Would it be possible to have a conversation regarding the toleration of pussy grabbing presidents and pedophile protecting popes?

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Hate speech should not be censored, offensive speech is not actually damaging

Disagree.  Anyway it has no utility.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

Ah, a quibble!  They can ban them as far as I'm concerned.

I was agreeing.

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I was agreeing.

I'm sorry.  I'm not used to that.

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Disagree.  Anyway it has no utility.

Irrelevant. Whether or not free speech has utility does not determine whether it should be censored, you can disagree all you want, but you have no good reason for that disagreement and want to restrict people's rights simply because you don't see any utility in the way that some people use those rights.

Not good enough, if you want restrict people's rights, you need better than "it has no utility" and "I disagree", step your game up, those arguments are terrible, especially when you are pushing for restricting human rights.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. Irrelevant. Whether or not free speech has utility does not determine whether it should be censored, you can disagree all you want,

2.  want to restrict people's rights simply because you don't see any utility in the way that some people use those rights.

3. Not good enough, if you want restrict people's rights, you need better than "it has no utility" and "I disagree",  

1. Of course it's relevant.  It's arguable whether it's harmful.  Many would say it is.  But nobody can provide any utility for it.

2. I don't "want" to restrict rights, but I think that these messages cause harm.  And there's no use for it.

3. Yeah - it causes marginal people to target immigrant groups and murder them.

Is it ok if I sunbathe nude in front of your house ?  You wouldn't restrict my freedom of expression now would you ?  What if I watched porn on my iPad in the park ?  How about when I laugh maniacally during the one minute silence on Remembrance Day ?  These are things I like to do and I know you will be standing beside me, holding my hand throughout.  Thanks in advance.

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Of course it's relevant.  It's arguable whether it's harmful.  Many would say it is.  But nobody can provide any utility for it.

2. I don't "want" to restrict rights, but I think that these messages cause harm.  And there's no use for it.

3. Yeah - it causes marginal people to target immigrant groups and murder them.

Is it ok if I sunbathe nude in front of your house ?  You wouldn't restrict my freedom of expression now would you ?  What if I watched porn on my iPad in the park ?  How about when I laugh maniacally during the one minute silence on Remembrance Day ?  These are things I like to do and I know you will be standing beside me, holding my hand throughout.  Thanks in advance.

It does not cause people to be targeted, there are already laws against targeting people, regardless of hate speech, don't need anti-hate speech laws.

Don't need to provide any utility to it, the burden is on you to prove it should be censored regardless of utility. Some people saying it's harmful isn't good enough, especially when they are idiotic free speech haters who never have a good argument to censor people.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

It does not cause people to be targeted, there are already laws against targeting people, regardless of hate speech, don't need anti-hate speech laws.

Don't need to provide any utility to it, the burden is on you to prove it should be censored regardless of utility. Some people saying it's harmful isn't good enough, especially when they are idiotic free speech haters who never have a good argument to censor people.

An interesting point.  One of the reasons many give in argument to those who would restrict immigration based on the potential for certain immigrants to bring "barbaric cultural practices" into the country with them is that we already have laws against such things.  I agree with that, and have said so.  I was all in favour of informing immigrants about the lack of tolerance for such practices but JT vetoed that idea.

That said though, the same should apply to targeting people.  It should be made clear, in no uncertain terms, that it is wrong.

Regardless of what someone who hates them has said about them.

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

An interesting point.  One of the reasons many give in argument to those who would restrict immigration based on the potential for certain immigrants to bring "barbaric cultural practices" into the country with them is that we already have laws against such things.  I agree with that, and have said so.  I was all in favour of informing immigrants about the lack of tolerance for such practices but JT vetoed that idea.

That said though, the same should apply to targeting people.  It should be made clear, in no uncertain terms, that it is wrong.

Regardless of what someone who hates them has said about them.

Inciting violence is already illegal, no need for hate speech laws, that's already covered when it actually incites violence. Saying that hate speech incites violence and so it needs to be made illegal, just shows that these free speech haters don't even know the laws, and want new laws to cover things that are already covered by older laws.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Inciting violence is already illegal, no need for hate speech laws, that's already covered when it actually incites violence. Saying that hate speech incites violence and so it needs to be made illegal, just shows that these free speech haters don't even know the laws, and want new laws to cover things that are already covered by older laws.

Yeah, I know.  I was just giving others a good reason to agree.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. It does not cause people to be targeted, there are already laws against targeting people, regardless of hate speech, don't need anti-hate speech laws.

2. Don't need to provide any utility to it, the burden is on you to prove it should be censored regardless of utility.

3. ...they are idiotic free speech haters who never have a good argument to censor people.

