talking to an american colleague of mine yesterday. He visited SPB to see his son who's studying here and I took him out to lunch. Talk turned to politics and I asked him, a republican, about it. He told me that he absolutely hates people like Coulter, that he thinks that she gives conservatism a bad name, that most Republican voters he knows also think that way...

Carbo
22-07-2009, 13:45
I just wonder whether the view we have of US Rebublicans isn't a bit skewered...whether or not the shouting, screaming talk show hosts on Fox are really representative of mainstream Republicanism.

I was talking to an american colleague of mine yesterday. He visited SPB to see his son who's studying here and I took him out to lunch. Talk turned to politics and I asked him, a republican, about it. He told me that he absolutely hates people like Coulter, that he thinks that she gives conservatism a bad name, that most Republican voters he knows also think that way...
If you go to a website called RealClearPolitics and check out the video page, you can watch American politicians being intereviewed. I watch that all the time, and I have to say that on the whole US politicians -- Dem and GOP alike -- are dilettants.

Alternatively, if you want proof of my GOP point, just go onto YouTube and type "Michelle Bachmann".

You are correct to say that our views of the Right are tarnished by the screaming demagogues of Fox and talk radio, but you also have to understand that the GOP is beholden to this powerful media consensus. Want proof? In the last year, five GOP politicians -- congressment and govenors -- have on seperate occassions been forced to make embarrassing apologies to Rush Limbaugh. Not that they really criticised him, just because they said that he could say things that they couldn't because of their different occupations.

In each of the apologies, they lauded Limbaugh as a "leader of Conservative thought and policy."

In fact, one said he was a leader of conservative morality, which I thought had to be deliberately sarcastic considering he was talking about a man with clearly no self discipline. But there you go: these days, you can be an obese, drug addicted suspected wife beater and be a leader in conservative morality and thought.

And there you have it.

J.D.
22-07-2009, 15:58
I think you're mistaken, if you don't mind me saying, J.D.

A hate law is nothing to do with race and everything to do with motive. . . .

. . . However, these laws should be enforced as loosely as possible, and, in most cases, not enforced at all, because free speech is a precious thing, one of the most important pillars of our society, and is also, worryingly extremely easy to erode and take away.

I certainly don't mind the way you do it.
I agree that 'hate laws' are about motive, BUT that motive tends to be strongly tied to race. One can just as easily hate a man for being black, as for being British, or for being a democrat/republican, being ugly/beautiful.
'Hate Laws' are a micro management that lends itself to abuse.

Scrat335
22-07-2009, 19:03
Anyway, Savage is a repulsive personality. Another sewer pipe sucker. He spouts a combination of blatant racism, lies, and ill thought out bar room philosophy.

In short, he's a c*nt.

Agreed in full.

nicklcool
22-07-2009, 19:31
If a speech nazi is one who believes that nobody should be allowed to say things which are offensive to others, or say things that might encourage others to take action which is not sanctioned by Law against some other segment of society, then I am indeed proud to be one.


A proud speech nazi!? Ever heard of a certain George Orwell? I heard that he wrote some pretty interesting books.

Carbo
22-07-2009, 19:37
A proud speech nazi!? Ever heard of a certain George Orwell? I heard that he wrote some pretty interesting books.
Nickcool, may I say that you have the best avatar in the history of Expat?

Ms. Carbo would certainly empathise.

Bels
22-07-2009, 19:41
To sum it up more clearly. I don't believe that there should have been any list of any individuals barred from entering Britain. At least of what the public know about. Britain knows which foreigners enter their country, and if they misbehave, they would then be more capable of dealing with them.

Wodin
22-07-2009, 21:58
A proud speech nazi!? Ever heard of a certain George Orwell? I heard that he wrote some pretty interesting books.

Yeah Nick...as I said previously...if a speech nazi is one who doesn't tollerate scum who preach hate....sad tossers like the sub-human about whom this thread started, then I am indeed very proud to be one.

What's more, if you don't fall into the same category, a speech nazi as defined, then you too are as bad as the said sub-human.

vladimir_seroff
23-07-2009, 00:03
if a speech nazi is one who doesn't tollerate scum who preach hate....sad tossers like the sub-human about whom this thread started, then I am indeed very proud to be one.

