FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Freedom Of Speech - What is it to you?
Freedom Of Speech - What is it to you?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Some think it's carte blanche to spread disgusting messages. Hate speech shouldn't be defended under free speech, it's possible to give an opinion without offending and people should adhere to that. Also, other legal things like libel/slander should be excluded. You can't defend yourself by saying "free speech" if you're spreading lies (knowingly or not). "  | |||
 | |||
"For me, I see no need to mock the prophet or draw disingenuous cartoons knowing they will offend in the name of freedom of speech..." Whereas I would not do this personally, why should any one have to show respect to a person, be they a prophet or not, that they simply disagree with and believe to be wrong. Surly they have a right to point out by what ever means what they consider to be the failings of any philosophy or teaching. Satire is a very good way of doing that. | |||
"What do you believe freedom of speech to actually be? Do you believe we have genuine freedom of speech in the UK and West? Should there be any limitations to freedom of speech? Although this thread has been inspired by yesterday's sad events it is not a debate on those events or Islam. Do you believe you can say absolutely anything you want to without sanction?" I like to think so but oviouslly slagging mom hammed off is not. But fuck him and his beliefs. All hail britain first the voice that we all want to say and freedom of speech. Thoughts go to the people that have sufferd because of there shit | |||
"For me, I see no need to mock the prophet or draw disingenuous cartoons knowing they will offend in the name of freedom of speech... Whereas I would not do this personally, why should any one have to show respect to a person, be they a prophet or not, that they simply disagree with and believe to be wrong. Surly they have a right to point out by what ever means what they consider to be the failings of any philosophy or teaching. Satire is a very good way of doing that." I didn't say they have to show respect, I prefer to say nothing than some disrespect if the result of that is fuelling a backlash. It's a judgement call. Others will see it different | |||
| |||
"For me, I see no need to mock the prophet or draw disingenuous cartoons knowing they will offend in the name of freedom of speech... Whereas I would not do this personally, why should any one have to show respect to a person, be they a prophet or not, that they simply disagree with and believe to be wrong. Surly they have a right to point out by what ever means what they consider to be the failings of any philosophy or teaching. Satire is a very good way of doing that." You don't have to show respect to anyone.... but that doesn't me you should disrespect them either.... How many vulnerable kids have committed suicide or live in misery because some selfish oaf thinks it would be funny to mock them...
| |||
"I don't believe freedom of speech gives the right to insult or bully... I find the notion of people defending their own abusive behaviour by claiming its simply their right to exercise freedom of speech is utterly offensive in itself... These people who hide behind the defence of freedom of speech while using mocking language and images don't seem to give a shite whether innocent people get caught up in any backlash provoked by their selfish interpretation of the defence of freedom of speech... ,,, "Who have they insulted or bullied? There is no more proof of the existence of Allah than there is of Jesus....and this magazine have mocked ALL religions equally as they are a secular publication with no belief in any fictitious gods etc. Their last cartoon was giving some ridicule to the leader of IS /ISIS/ISIL. Or whatever they call themselves now. As is their right! | |||
"Do you believe you can say absolutely anything you want to without sanction?" No. Hate speech and slander are rightfully not considered free speech. | |||
| |||
"Yesterday was a tragic event, and, when they catch the perpetrators, they should be locked of for life, not given the opportunity of martyrdom. Freedom of speech to me is the right to express _iews responsibly, the key here is responsibly, no one deserves to die for what they say, but I do question the wisdom of antagonising and already volatile situation. I'm Not sure really what I think, I most certainly condemn the tragedy in Paris, but I have a nagging feeling that it is very unwise to fuel such a potentially dangerous fire. In a way, isn't it a bit like inciting a terrorist act. I felt the same about Sony's film. Anyhow, to me every human life is precious, violence an murder resolves nothing. Hope I've expressed myself right and don't upset anyone but that's me exercising my freedom of speech which my grandfather fought in 2 world wars for Sad sad times "What you seem to be saying is that people should sensor themselves. And that's the problem. Once you start saying that you should not say this or you should not say that in case it offends someone where do you stop. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to make fun of Muslims or Islam. Why just them? So let's bring all religions in. But you can't stop their either. Christian religion teaches that ALL authority comes from God and is only exercised by his will through HIS appointments on earth. Technically that could be read as any criticism of any authority is a criticism of God and, as such, offensive. People have a right to criticise any religion, authority, gods, God or man (and Mohamed was only a man) as they do anything else that claims to have authority other them or others. If those who support the religion don't like it then they need to be taught what living in a democratic, free society is all about. And it's not about not allowing other people to criticise your beliefs. To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion | |||
"Do you believe you can say absolutely anything you want to without sanction? No. Hate speech and slander are rightfully not considered free speech." It's sad that some don't consider the repercussions of true free speech (where those conditions would be acceptable). Free speech needs to be limited to a degree for good reason. Inciting hatred is a terrible thing. It's not censorship gone mad at all. | |||
"For me, I see no need to mock the prophet or draw disingenuous cartoons knowing they will offend in the name of freedom of speech..." I agree with this,,but | |||
