Leftist Marxist goons.

[Smeelious]

Common sense and logic should tell you that the creator doesn't want any mixing. That is why the creator created variety. The creator did not intend for a horse to mix it up with a cow. So, I suppose then that you think that you know snot about the creator then?

The implication here is so wrong on so many levels...

[Guest]

Why should anyone deserve to be castigated or ridiculed just because they have an opinion that is different to others? Everyone should have the opportunity to say how they feel and what is on their minds on any issue without being always labelled as a racist, nazi, white supremo or someone who hates others just for doing and saying so. It's plenty obvious here that there are lots of social justice warrior marxists here from their responses.

Everyone should have the opportunity to speak freely if they choose to, but the freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from the consequences. Societies need to weed out harmful ideas and promote the good ones. These consequences are how bad ideas are expunged.

Ideas often counter the societal norm. If a case can be made for them they will gain support, if not they will be weeded out. It was once against the norm to oppose slavery or support equal rights for women, but morality won out and those ideas were promoted. The same is currently happening for equal rights for homosexuals.

You are free live your life if according to your belief that people of varying ethnic origins should not mix. You are even free to share that idea; however, once you do everyone else is free to respond. Considering you are now going beyond living your life according to your beliefs and casting judgement on interracial couples you should expect some backlash.

If your segregation idea were to be elevated you would have to be able to provide sound moral and evidential arguments as to why it is superior for society. However, your only argument for segregation I've seen is that you believe that some "creator" intended for humans of various ethnicity to remain apart. I hope you are able to see that your personal interpretation of what your personal idea of what some personal creator wishes, is an extremely weak argument to use when publicly judging a segment of the population. Hence, you are experiencing the consequences of your free speech, as you should.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Guest

[bush_cheney2004]

Everyone should have the opportunity to speak freely if they choose to.....

But they don't...in Canada. Sad...........

[TimG]

the freedom of speech does not equate to freedom from the consequences.

This trite phrase sounds reasonable but it is really nonsense. Basically you are saying that a society where mobs lynch people who say that gays should be able to marry does have free speech and people who exercise the right to speech need to accept the consequences (even if deadly). Free speech comes with an implied contract that responses to speech will be more speech. Any action by government or non-government actors that seeks to silence people using coercion (violent or non-violent) undermines free speech and should be prohibited.

Societies need to weed out harmful ideas and promote the good ones.

Sorry. Free speech does not give anyone the right to do decide what ideas are 'good' and what ideas are 'harmful'. Your statement basically summaries the Chinese government justification for all of the censorship that it imposes on its people. Did you really intend to argue for Chinese style censorship in Canada? Edited July 6, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

This trite phrase sounds reasonable but it is really nonsense. Basically you are saying that a society where mobs lynch people who say that gays should be able to marry does have free speech and people who exercise the right to speech need to accept the consequences (even if deadly). Free speech comes with an implied contract that responses to speech will be more speech. Any action by government or non-government actors that seeks to silence people using coercion (violent or non-violent) undermines free speech and should be prohibited.

Where did I condone lynching or deadly consequences? When did I mention government action? This post is a juvenile attempt at a straw man argument but the embarrassment you feel for writing it should be enough of a consequence; no need for a lynching.

Sorry. Free speech does not give anyone the right to do decide what ideas are 'good' and what ideas are 'harmful'. Your statement basically summaries the Chinese government justification for all of the censorship that it imposes on its people. Did you really intend to argue for Chinese style censorship in Canada?

What? Society collectively determines the merit of ideas all the time; always has and will continue to do so. Chinese style censorship?! Really? Have you sampled one too many Kim City Sunsets? Edited July 6, 2016 by Guest

[jacee]

This trite phrase sounds reasonable but it is really nonsense. Basically you are saying that a society where mobs lynch people who say that gays should be able to marry does have free speech and people who exercise the right to speech need to accept the consequences (even if deadly).

No he didn't. That's nonsense.

Free speech comes with an implied contract that responses to speech will be more speech.

