Styks and stones

[Guest Peeves]

A rather interesting and topical piece by 'Mr. Bean' on the subject of a proposed law on insult.

Recently a poster here subjected me to inane unsubstantiated charges of a personal nature, (hate charges etc.) then another just in the past little while took umbrage with my obviously specious retort but ignored the initial cause for the retort. They seemingly thought they had made a poit, they had, on the top of the dunce cap I assigned them figuratively. The cap had a monogram in Cherio cereal letters spelling out " FOOL". When one defends a fool, they are simply lying down with dogs so to speak. WOOOF!

Most sites/forums have WRITTEN rules to play with as does this one. They are in my opinion seldom uniformly enforced. Hell I have warnings/points for posting a link with insufficient content. (See my profile)

There need be some rules, and censorship should be avoided if discussion is open to subjects in the news or of contention. I fail to see how any personal attacks further the topic nor do they add to the credibility of the attacker.

They can easily be ignored, and I suggest that response is the most sensible one, for the personal attacker wants nothing if not a response. Ignoring makes them frantic...no attention... boo hoo..Wa Wa !

I like Atkinson's position. It says a great deal about our society when one may not bark a "Woof" without fear of charges. You should read it,.

Still, there's a time and place,there are rules or there aren't, there's uniformity in application or there isn't.

Now you can call me what you will, but, it gets boring and leads to my; 1) responding in kind. or 2) ignoring you.

Please note. Should I chose 2, I don't think the less of you for I couldn't

If you personally feel the best response you can come up with is an insult I feel bad for you, 'cause you're an ignorant, cretinous dullard with little going for you. Any accusation you might use for purpose of insult is pissin into the wind, you get the blow back. You know who and what you are,

Now, IF there are subjects that are sacrosanct please post them for all to see BUT NOTE THE BUT YOU BUTT HEADS, IF there is a link to an article,story, IT WAS WRITTEN BY SOMEONE ELSE. If someone posts it they may or may not agree. If YOU chose to insult the poster, the author, you lose automatically.

In the meantime back at the ranch keep in mind those that use insults are the dumbest of the dumb, unless it is done in jest, as in mocking with jocularity.

"We must be free to insult each other: Rowan Atkinson attacks new rules that outlaw 'insulting words and behaviour"

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2AW87Q4lK

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail...-behaviour.html

"

He went on: ‘The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult.’

Campaigners say the Public Order Act is being abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors. Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws threatening, abusive and insulting words or behaviour, but what constitutes ‘insulting’ is unclear and has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.

A 16-year-old boy was arrested under the legislation for peacefully holding a placard reading ‘Scientology is a dangerous cult’, on the grounds that it might insult followers of the movement.

Gay rights campaigners from the group Outrage! were arrested under the Act when they protested against the Islamist fundamentalist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, which was calling for the killing of gays, Jews and unchaste women.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Peeves

[cybercoma]

I'm not quite sure when this stupidity began that freedom of speech can be enforced between private parties, but these constitutional and human rights are primary laws that bind the legislative capacities of governments. It's the government that must not violate your rights by creating laws and imprisoning you for your political views and opinions. The rest of society has every right to ban certain types of speech from their forums and criticize you as harshly as they want for your views and speech. And rightly so, otherwise there would be no critical discourse whatsoever. You may be free from prosecution by a government for your beliefs, but your beliefs are not free from criticism in the public domain. And if in private company people don't want to be insulted or be subjected to your views, then they have every right not to be.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm not quite sure when this stupidity began that freedom of speech can be enforced between private parties, but these constitutional and human rights are primary laws that bind the legislative capacities of governments. It's the government that must not violate your rights by creating laws and imprisoning you for your political views and opinions. The rest of society has every right to ban certain types of speech from their forums and criticize you as harshly as they want for your views and speech. And rightly so, otherwise there would be no critical discourse whatsoever. You may be free from prosecution by a government for your beliefs, but your beliefs are not free from criticism in the public domain. And if in private company people don't want to be insulted or be subjected to your views, then they have every right not to be.

Nicely said. Encouraging a response. I heartily approve of the above message as a thoughtful response.

[Michael Hardner]

I think many people agree that laws like this have been implemented in a stupid way.

With the Dale McAlpine case, gay rights campaigners even recognize that things have gone too far in Britain:

Veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell condemned the arrest and urged the home secretary to issue new guidelines to the police.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/8687395.stm

[Guest Peeves]

I think many people agree that laws like this have been implemented in a stupid way.

With the Dale McAlpine case, gay rights campaigners even recognize that things have gone too far in Britain:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ria/8687395.stm

I think it ironic that it takes a comedian to point it out so well. Still there have been those that were considered as comedians over the years that addressed societal ills and still do. Cosby. "Mort" Sahl (born May 11, 1927) is a Canadian-born American comedian. and others that seem to be able to cut to the quick on political issues.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, some of the greats like Richard Pryor and George Carlin could be caustically political, and also very funny.

[Guest Peeves]

Yes, some of the greats like Richard Pryor and George Carlin could be caustically political, and also very funny.

And, politicians provide sooooo much ammunition.