"For me, I see no need to mock the prophet or draw disingenuous cartoons knowing they will offend in the name of freedom of speech... Whereas I would not do this personally, why should any one have to show respect to a person, be they a prophet or not, that they simply disagree with and believe to be wrong. Surly they have a right to point out by what ever means what they consider to be the failings of any philosophy or teaching. Satire is a very good way of doing that. I didn't say they have to show respect, I prefer to say nothing than some disrespect if the result of that is fuelling a backlash. It's a judgement call. Others will see it different" I never like to say anything that belittles a persons religious beliefs. However that does not mean that religion should not be challenged. And the fact that these people are trying to scare us into silence through fear of there brutal actions is all the more reason to shout out by what ever means that what they espouse and are teaching is wrong. Now is not the time to succumb to bully boy tactics. Now is the time to shout out that we will not be silenced and we will not let our freedoms slip away quietly into the darkness of oppression. | |||
"For me, I see no need to mock the prophet or draw disingenuous cartoons knowing they will offend in the name of freedom of speech... Whereas I would not do this personally, why should any one have to show respect to a person, be they a prophet or not, that they simply disagree with and believe to be wrong. Surly they have a right to point out by what ever means what they consider to be the failings of any philosophy or teaching. Satire is a very good way of doing that." I also find myself agreeing with this. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes challenge, not mock ridicule that you know will offend" . But i wish to mock and ridicule any ideology I choose. Lots of people mock conservatism on these very forums or right wing beliefs myself included. If Mohammed doesn't stand up to scrutiny that's not my problem. | |||
| |||
"Yes challenge, not mock ridicule that you know will offend. But i wish to mock and ridicule any ideology I choose. Lots of people mock conservatism on these very forums or right wing beliefs myself included. If Mohammed doesn't stand up to scrutiny that's not my problem." if you feel the need to.., I just don't. I was answering the other post. | |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not." . You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob | |||
" Generally bad arguments do not hold water when put to the test of public scrutiny, but when those arguments are not allowed to be put forward it tends to make people think that there is some truth behind them that they are not being allowed to discover. " | |||
| |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion" And we know how reliable the court of public opinion is. Ask Christopher Jefferies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country is interesting reading. You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of speech, you also accept the duty and responsibility to exercise it appropriately. Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... | |||
"Yes challenge, not mock ridicule that you know will offend" Why should they not be allowed to ridicule. If they think what the religion is saying is ridicules why should they not be allowed to ridicule it. And those offended should get over themselves. Being offended does not give you the right to stop someone from saying they think what you believe is ridicules, nor the right to try and frighten them out of saying they think what you believe is ridicules and definitely not the right to kill them for saying what you believe is ridicules. If that was the case I'd have had 'sexy-bums' head on a platter days ago. | |||
"I believe free speech should mean just that, free speech. Any talk about 'with rights comes responsibilities' is just a way of introducing self censorship. I believe we have freer speech in this country than many others but we do not have truly free speech. My personal belief is that, as long as it is not slander, people should be totally free to say what they want about what they want. Generally bad arguments do not hold water when put to the test of public scrutiny, but when those arguments are not allowed to be put forward it tends to make people think that there is some truth behind them that they are not being allowed to discover. " Been with you pretty much all the way on this  | |||
"Yes challenge, not mock ridicule that you know will offend. But i wish to mock and ridicule any ideology I choose. Lots of people mock conservatism on these very forums or right wing beliefs myself included. If Mohammed doesn't stand up to scrutiny that's not my problem. if you feel the need to.., I just don't. I was answering the other post. ". That's because I believe your a genuinely nice person lots of people are, that doesn't mean we have the right to shut people up who aren't. I've spent 16 years in the green party, countless times on march's and demos we get mocked and ridiculed for our beliefs the difference being we fight mocking with facts and ridicule with moccasins on our feet what we don't do is claim absolute righteousness with beheadings and assassinations | |||
"Yes challenge, not mock ridicule that you know will offend Why should they not be allowed to ridicule. If they think what the religion is saying is ridicules why should they not be allowed to ridicule it. And those offended should get over themselves. Being offended does not give you the right to stop someone from saying they think what you believe is ridicules, nor the right to try and frighten them out of saying they think what you believe is ridicules and definitely not the right to kill them for saying what you believe is ridicules. If that was the case I'd have had 'sexy-bums' head on a platter days ago." . Ha you can take the scouser out of Liverpool.... But he still won't get into Manchester. | |||
