Army Guy Posted November 18, 2016 Report Posted November 18, 2016 8 hours ago, marcus said: This has nothing to do with my comment about security. People should be allowed to say whatever they want, name themselves what they like and write whatever books they want. France has a problem with free speech. Expressing yourself, no matter how stupid the expression may be, as long as it does not physically harm others should be allowed. It's allowed in the U.S., but is limited in France. I am advocating for the same free speech laws we see in the U.S. and disagreeing with France's borderline fascist laws. So if a person like Shady advocates for carpet bombing Gaza, no matter how despicable it is, he should be allowed to. Just like if someone advocates for terrorist attacks on civilians, no matter how despicable it may be. No the only one with a problem with freedom speech is you.....Freedom of speech does have it's limits....and consequences....you should check them out..... According to your theories we should have free reign over our months say what we want when we want, I should be able to walk up to you and your wife while your out on a dinner date and say something like "hey who is the slut", nice rack........or perhaps some racist slur....I should be able to set up in a corner of a Jewish settlement in Canada, and start selling NAZI collectables, and preaching how the NAZI never brought the war to the Jewish people was false..... No there are limits to our freedom of speech and every country is different....don't like laws in France, don't go there..... nobody is forcing you to go there....simple as that....Those laws were put into place for a reason, why don't you check into why they are there instead of running off at something you seem to not understand.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Guest Posted November 18, 2016 Report Posted November 18, 2016 19 minutes ago, Army Guy said: No the only one with a problem with freedom speech is you.....Freedom of speech does have it's limits....and consequences....you should check them out..... According to your theories we should have free reign over our months say what we want when we want, I should be able to walk up to you and your wife while your out on a dinner date and say something like "hey who is the slut", nice rack........or perhaps some racist slur....I should be able to set up in a corner of a Jewish settlement in Canada, and start selling NAZI collectables, and preaching how the NAZI never brought the war to the Jewish people was false..... What do you suggest should happen if you do? Quote
Army Guy Posted November 18, 2016 Report Posted November 18, 2016 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: What do you suggest should happen if you do? I should at least get a good punch in the mouth....and after getting up be ready for another.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Guest Posted November 18, 2016 Report Posted November 18, 2016 Just now, Army Guy said: I should at least get a good punch in the mouth....and after getting up be ready for another.... Well sure, but that's between you and the husband. He can do what he wants. The government and the courts better not get involved though. Quote
Rue Posted November 20, 2016 Report Posted November 20, 2016 On 2016-11-17 at 2:13 PM, marcus said: This has nothing to do with my comment about security. People should be allowed to say whatever they want, name themselves what they like and write whatever books they want. France has a problem with free speech. The French government. The municipality. There should be a program to integrate new immigrants by different levels of government. A good example of doing it right is what Canada did when we brought in 30,000+ refugees. There was a coordination between the federal government and different municipalities to take in a number of refugees in. Programs were waiting for them to start helping them adjust and adapt to the new life and culture. In France, the refugees are allowed in and then there isn't much after that. They end up going to the cheapest and most familiar places, like the ghettos of Paris. Who is denying anything. When a person moves to a new country, it's only natural for them to want to be close to what is familiar to them. Can you blame a Moroccan for wanting to move into a Moroccan community? Especially when there is a lack of good programs post migration? Forcing a woman not to wear something at the beach = stupid anti-freedom of expression and anti-freedom of religion law Forcing people to remove head scarves = stupid anti-freedom of expression and anti-freedom of law law. Especially when crosses and yarmulkes are allowed. It's targeted towards a specific group of people. Jailing someone for writing a book that denies the holocaust = stupid anti-free speech law Screaming fire in a movie theater creates a situation where people could be hurt and not to mention that a movie theater is a private establishment where they have rules against these things. Once again, you are trying to equate two totally different things and expect it to be an argument. Expressing yourself, no matter how stupid the expression may be, as long as it does not physically harm others should be allowed. It's allowed in the U.S., but is limited in France. I am advocating for the same free speech laws we see in the U.S. and disagreeing with France's borderline fascist laws. So if a person like Shady advocates for carpet bombing Gaza, no matter how despicable it is, he should be allowed to. Just like if someone advocates for terrorist attacks on civilians, no matter how despicable it may be. You stated people should be allowed to say whatever they want. Then you back track and say well if it might harm someone then it can be limited. It did not take you very long to show that freedom has limits. Now its easy for you to say people who deny the holocaust should not be censored and that would be stupid. What if people wrote a book mocking your religion and your legacy? Would you sit back? You use a double standard where in one breath its stupid to you to censor holocaust deniers but its unfair to tell a Muslim women not to cover up. Why is your standard of tolerance only applicable when it comes to Muslims? If you think something is hateful to a Muslim its