Or just walk away.

Or blow a bullhorn. Lol

Any action by government or non-government actors that seeks to silence people using coercion (violent or non-violent) undermines free speech and should be prohibited.

The government/police are not supposed to interfere with free speech.

But I am free to speak and act freely too, and I may interrupt you or shout you down.

(Obviously violent response is against the law.)

Sorry. Free speech does not give anyone the right to do decide what ideas are 'good' and what ideas are 'harmful'.

It gives me the right to decide what I want to listen to, and to interrupt what I don't want to listen to.

Your statement basically summaries the Chinese government justification for all of the censorship that it imposes on its people. Did you really intend to argue for Chinese style censorship in Canada?

What governments can do, and what free citizens can do are different things. Our government cannot interfere with free speech. However, I can use my own free speech to interfere with someone I don't want to listen to.

.

Edited July 6, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

I may interrupt you or shout you down.

IOW - you believe that the biggest bully should get their way. You must love Trump.

Sorry, the 'biggest bully wins' rule is not free speech. In fact, it will inevitably lead to violence because most people realize that when confronted with a bully that will not stop their bullying then violence is the only option.

I believe in free speech. That means people speak their minds and if someone disagrees they can speak too.

Coercion used to silence people is wrong whether it comes from the state or non-state actors.

Edited July 6, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

That doesn't change freedom of speech. It just allows it to be taken away.

Of course it changes freedom of speech. It's a prescribed limit.

[Guest]

Of course it changes freedom of speech. It's a prescribed limit.

I guess it changes it to not freedom of speech. If you allow a freedom then say you can change it based on any arbitrary conditions you later decide are reasonable then it isn't really a freedom.

That's what I meant when I said it doesn't change freedom of speech. Freedom of speech remains unchanged. The charter just says we don't have any.

[cybercoma]

It's not arbitrary, but okay.

[Guest]

It's not arbitrary, but okay.

Sure it is. Do you think JT's new judges would apply the same reasoning as SH's old judges?

[jacee]

IOW - you believe that the biggest bully should get their way. You must love Trump.

Sorry, the 'biggest bully wins' rule is not free speech. In fact, it will inevitably lead to violence because most people realize that when confronted with a bully that will not stop their bullying then violence is the only option.

I believe in free speech. That means people speak their minds and if someone disagrees they can speak too.

Coercion used to silence people is wrong whether it comes from the state or non-state actors.

We were ... I was ... talking to and about a white supremacist - tax me - mouthing off about 'not mixing races'.

Yuck.

If I hear that kind of talk on the street ... Yes, I would shout them down.

And people do regularly shout down and chase away NeoNazis when they try to 'rally' publicly.

I agree with that.

And the Nazis are getting nastier:

"The Nazis are after the black people. I saw the second stabbing victim drop, too."

.

Edited July 7, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

If I hear that kind of talk on the street ... Yes, I would shout them down.

IOW - you believe in the 'biggest bully wins' rule. What do you think would happen if the person you try to bully responds by trying to bully you back. These kinds of confrontations can quickly get violent. When you try to bully someone you are gambling that they are more civilized than you are (which is quite ironic given your stated reason for being a bully).

And people do regularly shout down and chase away NeoNazis when they try to 'rally' publicly.

People also shout down and chase away people that express any number of perfectly reasonable opinions which they don't like. The point of a principal like 'free speech' is there is no room for personal judgement because no individual is entitled to decide what should and should not be heard. IOW - I don't care that your hypothetical neo-nazi speaker is odious. You are free to say that the speaker is an odious scum bag. But as soon as you engage in tactics designed to prevent someone from exercising their right to free speech you are suppressing speech and are no better than the censors of the Chinese government.