"with 'free speech' comes responsibility, often those that claim that 'we' don't have it any more for whatever reason seem to want to have the ability to use language against others they would not wish used toward them or their own.. i don't see what is added to any debate by being offensive about a religion etc, if you need to go to that level you have diminished or made irrelevant any valid points.. " Where do you draw the line? Who decides what is and isn't offensive? If someone is offended do they not have the right to respond? It is a tricky area. I believe that those who spout nonsense are eventually tripped up and are the ones made to look stupid. | |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... " . I have absolutely no problem with that statement anyone offended by it is a dip shit and if you are offended by it i suggest you should probably read more!,I would counter it with.... What utter nonsense skin colour and evolutionary time have got nothing to do with each other, that's a scientific fact. And you cannot be arrested for slander. Ps global warming went years ago!. It's climate change these days  | |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion And we know how reliable the court of public opinion is. Ask Christopher Jefferies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country is interesting reading. You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of speech, you also accept the duty and responsibility to exercise it appropriately. Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... " Well I'm not offended by it and I don't think many others would be either. However I do think that the statement is based on a wrong reading of scientific fact and the evolutionary process. A discussion for another thread maybe. | |||
| |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... . I have absolutely no problem with that statement anyone offended by it is a dip shit and if you are offended by it i suggest you should probably read more!,I would counter it with.... What utter nonsense skin colour and evolutionary time have got nothing to do with each other, that's a scientific fact. And you cannot be arrested for slander. Ps global warming went years ago!. It's climate change these days "And yet again we seem to agree. You can take your head of the platter if you want.  | |||
"with 'free speech' comes responsibility, often those that claim that 'we' don't have it any more for whatever reason seem to want to have the ability to use language against others they would not wish used toward them or their own.. i don't see what is added to any debate by being offensive about a religion etc, if you need to go to that level you have diminished or made irrelevant any valid points.. Where do you draw the line? Who decides what is and isn't offensive? If someone is offended do they not have the right to respond? It is a tricky area. I believe that those who spout nonsense are eventually tripped up and are the ones made to look stupid." i think a large dose of common dog fuck comes into it, one wouldn't have a debate about many of the easy to find faults within all faiths in certain area's with certain followers of those faiths however one could easily have such a debate with the other followers in a different arena.. again anyone responding and opposing a point of _iew has the a right to do so as long as they stay within the laws we all abide by.. agree it is a tricky area and yes stupidity will be easily challenged.. | |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... . I have absolutely no problem with that statement anyone offended by it is a dip shit and if you are offended by it i suggest you should probably read more!,I would counter it with.... What utter nonsense skin colour and evolutionary time have got nothing to do with each other, that's a scientific fact. And you cannot be arrested for slander. Ps global warming went years ago!. It's climate change these days
And yet again we seem to agree. You can take your head of the platter if you want. ". The only thing I like on platters is cheese and onion sandwiches! | |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion And we know how reliable the court of public opinion is. Ask Christopher Jefferies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country is interesting reading. You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of speech, you also accept the duty and responsibility to exercise it appropriately. Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... Well I'm not offended by it and I don't think many others would be either. However I do think that the statement is based on a wrong reading of scientific fact and the evolutionary process. A discussion for another thread maybe." If I had substituted a differing ethnicity and changed the argument slighyly it could have been made into a racist and equally unfounded assumption. | |||
"I believe we think we have freedom of speech, until we speak something not on the preferred list of freely spoken things "And then the do gooder jump on the bandwagon..when they most probably agree with what your saying but either dont have the nads for it or want to be all politically correct and look good to others! Of course this is only my opinion | |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. " I find offensive " I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. " I find offensive and hateful " I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. " I find offensive " I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. " I find to be the rantings of a mad bully " I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not.. You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob" I find most things sexy-bum says about religion to be wrong so nothing new here. Does this give me the right to threaten any of the people who made these comments. No. I have the right to point out why I think they are wrong. I have the right to point out that burning a mosque does not add anything to the argument that Mohamed or Jesus are asses and I have the right to put forward what both Jesus or Mohamed said and did. People can then make up their own minds as to who is the ass and who is not. I don't need to threaten them. | |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion And we know how reliable the court of public opinion is. Ask Christopher Jefferies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country is interesting reading. You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of speech, you also accept the duty and responsibility to exercise it appropriately. Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... Well I'm not offended by it and I don't think many others would be either. However I do think that the statement is based on a wrong reading of scientific fact and the evolutionary process. A discussion for another thread maybe. If I had substituted a differing ethnicity and changed the argument slighyly it could have been made into a racist and equally unfounded assumption. " But you didn't so, until you do, we'll never know how easy it might have been to shoot it down. | |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. I find offensive I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. I find offensive and hateful I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. I find offensive I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. I find to be the rantings of a mad bully I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not.. You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob I find most things sexy-bum says about religion to be wrong so nothing new here. . " . Sorry what I meant to put was the man Jesus Christ was probably a delusional schizophrenic and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest he was anything but. I just preferred calling him a fuckwit  or maybe  | |||