stupid. However its hateful to a holocaust survivor Jewish or not, and someone says such words can injure and harm and need to be limited, you call that stupid. So how is it you decide pain of Muslims is not acceptable but pain to Jews is? Here's the point. It seems stupid to you to deny the right of holocaust deniers because you don't think you are harmed by it until you one day figure out it fuel into physical actions hatred against Muslims . Once it effects your people and you figure out the connection, you'll probably change your mind. I argue in countries where the very blood of the holocaust is in the soil such as Poland or Germany or other such places, those countries have a cultural imperative to protect their next generations from repeating the same evil again and one way they have to do that is not hide or repress or deny the spilling of past blood. That's why they have such laws all across Europe. Instead of calling those laws stupid, ask yourself what is more stupid, denying evil or teaching warning about it to prevent it from happening again. No its not stupid for Ukraine to teach its people and the world about the Stalinist forced famine on its people. No its not stupid for the Irish to teach the world about their potato famine or for Mali or Rwanda to teach the world about their horrible civil wars, and on an don. No its not stupid to teach our children in Canada what happened to the native peoples. To deny such history would be stupid. In Canada if you wrote a book denying Canadian soldiers died in WW2 and saying Canadian soldiers and all Canadians are liars and simply made up the holocaust to attack Germany for no reason yah I would have a problem with it being distributed to school boards. You write something that deliberately insults the death and sacrifice of Canadians I would have a problem with it and I mean that about Muslim Canadians, Christian Canadians, any Canadian, especially our soldiers who died together and transcend simple definition by religion alone. How far do we go in limitations? Its a balanxcing act. I think our laws now do a good job of balancing freedom of your right to question history with your right to go the next step and say hateful comments that hurt. Yes I agree with the deportation of Ernst Zundel from Canada and then he US by both governments because his brochures and essays were deliberately designed to incite hatred against Jews, Catholics and blacks back when he was here.. Yes I agree if people want to write deliberately hateful comments it may have to be challenged just as I believe sexual materials need to be censored if they show sex with children, sex with animals or sexual violence. No I don't like censorship-I loath it especially with art but there are limits Now if someone says they believe in carpet bombing (some do) I like you would have no issue. If they said in the next sentence something hateful about Muslims or Jews or the people being carpet bombed. Yah I have a problem with that. I have a problem with hateful comments. Me and many others. We just don't look the other way and select only politically appropriate things. We use a consistent standard. That's what Army Guy is getting at. I partiually agree with you. Quote
Guest Posted November 21, 2016 Report Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Marcus can handle his own arguments, of course, but I also want to comment on some of the points you make. On 2016-11-17 at 11:38 AM, Rue said: You stated people should be allowed to say whatever they want. Then you back track and say well if it might harm someone then it can be limited. It did not take you very long to show that freedom has limits. To question freedom of speech in this way is like saying one shouldn't have the freedom to walk, because one shouldn't be allowed to walk on someone. One shouldn't, but one should be allowed to walk elsewhere. The "fire in a crowded theatre" example is meant to illustrate actual, physical harm, not hurt feelings or outrage at opinions. Quote Now its easy for you to say people who deny the holocaust should not be censored and that would be stupid. What if people wrote a book mocking your religion and your legacy? Would you sit back? You use a double standard where in one breath its stupid to you to censor holocaust deniers but its unfair to tell a Muslim women not to cover up. Why is your standard of tolerance only applicable when it comes to Muslims? If you think something is hateful to a Muslim its stupid. However its hateful to a holocaust survivor Jewish or not, and someone says such words can injure and harm and need to be limited, you call that stupid. So how is it you decide pain of Muslims is not acceptable but pain to Jews is? People most definitely should be allowed to deny the Holocaust, as well as write books mocking any religion or legacy. As for a Muslim woman. She's the same as any other human being, and should not be told what to wear, or what not to wear. I'm not sure of the connection here. Muslims, of course, have no more rights to have their religion protected from the freedom of expression of others than do any other religions. Here's the point. It seems stupid to you to deny the right of holocaust deniers because you don't think you are harmed by it until you one day figure out it fuel into physical actions hatred against Muslims . Once it effects your people and you figure out the connection, you'll probably change your mind. Any physical action that results from speech is the responsibility of those perpetrating the actions, not those who made the speech. (Notwithstanding proscriptions against incitement) Quote I argue in countries where the very blood of the holocaust is in the soil such as Poland or Germany or other such places, those countries have a cultural imperative to protect their next generations from repeating the same evil again and one way they have to do that is not hide or repress or deny the spilling of past blood. That's why they have such laws all across Europe. Instead of calling those laws stupid, ask yourself what is more stupid, denying evil or teaching warning about it to prevent it from happening again. Stupidity doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is not limited to the non-stupid. No its not stupid for Ukraine to teach its people and the world about the Stalinist