I do not think this is a definition of a speech Nazi. What you tolerate or don't is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you support a government that uses its power to shut people's mouths. Even that is too a degree, since I would not want anyone to shout political slogans into my ear, when I ride the subway, for instance. So, I would support a government shutting the mouth of such a person under those circumstances, and I do not think it will make me a speech Nazi.

Wodin
23-07-2009, 01:03
I do not think this is a definition of a speech Nazi. What you tolerate or don't is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether you support a government that uses its power to shut people's mouths. Even that is too a degree, since I would not want anyone to shout political slogans into my ear, when I ride the subway, for instance. So, I would support a government shutting the mouth of such a person under those circumstances, and I do not think it will make me a speech Nazi.

My point precicely. I would support any government that shut's the mouth of any hate monger...whether yank rebublican or muslim extremist, and if the rabid right wingers want to call that a speech nazi....so be it. Sticks & stones and all that...

vladimir_seroff
23-07-2009, 01:15
My point precicely. I would support any government that shut's the mouth of any hate monger...whether yank rebublican or muslim extremist, and if the rabid right wingers want to call that a speech nazi....so be it. Sticks & stones and all that...

The problem with this is that, when you let the government do it for "good" reasons (whatever you consider good), the government may not stop at that and one day decide to shut your own mouth for whatever reason.

Bogatyr
23-07-2009, 02:12
The problem with this is that, when you let the government do it for "good" reasons (whatever you consider good), the government may not stop at that and one day decide to shut your own mouth for whatever reason.

This is the usual response to any sort of limitation on "speech," taken to an extreme. And it is a valid point to consider. But there is the other extreme to be considered as well, which is to have no limits whatsoever and to let anybody say anything in any medium, no matter how hateful, disgusting, vile, damaging or perverted it may be.

vladimir_seroff
23-07-2009, 03:39
... anybody say anything in any medium, no matter how hateful, disgusting, vile, damaging or perverted it may be.

"Any medium" is the key expression here. As I wrote two posts back, I would want the government to protect me against people shouting in my ear, when I am on the subway, for instance.

But for any idea there should be at least one way to express it to the public (preferably more than one.)

That said, there is always that one exception for "shouting fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire". Then, what about posting something about there being a fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, on the internet, and having some of the people in the theater reading about in on their blackberries?

My point is that there are exceptions and it is up to the people of every society, every culture, to decide where those exceptions lie (no pun intended), and to vote for the government, whose understanding of it is consistent with that of the majority of the voters.

But, then, on the other hand, at some point in history citizens of Germany voted Hitler into the office. So, the question is, could it be worth risking some cases of people shouting fire in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, as the price to pay for a "Hitler" not to come to power by a democratic vote (that is, even if the majority of voters are for making some people shut their mouths, does it make sense not to let the government do so, anyway)? The reason why I am not bringing up an example of Stalin is because he was not voted into his office democratically - not to mean any discrimination against him or the other way around, or anything else someone may get very unhappy about :-)

AstroNoodle
23-07-2009, 08:15
If you want to talk about the gay child molester where you got yourself toasted and only have yourself to blame, then go to the gay child molester thread, Carbo.

Don't bring it over here, and don't try to turn it around and say that I was bringing that arguement over here -- I was talking about the lowered status of your opinion.

You can say whatever you want about me not being a great conversationalist for you today, but that is my choice based on what response is deserved for the trash which I have been reading lately, a good enough bid of it from you.

I'm not going to sit around and have an "intellectually stimulating" conversation about your theories of social justice and listen to you say that thought-control has not passed against Christians. The US Senate just passed thought-control and for the first time in developed western law we now have "status crime."

And please spare me your own definition of a "status crime" born from your own head as "status crime" is something you can go and take the time to learn what it means before you blab about it.

I am not going to debate non-debateables with you. The US Senate passed thought-control. Obama supports thought-control. Thought-control and status crimes are now law against the American people, especially Christians.

If you don't even know what I am talking about it, have bite of the cheese from the moon while you are out visiting your friends the Martians.

If you want conversation, then write something worthy of conversation -- I never got back to you on the free-trade thing and will get back to that -- but lately what I have been seeing from you is pure bull.

Have a nice day.

AstroNoodle
23-07-2009, 08:26
Meantime, even if you disagree with this, what would you do if someone accused you of being complicit nay, the cause of child rape? What? You expect because Im not a conservative on many issues that Ill ask us all to sit on the grass and sing Kum Ba Yah and smoke a peace pipe? Of course Im going to use unpleasant words in response to that. Really, in that moment, I completely lost my temper and wanted to use significantly more than colourful language. I was afterward extremely embarrassed to have lost my temper about something a faceless, idiotic fascist would say on a forum, but at the time I was furious, and looking back, given the insult, I think understandably so.