| |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. I find offensive I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. I find offensive and hateful I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. I find offensive I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. I find to be the rantings of a mad bully I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not.. You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob I find most things sexy-bum says about religion to be wrong so nothing new here. . . Sorry what I meant to put was the man Jesus Christ was probably a delusional schizophrenic and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest he was anything but. I just preferred calling him a fuckwit or maybe "Except that JC never claimed to here voices telling him what to do. On the other hand M did claim that the Koran was recited to him by the Angle Gabriel in a cave. A pause for thought! | |||
" Except that JC never claimed to here voices telling him what to do. On the other hand M did claim that the Koran was recited to him by the Angle Gabriel in a cave. A pause for thought!" Oh yes he did. He had regular conversations with both 'his father' and the devil. I think Robert Graves account of his life is probably the most accurate though. Mr ddc | |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion And we know how reliable the court of public opinion is. Ask Christopher Jefferies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country is interesting reading. You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of speech, you also accept the duty and responsibility to exercise it appropriately. Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... Well I'm not offended by it and I don't think many others would be either. However I do think that the statement is based on a wrong reading of scientific fact and the evolutionary process. A discussion for another thread maybe. If I had substituted a differing ethnicity and changed the argument slighyly it could have been made into a racist and equally unfounded assumption. But you didn't so, until you do, we'll never know how easy it might have been to shoot it down." Nor would I because: A. It would be offensive. B. I know better. C. It could not be defended under freedom of speech. Shooting down a flawed argument is one thing. To spout offensive untruths as a demonstration of freedom of speech is wrong. The point on my comment was clearly lost. | |||
| |||
" To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion And we know how reliable the court of public opinion is. Ask Christopher Jefferies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country is interesting reading. You cannot cherry pick. If you accept the principle of freedom of speech, you also accept the duty and responsibility to exercise it appropriately. Poking fun at someone is a great laugh unless you are on the receiving end. As an example of freedom of speech: All white people are less evolved as their skin isnt able to cope with extreme uv light. Come global warming they will be wiped off the earth and serve them right. Pretty sure that would be a _iew that shouldn't be aired in public... Well I'm not offended by it and I don't think many others would be either. However I do think that the statement is based on a wrong reading of scientific fact and the evolutionary process. A discussion for another thread maybe. If I had substituted a differing ethnicity and changed the argument slighyly it could have been made into a racist and equally unfounded assumption. But you didn't so, until you do, we'll never know how easy it might have been to shoot it down. Nor would I because: A. It would be offensive. B. I know better. C. It could not be defended under freedom of speech. Shooting down a flawed argument is one thing. To spout offensive untruths as a demonstration of freedom of speech is wrong. The point on my comment was clearly lost. " No it wasn't. I'm just not sure I agree with that whole argument so wanted to push you to see if you'd say something that was really offensive and then see if it could be argued out on its merits. | |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. I find offensive I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. I find offensive and hateful I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. I find offensive I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. I find to be the rantings of a mad bully I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not.. You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob I find most things sexy-bum says about religion to be wrong so nothing new here. . . Sorry what I meant to put was the man Jesus Christ was probably a delusional schizophrenic and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest he was anything but. I just preferred calling him a fuckwit or maybe
Except that JC never claimed to here voices telling him what to do. On the other hand M did claim that the Koran was recited to him by the Angle Gabriel in a cave. A pause for thought!". Apart from the bible there's only 3 other people ever wrote or mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, one is by somebody who admits he never met him, the other two have been proven fake for a thousand years, not one piece of physical evidence has ever held up to scientific scrutiny and the only remaining written account by a Greek historian says nothing of any miracles or disciples. Considering the hundreds of historians and their extensive writings you would think one would have recalled the miracle worker. Now if I'd mentioned those facts in Saudi Arabia and exchange Jesus for Mohammed... Blasphemer.. But I only said that was a lovely bit of halibut | |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. I find offensive I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. I find offensive and hateful I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. I find offensive I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. I find to be the rantings of a mad bully I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not.. You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob I find most things sexy-bum says about religion to be wrong so nothing new here. Does this give me the right to threaten any of the people who made these comments. No. I have the right to point out why I think they are wrong. I have the right to point out that burning a mosque does not add anything to the argument that Mohamed or Jesus are asses and I have the right to put forward what both Jesus or Mohamed said and did. People can then make up their own minds as to who is the ass and who is not. I don't need to threaten them. " While you were offended by my examples, do you think I am entitled to use them (even though they make me look like an arse)? | |||