forced famine on its people. No its not stupid for the Irish to teach the world about their potato famine or for Mali or Rwanda to teach the world about their horrible civil wars, and on an don. No its not stupid to teach our children in Canada what happened to the native peoples. To deny such history would be stupid. Of course it would. But like I said, stupidity is not a consideration when it comes to freedom of speech. In Canada if you wrote a book denying Canadian soldiers died in WW2 and saying Canadian soldiers and all Canadians are liars and simply made up the holocaust to attack Germany for no reason yah I would have a problem with it being distributed to school boards. You write something that deliberately insults the death and sacrifice of Canadians I would have a problem with it and I mean that about Muslim Canadians, Christian Canadians, any Canadian, especially our soldiers who died together and transcend simple definition by religion alone. I too would have a problem with it being distributed in schools. But that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. How far do we go in limitations? Its a balanxcing act. I think our laws now do a good job of balancing freedom of your right to question history with your right to go the next step and say hateful comments that hurt. Yes I agree with the deportation of Ernst Zundel from Canada and then he US by both governments because his brochures and essays were deliberately designed to incite hatred against Jews, Catholics and blacks back when he was here.. Disagree with that. Better to just ignore, or debate and ridicule. Yes I agree if people want to write deliberately hateful comments it may have to be challenged just as I believe sexual materials need to be censored if they show sex with children, sex with animals or sexual violence. No I don't like censorship-I loath it especially with art but there are limits Sexual materials require consent. Children and animals cannot consent, and are therefore illegal. You could probably see sexual violence on the television tonight, or at any local theatre. Now if someone says they believe in carpet bombing (some do) I like you would have no issue. If they said in the next sentence something hateful about Muslims or Jews or the people being carpet bombed. Yah I have a problem with that. I believe in carpet bombing people who deserve to be carpet bombed. Currently the only ones who do are Muslims. They are worthy of any hateful comment you or I could think up. (It is a given, of course, that such comments do not apply to those Muslims undeserving of them, right?) I have a problem with hateful comments. Me and many others. We just don't look the other way and select only politically appropriate things. We use a consistent standard. That's what Army Guy is getting at. I partiually agree with you. Can I just also say there is some weird stuff happening with the quote function on here. Including my keyboard typing backwards at times. That's why this looks the way it does. Edited November 21, 2016 by bcsapper Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted November 26, 2016 Report Posted November 26, 2016 That is ridiculous. How unfortunate that the republic that founded so much of classical liberalism is not run by people that support the ideals of the republic. Quote
marcus Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 On 11/20/2016 at 3:26 PM, Rue said: Why is your standard of tolerance only applicable when it comes to Muslims? If you think something is hateful to a Muslim its stupid. However its hateful to a holocaust survivor Jewish or not, and someone says such words can injure and harm and need to be limited, you call that stupid. So how is it you decide pain of Muslims is not acceptable but pain to Jews is? Here's the point. It seems stupid to you to deny the right of holocaust deniers because you don't think you are harmed by it until you one day figure out it fuel into physical actions hatred against Muslims . Once it effects your people and you figure out the connection, you'll probably change your mind. You are very sensitive and reactionary. Your automatic reaction for my advocating of free speech and using the anti-free speech laws that are specifically created against those who deny the holocaust as an example of a bad law is that I am 1) A Muslim, 2) I would be for laws that limited free speech against Muslims because of 1) Your reactionary and defensive attitude towards your tribe disables you from thinking openly and having a successful discussion. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Benz Posted November 30, 2016 Report Posted November 30, 2016 On 2016-11-07 at 3:46 AM, Altai said: What do you think about this event ? Is it a true decision or wrong decision ? " a French court has handed a three-month suspended jail sentence to a teenager who named his domestic Wi-Fi network after the DAESH terrorist group."http://crackdownchronicles.com/anti-terror-policies/french-teen-gets-jail-sentence-for-naming-wi-fi-network-after-daesh/ I think it is terribly stupid. I understand that the French are very wounded and irritated by all the terrorist attacks they got lately but, it is not an excuse. It's not enough to pretend he was doing the apology of terrorism. They have spied on him and found nothing else. He goes on appeal and I expect him to win. I bet the political leaders will put their two cents as well. Quote
eyeball Posted December 1, 2016 Report Posted December 1, 2016 6 hours ago, Benz said: I think it is terribly stupid. Especially when you consider that ISIS regards the name Daesh as an insult. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Altai Posted January 3, 2017 Author Report Posted January 3, 2017 The woman who says that she would marry with the ISIS member jailed for 4,5 years.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-36322924 Quote "You cant ask people about their belief, its none of your business, its between them and their God but you have to ask them whether or not they need something or they have a problem to be solved." Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed The Conqueror"We are not intended to conquer someone's lands but we want to conquer hearts." Ottoman Sultan, Mehmed The Conqueror
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.