Of course, in the same thread, you were a big disappointment. If you had just said I believe homosexuals are evil because the bible says so, and therefore they should be adopting kids, then I could have understood and accepted that. But you didnt. You used the same pseudo-scientific research as DDT, which was later categorically proved to be incorrect, and then relied on exactly the arguments the Nazis and Bolsheviks used to make their points to the masses.

As far as the first paragraph quoted, I can accept that and afford you the respect I had previously.

But you should have stopped there and not mischaracterized (your only argumentation thus far) my clear statements. You can't quote anything I wrote over there, because I can back it ALL up. No matter how bad you want unreality to be true, it never will.

I suggest that you either go back over there and quote me the way I quoted Adamodeus him or just say bon voyage and stop insulting me with your deflectionist mischaracterizations.

Carbo
23-07-2009, 09:39
If you want to talk about the gay child molester where you got yourself toasted and only have yourself to blame, then go to the gay child molester thread, Carbo.

Don't bring it over here, and don't try to turn it around and say that I was bringing that arguement over here -- I was talking about the lowered status of your opinion.

You can say whatever you want about me not being a great conversationalist for you today, but that is my choice based on what response is deserved for the trash which I have been reading lately, a good enough bid of it from you.

I'm not going to sit around and have an "intellectually stimulating" conversation about your theories of social justice and listen to you say that thought-control has not passed against Christians. The US Senate just passed thought-control and for the first time in developed western law we now have "status crime."

And please spare me your own definition of a "status crime" born from your own head as "status crime" is something you can go and take the time to learn what it means before you blab about it.

I am not going to debate non-debateables with you. The US Senate passed thought-control. Obama supports thought-control. Thought-control and status crimes are now law against the American people, especially Christians.

If you don't even know what I am talking about it, have bite of the cheese from the moon while you are out visiting your friends the Martians.

If you want conversation, then write something worthy of conversation -- I never got back to you on the free-trade thing and will get back to that -- but lately what I have been seeing from you is pure bull.

Have a nice day.
I don't understand. This is a tremendously confused post, and, as far as I can see, comes from a person living in some kind of alternate reality.

First, my view was that a status crime is something where being someone or a member of something is a crime, rather than most crimes which are about criminal acts.

But the idea that Christianity falls into this is so utterly preposterous that I wonder whether I really don't know what a status crime is.

Second, congress has not passed thought control legislation, and, as far as I'm aware -- although clearly on this matter I may be wrong -- Obama doesn't support it.

Can you possibly let me in on two bits of legislation that deal clearly with outlawing particular thoughts special to Christianity.

(From this reality please)

I'll deal with the first part of your post in the relevant thread in about an hour.

vladimir_seroff
23-07-2009, 09:47
But there is the other extreme to be considered as well, which is to have no limits whatsoever and to let anybody say anything in any medium, no matter how hateful, disgusting, vile, damaging or perverted it may be.

This is a safer choice. Otherwise, one exception leads to another and the next thing you know you have to fill out an application to say/write anything.

Again, it doesn't have to be any medium for any expression of any thought, but there should be at least one way to express any thought to the public by any individual.

Bogatyr
24-07-2009, 09:30
This is a safer choice. Otherwise, one exception leads to another and the next thing you know you have to fill out an application to say/write anything.

Again, it doesn't have to be any medium for any expression of any thought, but there should be at least one way to express any thought to the public by any individual.

Again, this considers just one side. You write that no limits are "safer" -- safer for whom? Safer for the amoral producers of addictive substances like alcohol and tobacco, or for the children and youngsters whom they'd *love* to market to if they were allowed to? Safer for producers of pornography, even those who exploit the young?

Your first response was more reasonable -- that these decisions are up to the members of the society to balance and to decide and to vote in a government that supports this balance. The extreme poles of unlimited censorship and unlimited "freedom" both lead to destruction.

vladimir_seroff
25-07-2009, 19:25
Your first response was more reasonable

Here is a good recent clip on censorship from Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32134130

I particularly like the third part of it critical about censorship in Belarus, which for some reason starts with a huge red map of Russia (this would be a good illustration of the anti-Russian bias in the western media)