Jump to content

Liberals want to allow people to advocate terrorism


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, capricorn said:

If her face was covered except for her eyes, how did you know she was smiling?

Humans are generally pretty good at reading emotion/expression, even just from the eyes, so it's possible she could tell.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Or if they are planning to plant a bomb.

 

But if people are just questioning to morality of planting bombs, that should be allowed.

 

Tell you what: Try that "morality" at the airport and report back w/ your results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Tell you what: Try that "morality" at the airport and report back w/ your results.

So your counter argument is that 'aha, it's not legal in an airport!'? What kind of argument is that?

 

It's like if someone is losing an argument on the legalization of homosexuality and then they say 'go to Saudi Arabia, try that 'morality' and then report back w/ your results'.

 

You have no good arguments left. Admit it. Just concede and accept my position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

So your counter argument is that 'aha, it's not legal in an airport!'? What kind of argument is that?

 

It's like if someone is losing an argument on the legalization of homosexuality and then they say 'go to Saudi Arabia, try that 'morality' and then report back w/ your results'.

 

You have no good arguments left. Admit it. Just concede and accept my position.

 

You're free to discuss what merits you admire re: terrorism. I'm free to view you as one of the enemy.

Edited by DogOnPorch
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bcsapper said:

One thing I know. An ordinary mortal wrote every word in the Bible. 

I knew fools despise wisdom and instruction just from being on here. 

Check the Religion and Politics section.  I posted the Five Reasons why the Bible is inspired in a topic there a few days ago.  Can't repeat it here.  Honestly I think you should read the Five points and give it serious consideration.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

If you want to define it as incitement to violence or not, I don't really care.

 

But if we go down this route, is advocacy of capital punishment for mass murders not incitement to violence? In that case, should we make it illegal to advocate for capital punishment?

If you don't it makes all our arguments moot.  We're talking about different things.

The capital punishment thing, sophistry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Check the Religion and Politics section.  I posted the Five Reasons why the Bible is inspired in a topic there a few days ago.  Can't repeat it here.  Honestly I think you should read the Five points and give it serious consideration.

Lots of people were inspired.  Douglas Adams with "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".  Ian Bairnson with the solo at the end of "Wuthering Heights".  Martin Scorsese with "Taxi Driver".

They were all ordinary mortals.

 

Edit>  For those unfamiliar with Bairnson's masterpiece, check out the "What are you listening to?" thread.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Lots of people were inspired.  Douglas Adams with "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".  Ian Bairnson with the solo at the end of "Wuthering Heights".  Martin Scorsese with "Taxi Driver".

They were all ordinary mortals.

 

Edit>  For those unfamiliar with Bairnson's masterpiece, check out the "What are you listening to?" thread.

The main message of the Bible is not morals contrary to what many people might assume, but it is the kiing, mediator, saviour, who offers salvation.  However, morals are taught in the Bible.  The Bible is a moral compass even though people who follow the Bible might not always be on the narrow road.    However, all you have to do is look at the ideas many people have to see they have no direction.  People often veer off on some direction contrary to even rational thinking.  Take the idea of advocating violence for example.  Who would think there are people who think that is perfectly ok.  Obviously this far from biblical teaching.  But without a moral standard, your opinion or mine or the guy next door is might be out of it on heroine is just as valid as anyone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The main message of the Bible is not morals contrary to what many people might assume, but it is the kiing, mediator, saviour, who offers salvation.  However, morals are taught in the Bible.  The Bible is a moral compass even though people who follow the Bible might not always be on the narrow road.    However, all you have to do is look at the ideas many people have to see they have no direction.  People often veer off on some direction contrary to even rational thinking.  Take the idea of advocating violence for example.  Who would think there are people who think that is perfectly ok.  Obviously this far from biblical teaching.  But without a moral standard, your opinion or mine or the guy next door is might be out of it on heroine is just as valid as anyone else's.

You've been partaking of more hops than you should too, haven't you...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You've been partaking of more hops than you should too, haven't you...?

AT least when one starts talking about morality or the right and wrong of something such as the discussion about advocating violence, I have some basis to support my position.  You have nothing but your own opinion and the same for others who argue one way or another who don't accept the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, blackbird said:

AT least when one starts talking about morality or the right and wrong of something such as the discussion about advocating violence, I have some basis to support my position.  You have nothing but your own opinion and the same for others who argue one way or another who don't accept the Bible.

My opinion is as valid as the Bible.  More.  I'm more real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

My opinion is as valid as the Bible.  More.  I'm more real.

Way back ions ago before creation,  heaven had a very beautiful angel called Lucifer.  He looked at himself and thought he was the equal of God and so rebelled against God and one third of the angels followed him.  He and his followers were kicked out of heaven.  They exist now on earth as Satan and the demons.  Their day is prophesied to be coming in which they will be judged and thrown into the lake of fire forever.   Not a very good way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2017 at 4:10 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

If we go by that standard, we'd have to ban a lot of things to be consistent. Some teenage girls in Oregan thought that Slenderman was cool and tried to kill a schoolmate to sacrifice to Slenderman. Does that mean we should ban Slenderman? How about all the people killing in the name of Islam? Does that mean we should ban islam as well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slender_Man_stabbing

No we don't have to ban all things just to be consistent.....they are common sense rules and laws to prevent people from spreading hate or incitement of violence....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

No we don't have to ban all things just to be consistent.....they are common sense rules and laws to prevent people from spreading hate or incitement of violence....