" What you seem to be saying is that people should sensor themselves. And that's the problem. Once you start saying that you should not say this or you should not say that in case it offends someone where do you stop. " I believe most of us learn a degree of self-censorship when we become adults. I practise it when asked if mrs ddc's bum does look big in this, or when biting my tongue when her mother is here. We have freedoms, but as many others have stated, with freedoms come responsibilities. I certainly am not perfect, and sometimes my humour over-steps the mark and I truly offend someone. When I do I try to stop, and apologise. Yes we should be free to question, but not deliberately insult. The boundaries of this were much discussed during the religious and racial hatred act, when it replaced the Blasphemy laws. We certainly shouldn't be free to threaten to rape someone's daughter if they employ someone. I hope we can agree there. | |||
| |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. I find offensive I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. I find offensive and hateful I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. I find offensive I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. I find to be the rantings of a mad bully I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not.. You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob I find most things sexy-bum says about religion to be wrong so nothing new here. Does this give me the right to threaten any of the people who made these comments. No. I have the right to point out why I think they are wrong. I have the right to point out that burning a mosque does not add anything to the argument that Mohamed or Jesus are asses and I have the right to put forward what both Jesus or Mohamed said and did. People can then make up their own minds as to who is the ass and who is not. I don't need to threaten them. While you were offended by my examples, do you think I am entitled to use them (even though they make me look like an arse)?" I think you should be entitled to use then because when and if you did really use then they would make you seem like an arse and all could be quite easily argued against as either untrue or irrelevant to any meaningful discussion on the issues. Being deliberately offensive in any debate nearly always reflects more badly on the person being offensive than on the person or argument they are trying to put down. However using satire as a way to point out something you feel to be ridicules or wrong, especially if the other side won't engage in any sort of reasonable discussion, tends to have the opposite affect, and those who oppose it are more often seen as the arses and normally hurt their own argument more than that of the person doing the satire. | |||
"Thank you all for your contribution which shows the subject to be more complicated than some may initially imagine. If a handful of contributors on an adult forum is representative of wider UK society then, it shows that we in the UK can't even fully agree on an acceptable definition. How can we expect those from other cultures and very different backgrounds to understand our boundaries? I personally believe that free speech without some degree of responsibility is not consistent with a harmonious society. Any person who chooses to offend or hurt with words is personally responsible for their action. They should be prepared and able to justify that action on its own merit without having to resort to the 'base catch all' that we all know as freedom of speech. " So are you saying that we should not be allowed to use satire against Islam and Muslims or not? Simple question. Yes or No | |||
"I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse. I find offensive I think the Prophet Mohammad is an arse and we should attack the nearest Mosque. I find offensive and hateful I think Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin. I find offensive I think Jesus Christ was the illgitimate son of a chippy and some bird claiming to be a virgin and anyone who disagrees with me is going to get a punch in the face. I find to be the rantings of a mad bully I reserve the right to express my opinions, but I would expect to be censured if the expression of those opinions is directed with the intent of causing harm (mental or physical) to others. 2 of the above statements are in my _iew acceptable, 2 are not.. You have no right to punch anyone but your quite correct Jesus Christ was in all probability a nutjob I find most things sexy-bum says about religion to be wrong so nothing new here. Does this give me the right to threaten any of the people who made these comments. No. I have the right to point out why I think they are wrong. I have the right to point out that burning a mosque does not add anything to the argument that Mohamed or Jesus are asses and I have the right to put forward what both Jesus or Mohamed said and did. People can then make up their own minds as to who is the ass and who is not. I don't need to threaten them. While you were offended by my examples, do you think I am entitled to use them (even though they make me look like an arse)? I think you should be entitled to use then because when and if you did really use then they would make you seem like an arse and all could be quite easily argued against as either untrue or irrelevant to any meaningful discussion on the issues. Being deliberately offensive in any debate nearly always reflects more badly on the person being offensive than on the person or argument they are trying to put down. However using satire as a way to point out something you feel to be ridicules or wrong, especially if the other side won't engage in any sort of reasonable discussion, tends to have the opposite affect, and those who oppose it are more often seen as the arses and normally hurt their own argument more than that of the person doing the satire." . I don't often agree with a scouser but on this occasion he's bang on. Although I reserve my right to call him a tit on the next thread  .