[Guest]

IOW - you believe in the 'biggest bully wins' rule. What do you think would happen if the person you try to bully responds by trying to bully you back. These kinds of confrontations can quickly get violent. When you try to bully someone you are gambling that they are more civilized than you are (which is quite ironic given your stated reason for being a bully). People also shout down and chase away people that express any number of perfectly reasonable opinions which they don't like. The point of a principal like 'free speech' is there is no room for personal judgement because no individual is entitled to decide what should and should not be heard. IOW - I don't care that your hypothetical neo-nazi speaker is odious. You are free to say that the speaker is an odious scum bag. But as soon as you engage in tactics designed to prevent someone from exercising their right to free speech you are suppressing speech and are no better than the censors of the Chinese government.

It depends on the tactics. If they are legal, such as the Angels at the funerals recently where the WBC were going to express their opinions, I think that's valid. Freedom of speech does not include an audience.

[TimG]

It depends on the tactics. If they are legal, such as the Angels at the funerals recently where the WBC were going to express their opinions, I think that's valid. Freedom of speech does not include an audience.

The WBC was out to be a bully intent to use their speech to attack a group of individuals at a specific place. The Angels responded with their own threat of force. This was reasonable because the WBC was free to back off an express their opinion a few blocks away. I agree that free speech does not entitle you to speak anywhere that you please. I am thinking of cases where there venue is reasonable yet others seek to bully them into silence. Edited July 7, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

IOW - you believe in the 'biggest bully wins' rule. What do you think would happen if the person you try to bully responds by trying to bully you back. These kinds of confrontations can quickly get violent. When you try to bully someone you are gambling that they are more civilized than you are (which is quite ironic given your stated reason for being a bully).

Are you trying to intimidate me?

Nazis are not civilized.

They are the dregs of humanity.

If they get violent, that's a matter for the police.

People also shout down and chase away people that express any number of perfectly reasonable opinions which they don't like.

Nah. Just Nazis.

The point of a principal like 'free speech' is there is no room for personal judgement because no individual is entitled to decide what should and should not be heard.

No it isn't. You are absolutely wrong:

The principal of free speech is that the state/government/police are not 'entitled to decide what should and should not be heard'.

I can certainly decide what I want to and don't want to hear.

IOW - I don't care that your hypothetical neo-nazi speaker is odious. You are free to say that the speaker is an odious scum bag. But as soon as you engage in tactics designed to prevent someone from exercising their right to free speech you are suppressing speech and are no better than the censors of the Chinese government.

Nonsense.

I don't have to listen to those disgusting pigs, and I will exercise my free speech to shut them down.

And there's nothing anyone can do about that.

.

Edited July 7, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

The principal of free speech is that the state/government/police are not 'entitled to decide what should and should not be heard'.

Free speech is a principle that has widen meaning that the narrow definition in our current laws. If non-state actors are allowed to bully people into silence then we have no 'right to free speech'.

I can certainly decide what I want to and don't want to hear.

Except you are not saying that. You are say you have the right to decide what other people are allowed to hear. That is wrong.

I don't have to listen to those disgusting pigs, and I will exercise my free speech to shut them down.

You have no right to prevent other people from listening to what they have to say. You right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Same with speech. You can say what you want but if you seek to deny others their ability to speak or to listen you are infringing on their right.

And there's nothing anyone can do about that.

I am sure a right hook to the jaw would shut you up. If you insist on bullying people you should not be surprised if you are given the respect you deserve by the people you are trying to bully. Edited July 7, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

Free speech is a principle that has widen meaning that the narrow definition in our current laws. If non-state actors are allowed to bully people into silence then we have no 'right to free speech'.

Yes.

We all do.

Talk all you want while I'm blowing my bullhorn.

I don't have to hear it.

Except you are not saying that. You are say you have the right to decide what other people are allowed to hear. That is wrong.

You have no right to prevent other people from listening to what they have to say.

Then they can go listen somewhere private. NOT rallying/speaking in a public place.

You right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Not really into violent analogies ... more intimidation?

Same with speech. You can say what you want but if you seek to deny others their ability to speak or to listen you are infringing on their right.

They can go pay for a hall like other political groups.

Nazi hate groups do not belong in public spaces.

Ever.

I am sure a right hook to the jaw would shut you up.