 

So you are admitting that you are not consistent and don't care about consistency?

 

As for 'common sense' it changes a lot depending on time, location and who you ask. In the late 40's and early 50's in Britain, it was 'common sense' that you want to prevent people from spreading 'indecency' and as a result, the 'indecent' acts of homosexuals were illegal. Such awful 'common sense' led to Alan Turing committing suicide.

 

In Russia, it is 'common sense' that you want to protect children from 'gay propaganda'. In Saudi Arabia, it is 'common sense' that you want to stop 'hateful acts' like homosexual acts since they are hateful against the perfect design and perfect intent of the perfect creator Allah. In Ireland, Stephen Fry is going to be charged with Blasphemy for saying "I’d say ‘Bone cancer in children, what’s that about?’ How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault, It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?" because it's 'hateful' and supposedly violates Ireland's nonsense blasphemy laws that are intended to protect the Irish people from 'hate'.

 

You really want a society where the government bans and imprisons people based on speech they arbitrarily deem as 'hateful' or because they claim that whatever they want to ban is 'common sense'?

Edited by -1=e^ipi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your putting words in my mouth...that is not what i said....And yes i want a government that can make a common sense decision and enforce it through law.....as with laws they can be changed just like they are created, when it does not make sense any more change it.....until then i think banning anything in regards to terrorism is a good call, including taking their media off our servers and block all their content.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

.until then i think banning anything in regards to terrorism is a good call, including taking their media off our servers and block all their content

I agree that working to eliminate online recruitment sites for terrorism is a good idea.   Unfortunately, it seems that like child-porn sites and pirating sites, this is easier said than done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting article that supports Euler:

"Note also that no empirical study has backed the idea that limiting someone’s speech advances the causes of those at society’s margins or inhibits the formation of hate groups. In Baer’s native Germany, as well as a number of other European countries, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust; until recently Germany barred publication of Mein Kampf. None of that prevented the rise of neo-Nazis there or the advent of a virulent strain of xenophobia directed against foreign laborers and other immigrants.

Barring speakers or preventing hate speech does not safeguard the oppressed. It empowers the oppressors, and it suggests that their words are to be feared for a compelling, persuasive power that, absent the muzzle, might infect others."

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Free-Speech-but-Not-for-All-/239909?key=gsJGLTrc0E7aWqq9G6kbgV9K8e4jNa2bn-kThO-jWSeTQW7ucDGmLbY4qBrfU85bRzhzb3RzLXFNODJlTUpsdlJHeGxSTk1ZeDBnVmV2MzVWcmlYWmNWYURfNA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@carepov Interesting article, thanks for sharing.  Still, when a group of people protest a speaker with whom they disagree and do not allow that person into their venue, isn't that also free speech?  Is there an obligation to give people a hearing or platform inherent in free speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

@carepov Interesting article, thanks for sharing.  Still, when a group of people protest a speaker with whom they disagree and do not allow that person into their venue, isn't that also free speech?  Is there an obligation to give people a hearing or platform inherent in free speech?

The question is, is it illegal and wrong, or is it just wrong?  If the people preventing a speaker from entering a venue are doing so legally, because they own the venue, say, then it would simply be wrong.  Legal, allowed, but wrong.  And that would be subjective.  Certainly they wouldn't think it was wrong. It would be like denying the holocaust. 

If the people denying entry have no right to do so, and use force to prevent entry,  then it would also be illegal.  Like denying the Holocaust and hitting a Jew.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, dialamah said:

@carepov Interesting article, thanks for sharing.  Still, when a group of people protest a speaker with whom they disagree and do not allow that person into their venue, isn't that also free speech?  Is there an obligation to give people a hearing or platform inherent in free speech?

Sure, for the most part, it is free speech, but IMO, more often than not it is counterproductive - it amplifies the speakers popularity and message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

@carepov Interesting article, thanks for sharing.  Still, when a group of people protest a speaker with whom they disagree and do not allow that person into their venue, isn't that also free speech?  Is there an obligation to give people a hearing or platform inherent in free speech?

Protesting peacefully outside is free speech. Beating up the speaker and those coming to listen is not. Clear?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

@carepov Still, when a group of people protest a speaker with whom they disagree and do not allow that person into their venue, isn't that also free speech?

Protesting, sure. Blocking people from a venue, no.

 

I would argue that not only is freedom of speech a legal issue, but it is also a cultural trait. If we accept that legal freedom of speech makes sense because it allows for a free market place of ideas, then it would make sense to also accept that a culture that is more accepting to people with minority view points to express their views because such a culture would be desirable as it would have a more effective free marketplace of ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...