Ps that's satire I actually think he's a reasonable chap | |||
| |||
| |||
" So are you saying that we should not be allowed to use satire against Islam and Muslims or not? Simple question. Yes or No" In my opening post I did make clear that this thread was not intended to be about yesterday's events or Islam. You've chosen not to respect that and that is ok because I respect your freedom of speech. I though choose not to turn this into a religious debate, there are already lots of other threads covering that topic. That said, I have enjoyed reading your input in the discussion. | |||
| |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. " . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I say things that are unpopular. I say things that get me blocked." Oh for feck sake. | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. " That's quite a statement. | |||
| |||
"I'm not sure anymore. Freedom is not the word. "Grease is the word | |||
" So are you saying that we should not be allowed to use satire against Islam and Muslims or not? Simple question. Yes or No In my opening post I did make clear that this thread was not intended to be about yesterday's events or Islam. You've chosen not to respect that and that is ok because I respect your freedom of speech. I though choose not to turn this into a religious debate, there are already lots of other threads covering that topic. That said, I have enjoyed reading your input in the discussion. " I have tried to keep on topic and not turn this thread into an islamophobic thread or a religion vs atheist thread. | |||
"I'm not sure anymore. Freedom is not the word. "I'm sure of one thing. Your eyes still look gorgeous to me.
Is that freedom of expression or just me being a numpty again.  | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. " It's also very true | |||
| |||
| |||
" I have tried to keep on topic and not turn this thread into an islamophobic thread or a religion vs atheist thread." I appreciate that. For me the theory of freedom of speech is different to the practice of freedom of speech. We do not have unrestricted freedom of speech in western Europe, we have freedom of speech within the law. That means society has already decided that people are personally responsible for self censoring what they say. | |||
"There is a case in the news of a guy that tweeted he had been involved in a hit and run with a cyclist and has been sacked when this emplyers became aware of his twitter account. As well as this 'hilarious' joke that attracted the attention of 2 different police forces his twitter name was Ray Pew (say it out loud) and his feed was full of homophobic and amti-semetic posts. The guy was sacked the same day when his employers saw it. I have real mixed feelings. Clearly he's an idiot but a personal (albeit public) twitter account - should you get sacked for being offensive? " I guess it depends on how homophobic and antisemitic the remarks were. If it was just that he felt homosexuality was wrong and that the Jews should leave Palestine then probably not. If it was more along the lines of "all homosexuals are closet kiddy fiddlers and should be routed out of are society, locked or just straight out killed" and "Jews have been a parasitical race on Western Europe for 2000 years and should all have their properly confiscated and then systematically killed" then definitely yes. While I personally would defend a legal right for him to say either (a right he definitely does not have in law at the moment) I would also defend the right of his employer not to have to associated with such vile comments. A right to freedom of speech would not been that you would not have to live with the consequences of what you say. And it's never a good idea to offend your boss. But, by allowing him in law to say it would have brought him out sooner and maybe something could have been done to correct his _iews before they became so entrenched. | |||
| |||
"Just to clarify: I do not agree with any of the four statements given as examples above." But you would defend him. Okay, so let's spice it up a little more then. Would you still fight for his right to say whatever he wanted if he said, to a specific person, that he knew where their daughter worked, and was going to rape her next time she walked home alone? (Just to tie the two cases together) Mr ddc | |||
| |||
"I believe we think we have freedom of speech, until we speak something not on the preferred list of freely spoken things " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"For me, I see no need to mock the prophet or draw disingenuous cartoons knowing they will offend in the name of freedom of speech..." | |||
| |||
"Just to clarify: I do not agree with any of the four statements given as examples above. But you would defend him. " I would not defend him personally and I would not defend what he said. However I would argue for a right for him to say it for the reasons I've already given. By allowing him to say it it would expose him and his beliefs at an earlier stage and hopefully those beliefs could be modified before they became entrenched. " Okay, so let's spice it up a little more then. Would you still fight for his right to say whatever he wanted if he said, to a specific person, that he knew where their daughter worked, and was going to rape her next time she walked home alone? (Just to tie the two cases together) Mr ddc" I giving this some thought. It's an extreme case but a possible one. I'll get back with a response after I've deliberated on it some more. | |||
| |||