Ahh ... so you are a Nazi.

Do you think I'm scared?

?

If you insist on bullying people you should not be surprised if you are given the respect you deserve by the people you are trying to bully.

Ooooooooooo ... the scary Nazi!

Go punch yourself in the head dumb dipsh!t.

.

Edited July 7, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

They can go pay for a hall like other political groups.

Well now you are making a different argument. As I said above free speech much be exercised in the appropriate venue and all of my arguments about you being a bully would apply to these nazis if they are trying to speak in an inappropriate venue (i.e. shouting at people who do not want to listen).

That said, there are many examples of people trying to speak in appropriate venues where bully who think like you invade the venue to stop them from speaking.

Do you think I'm scared?

It wasn't supposed to scare you. I was simply stating a fact. Screaming someone in order to stop them from speaking is a form of violence. If you are going to resort to low level violence to get your way you should not be surprised if it escalates. That is why I am saying you have no business trying to bully people because it can easily escalate.

There is no need for violence if everyone accepts that everyone else has a right to speak (in an appropriate venue).

Edited July 7, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

Well now you are making a different argument. As I said above free speech much be exercised in the appropriate venue and all of my arguments about you being a bully would apply to these nazis if they trying to speak in an inappropriate venue.

That said, there are many examples of people trying to speak in appropriate venues where bully who think like you invade the venue to stop them from speaking.

It wasn't supposed to scare you. I was simply stating a fact. Screaming someone in order to stop them from speaking is a form of violence. If you are going to resort to low level violence to get your way you should not be surprised if it escalates. That is why I am saying you have no business trying to bully people because it can easily escalate.

There is no need for violence if every accepts that everyone else has a right to speak (in an appropriate venue).

Ah ... backtracking now eh TimG?

Punched yourself in the head eh?

?

gfywawbsdds

Have a nice day.

.

Edited July 7, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

Ah ... backtracking now eh TimG?

No. I responded to the arguments you presented in the order you presented them. Until the last post you never suggested the choice of venue was the issue. You simply said you had a right to silence people you do not want to listen to where ever they may be.

That said screaming at people to silence them *is* low level violence and you cannot claim to be non-violent if you are willing to engage such tactics.

[jacee]

No. I responded to the arguments you presented in the order you presented them. Until the last post you never suggested the choice of venue was the issue. You simply said you had a right to silence people you do not want to listen to where ever they may be.

That said screaming at people to silence them *is* low level violence and you cannot claim to be non-violent if you are willing to engage such tactics.

Ahh ... you're afraid of a big loud mouth?

So you threaten an old lady with ... what was it ... oh ya ...

'A right hook to the jaw will shut you up'

Now isn't that just Nazi special!

Go punch yourself in the head again.

Try a sledgehammer dipsh!t.

.

Edited July 7, 2016 by jacee

[TimG]

So you threaten an old lady with ...

You clearly do not understand nuance. I made no threats. I all I did was draw a connection between the low level violence that you advocate as a tool to silence people and the escalation of the violence which could follow.

My entire argument is how I am against the use of coercion to control what people say.

Edited July 7, 2016 by TimG

[jacee]

You clearly do not understand nuance. I made no threats. I all I did was draw a connection between the low level violence that you advocate as a tool to silence people and the escalation of the violence which could follow.My entire argument is how I am against the use of coercion to control what people say.

Ya me too.

And I am sure

a right hook to the jaw would shut you up too.

But you're more afraid of an old lady with a big mouth

... and with good reason.

??

Dregs, I say.

Dregs.

.

Edited July 7, 2016 by jacee

[taxme]

I suggest that saying "The white people will eventually become dumb downed if they continue on the race mixing path." is implicitly telling people how to live their lives. That is essentially the Aryan battle cry: die Herrenrasse.

Your suggestion is all wrong. There was no suggestion that what I said is telling others what to do. Unh? It was a warning. Read things properly, and stop trying to interpret as to what was said. Do you work for the media because that is what they do best. Turn the story around to suit their needs.