1. Whether or not laws exist, people target groups that are vilified as André Bisonette did. Alexandre Bissonnette obsessed about Islam, feminism, and mass shooters online

2. Yes, and it's pretty obvious to me actually.

3. Name calling shows you have nothing to defend the utility of hate speech.  And you didn't respond to my examples ?  Are you ok with me posting child porn pictures in public ?  Of course not.  Where is your defense of liberty though ?  Maybe you are quietly starting to understand that the collective actually does have a say in your free expression ?  

[Yzermandius19]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Whether or not laws exist, people target groups that are vilified as André Bisonette did. Alexandre Bissonnette obsessed about Islam, feminism, and mass shooters online

2. Yes, and it's pretty obvious to me actually.

3. Name calling shows you have nothing to defend the utility of hate speech.  And you didn't respond to my examples ?  Are you ok with me posting child porn pictures in public ?  Of course not.  Where is your defense of liberty though ?  Maybe you are quietly starting to understand that the collective actually does have a say in your free expression ?  

1. Just because Andre Bissonette believed some dumb stuff doesn't mean that dumb stuff should be censored.
2. It's so obvious to you, you can't say why it's so obvious, you just know that it's obvious, even though you can't articulate why that is the case, and yet you still want to censor people if they can't meet that standard.
3. Name calling shows that I don't think highly of people who want to censor others for dubious reasons. Child pornography is not illegal because it's offensive speech, it's illegal for very different reasons, and you shouldn't get to apply those reasons to ban "hate speech", when you are comparing apples and oranges, and are pretending they are the same thing.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. Just because Andre Bissonette believed some dumb stuff doesn't mean that dumb stuff should be censored.

2. It's so obvious to you, you can't say why it's so obvious,  

3. Name calling shows that I don't think highly of people who want to censor others for dubious reasons.

4. Child pornography is not illegal because it's offensive speech, it's illegal for very different reasons, and you shouldn't get to apply those reasons to ban "hate speech", when you are comparing apples and oranges, and are pretending they are the same thing.

1. The problem isn't that he believed it, it's that it was a step in his path to horrible crimes.

2. I said why several times.

3. It shows a desperation IMO.

4. What reasons?  And what do YOU think about it?  What about my other examples?  I feel like you have to never thought of these before, and prefer to simply cut and paste the defense of liberty quote.

 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The problem isn't that he believed it, it's that it was a step in his path to horrible crimes.

2. I said why several times.

3. It shows a desperation IMO.

4. What reasons?  And what do YOU think about it?  What about my other examples?  I feel like you have to never thought of these before, and prefer to simply cut and paste the defense of liberty quote.

 

1. It's not a step, plenty of people read that and don't go out and do what Bisonette did, it's not inciting violence.
2. You said utility, which is irrelevant, and you disagree, which is doubly irrelevant.
3. Wishful thinking
4. I have thought this through before, it is you who haven't thought your reasons for wanting people censored through, captain projection.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. It's not a step, plenty of people read that and don't go out and do what Bisonette did, it's not inciting violence.
2. You said utility, which is irrelevant, and you disagree, which is doubly irrelevant.
3. I have thought this through before, it is you who haven't thought your reasons for wanting people censored through, captain projection.

1. That doesn't mean it didn't motivate him.  It was a step in his development as a mass murderer and only a willfully blind person would deny the facts.

2. I said that without utility there's no reason to allow communication that has damaging effects.

3. Another insult.  If you have thought through your answers, why haven't you posted them ?  I asked several times. I am getting tired of you talking past me: I stated my reasons several times.

..

Mea Culpa - this is thread drift.  I will tie it back to the OP by saying that our society has become so narcissistic that we actually argue our political choices and philosophy as personal attributes like clothing.

Most of the people I encounter who discuss politics are vain types who cut and paste quotes like the liberty quote.  They are young and don't know how to argue objectively without insults.  Politics and even philosophy is a shallow entertainment like fake wrestling or FOX news.  With age will come wisdom.

[French Patriot]

12 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I probably agree.  I would have to see a detailed description of what hate speech actually is, and where it is seen to crossover into incitement.  There's nothing wrong with hating, and nothing with hating publicly, but I draw the line at encouraging people to do things to those one might hate.

If you lived in the U.S. North during slavery, or just prior to WWII, would you not be all in for encouraging hurting the Germans and U S south when the gains were so important and the injustice so great?

I would be all in to kill thanks to the evil being fought.

Regards

DL

[French Patriot]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Disagree.  Anyway it has no utility.

I disagree. Please read the post just above.

Some things should be hated and destroyed, be they poor ideas or poor harmful people as spoken of in my post just above.

Regards

DL

Edited April 24, 2019 by French Patriot

[French Patriot]

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Inciting violence is already illegal,

Did Bush incite violence when promoting his war?

I would say yes, but he was never arrested or condemned for it.

I guess that the same question could be asked about all leaders who incited their people top go to war.

Regards

DL

 

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

Did Bush incite violence when promoting his war?

I would say yes, but he was never arrested or condemned for it.