"Freedom of speech is aload of old bollocks We are governed on everything thing we do and say if not by religion by the government. There is no such thing as freedom of speech because of political correctness. You cannot air your _iew with out offending someone. Somebody will find something to moan about! And I think the event in Paris is terrible. Personally I was shocked what it was over! The world has gone crazy, I call it black you call it blue, your wrong so I shoot you! Complete arse holes. And Political correctness is bullshit also, how can a muslim burn a bible and get away with it, but when a british man burns the quran he gets charged??? England is running scared we all need to unite and stamp the problems out as a country fuck the government! We need more vigilantes!!!!" I really don't think that mob rule is the answer. Not unless you want to live in country like some in the middle east currently do. | |||
"Freedom of speech is aload of old bollocks We are governed on everything thing we do and say if not by religion by the government. There is no such thing as freedom of speech because of political correctness. You cannot air your _iew with out offending someone. Somebody will find something to moan about! And I think the event in Paris is terrible. Personally I was shocked what it was over! The world has gone crazy, I call it black you call it blue, your wrong so I shoot you! Complete arse holes. And Political correctness is bullshit also, how can a muslim burn a bible and get away with it, but when a british man burns the quran he gets charged??? England is running scared we all need to unite and stamp the problems out as a country fuck the government! We need more vigilantes!!!!" The late great BERNARD MANNING would have loved this. He couldn't give a toss who he offended, he offended everyone, whatever race or religion, - If it was funny, if there was a gag. PC Bollocks has gone too far. That's why South Yorkshire Police didn't investigate all the Rotherham rapes etc. | |||
"Just to clarify: I do not agree with any of the four statements given as examples above. But you would defend him. I would not defend him personally and I would not defend what he said. However I would argue for a right for him to say it for the reasons I've already given. By allowing him to say it it would expose him and his beliefs at an earlier stage and hopefully those beliefs could be modified before they became entrenched. Okay, so let's spice it up a little more then. Would you still fight for his right to say whatever he wanted if he said, to a specific person, that he knew where their daughter worked, and was going to rape her next time she walked home alone? (Just to tie the two cases together) Mr ddc I giving this some thought. It's an extreme case but a possible one. I'll get back with a response after I've deliberated on it some more." If the person said what you said it would be an offence of assault under common law. Making the threat is an assault under common law. Actually doing the act would be another offence In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Assault would not be covered by a right to free speach | |||
" There is no such thing as freedom of speech because of political correctness. You cannot air your _iew with out offending someone. England is running scared we all need to unite and stamp the problems out as a country fuck the government! We need more vigilantes!!!!" i may think you are a complete cunt and you may think i am a complete cunt also, however if we have to share this planet, live in the same country / town etc or even work in the same gaff /the same team even what is the problem with keeping those thoughts to each other and just getting on with our lives..? also is it not ironic that on the same post where you also think the events in Paris are terrible which the vast majority of all do that your talking about vigilante's being the solution.. extremism is never the answer.. | |||
| |||
" I think you should be entitled to use then because when and if you did really use then they would make you seem like an arse and all could be quite easily argued against as either untrue or irrelevant to any meaningful discussion on the issues. Being deliberately offensive in any debate nearly always reflects more badly on the person being offensive than on the person or argument they are trying to put down. However using satire as a way to point out something you feel to be ridicules or wrong, especially if the other side won't engage in any sort of reasonable discussion, tends to have the opposite affect, and those who oppose it are more often seen as the arses and normally hurt their own argument more than that of the person doing the satire." whilst i agree with this i am still not comfortable with slagging off a whole religion per se.. | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true "That most people are full of shit? | |||
"Slander and libel are both free to any individual to spout, you can be held accountable in court for any deformation but your still free to write/say it. Your free to dislike homosexuals, Jews, Arabs, or Irish or polish, your free to "slag" them off for something in particular, your not free to incite a crime be it hatred or physical and something I do feel passionate about is someone should be free to recite government "secrets" (providing it doesn't put life's at risk), and all government records should be publicly accessible within ten years unless special circumstances where it is on going... However that's one freedom they ain't ever going to give you!." agreed.. | |||
| |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true
That most people are full of shit? "I could always book an enemina. | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true
That most people are full of shit? "While I wouldn't put it quite so crudely I believe that many on here say what they think others want to hear. To some popularity and the chance of getting laid is far more important than integrity. And I suspect that a similar mindset can be found in many places | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true
That most people are full of shit?