I guess that the same question could be asked about all leaders who incited their people top go to war.

Regards

DL

 

I would say no. Pitching a legally sanctioned war to the public isn't inciting violence, and it's protected free speech.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

1. It's not a step, plenty of people read that and don't go out and do what Bisonette did, it's not inciting violence.
2. You said utility, which is irrelevant, and you disagree, which is doubly irrelevant.
3. I have thought this through before, it is you who haven't thought your reasons for wanting people censored through, captain projection.

1.  It was a step for Bissonette, and a step for the NZ killer.    Dismissing the very real power ideas and words have because "not everybody follows through" is either very naive or willful blindness.   If words did not have the power to move people to action, politicians would not give speeches.  If words did not have the power to move people to action, gofundme campaigns would never raise money.  If words did not have the power to move people to action, attacks against Blacks, Muslims, Jews, Mexicans and other immigrants would not have increased after Trump's rise to power.  If words did not have power to move people to action, suicide bombers would not be a feature of terrorism.   In none of these examples does everybody do what the speaker wants, but enough follow through to make the idea behind the words successful.  

2.  Insisting on respectful speech and disallowing speech that dehumanizes other people will not do our society any harm.   Otherwise, why do we try to teach our kids not to call other people names, to be respectful of others even in our speech?   Because as humans, we do understand that how we speak about others reflects how we think of them and how we treat them.  

3.  I think you've been confused by the rhetoric that any action on stemming hateful rhetoric and dehumanizing speech will somehow affect your ability to engage in legitimate criticism of practices and behaviors that you dislike.  Criticism and dehumanizing speech are different:  for example, saying that "I do not believe it is necessary in Islam for women to cover themselves and I think it's important to emphasis that using the teachings of Islam" is quite different from saying "I don't want to see women with blankets over their heads, they are extremists and shouldn't be allowed in Canada".

[Yzermandius19]

You people have far too much faith in politicians to draw the line on just what should be considered hateful, and that they could never screw it up. Crazy people, these free speech haters, straight loony tunes.

[French Patriot]

30 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I would say no. Pitching a legally sanctioned war to the public isn't inciting violence, and it's protected free speech.

It was not legally sanctioned when he was instigating it. If it was, he would have no need to promote it.

Strange that you think promoting war is not promoting violence.

Regards

DL

 

[dialamah]

42 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

If you lived in the U.S. North during slavery, or just prior to WWII, would you not be all in for encouraging hurting the Germans and U S south when the gains were so important and the injustice so great?

I would be all in to kill thanks to the evil being fought.

Regards

DL

Not the same thing, imo.  Campaigning against slavery or Nazis is a different concept than claiming "everybody in the South is a slave-owning A-hole and should be punished" or "All Germans are Nazis and so we must get rid of all Germans".   I'm interested in denying evil, but I cannot support a broad brush approach that assumes every individual in a given group is guilty.  Else I'm no different than the poster who boasted about confronting two hijab-wearing women, and encouraged others to do the same - including ripping hijabs from their head.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You people have far too much faith in politicians to draw the line on just what should be considered hateful, and that they could never screw it up.

People can always screw things up, even if they are politicians.   Is it better for a country to be torn apart because the hateful and violent underbelly was allowed free reign in the name of 'free speech'?   Or should those people be limited in their influence so the rest of us can live in safety and peace?   My version of limiting hate speech also applies to Imams who preach anti-Jew rhetoric in their Mosques, btw.  I don't limit my disapproval of hate to White-only, which seems to be a major concern of those who think spreading hate is an acceptable pastime.

Quote

Crazy people, these free speech haters, straight loony tunes.

Ah, so MH was correct - no argument left, so insults it is.

 

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

People can always screw things up, even if they are politicians.   Is it better for a country to be torn apart because the hateful and violent underbelly was allowed free reign in the name of 'free speech'?   Or should those people be limited in their influence so the rest of us can live in safety and peace?   My version of limiting hate speech also applies to Imams who preach anti-Jew rhetoric in their Mosques, btw.  I don't limit my disapproval of hate to White-only, which seems to be a major concern of those who think spreading hate is an acceptable pastime.

Ah, so MH was correct - no argument left, so insults it is.

 

 

Islam is a religion...not a skin colour. Anybody can join.

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

People can always screw things up, even if they are politicians.   Is it better for a country to be torn apart because the hateful and violent underbelly was allowed free reign in the name of 'free speech'?   Or should those people be limited in their influence so the rest of us can live in safety and peace?   My version of limiting hate speech also applies to Imams who preach anti-Jew rhetoric in their Mosques, btw.  I don't limit my disapproval of hate to White-only, which seems to be a major concern of those who think spreading hate is an acceptable pastime.

Ah, so MH was correct - no argument left, so insults it is.

 

If you think the country will be torn apart if free speech is allowed, it's no wonder your views are so crazy.