While I wouldn't put it quite so crudely I believe that many on here say what they think others want to hear. To some popularity and the chance of getting laid is far more important than integrity.
And I suspect that a similar mindset can be found in many places"I think you may be right. Some of the comments do leave me wondering sometimes. | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true
That most people are full of shit? ". Don't get this the wrong way but... Most is figure of speech! I've told myself a billion times not to exaggerate but it just comes out without thinking!.. Of course I meant 49% are full of shit | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true
That most people are full of shit? .
Don't get this the wrong way but... Most is figure of speech! I've told myself a billion times not to exaggerate but it just comes out without thinking!..
Of course I meant 49% are full of shit "49%.....is that of the entire members or just the men?  | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true
That most people are full of shit? .
Don't get this the wrong way but... Most is figure of speech! I've told myself a billion times not to exaggerate but it just comes out without thinking!..
Of course I meant 49% are full of shit
49%.....is that of the entire members or just the men?
".Forum users!...I wouldn't want to be sexist and say it's just men but yeah it's just the men and of course the women who are also men  | |||
" Would you still fight for his right to say whatever he wanted if he said, to a specific person, that he knew where their daughter worked, and was going to rape her next time she walked home alone? (Just to tie the two cases together) Mr ddc" That threat would be illegal and so he would not have the right to say it. You can't fight for a right he doesn't have. | |||
| |||
"......We need more vigilantes!!!!" Think it through. Are you sure? | |||
" Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That most people are full of shit? . Don't get this the wrong way but... Most is figure of speech! I've told myself a billion times not to exaggerate but it just comes out without thinking!.. Of course I meant 49% are full of shit
49%.....is that of the entire members or just the men?
.Forum users!...I wouldn't want to be sexist and say it's just men but yeah it's just the men and of course the women who are also men "tend to agree and that's a rarity with sexy bum and i.. you only need to look at the white knights who gallop to what they see as the damsel in distresses rescue spreading vomit inducing sycophantic comments as they do.. in the faintest hope that they will be seen to be noble, different and worthy of touching flesh with.. hey ho.. so, any ladies who want a foot massage and some chocolate just holler.. | |||
"Freedom of speech..... What does it mean to me? Usually a 48hr ban on here! Twats... Lol" Mr Nice - does your name match your character? | |||
"Freedom of speech..... What does it mean to me? Usually a 48hr ban on here! Twats... Lol Mr Nice - does your name match your character? " Depends on what day of the week it is I guess lol | |||
" Assault would not be covered by a right to free speach " Agreed, but in addition to assault, I would also include malicious, grossly offensive or menacing statements, specifically those where the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would find them so. These would normally be prosecuted under the Communications Act, or as a breach of the peace. My example was extreme (made to the Chairman of Oldham FC allegedly) and I almost want to apologise for it. But sometimes when I am unsure of my opinion on something, it helps to start at each extreme and work inwards. Too many people misunderstand freedom of speech to mean 'we are *capable* to open our mouths and let any old drivvle plop out' as opposed to 'are we *allowed* to say anything we want'. We are not, though we do have a *right* to hold any opinion we like, and, under certain circumstances, have a right to express it. However, in addition to the law, we often choose to restrict ourselves further in the interest of taste and human decency. Mr ddc PS, does '*' stand in for 'in italics' on these sort of things? Not really experienced on forums, we only really came here for a bit of rumpy-pumpy  | |||
" Assault would not be covered by a right to free speach Agreed, but in addition to assault, I would also include malicious, grossly offensive or menacing statements, specifically those where the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' would find them so. These would normally be prosecuted under the Communications Act, or as a breach of the peace. My example was extreme (made to the Chairman of Oldham FC allegedly) and I almost want to apologise for it. But sometimes when I am unsure of my opinion on something, it helps to start at each extreme and work inwards. Too many people misunderstand freedom of speech to mean 'we are *capable* to open our mouths and let any old drivvle plop out' as opposed to 'are we *allowed* to say anything we want'. We are not, though we do have a *right* to hold any opinion we like, and, under certain circumstances, have a right to express it. However, in addition to the law, we often choose to restrict ourselves further in the interest of taste and human decency. Mr ddc PS, does '*' stand in for 'in italics' on these sort of things? Not really experienced on forums, we only really came here for a bit of rumpy-pumpy "well put .. | |||
| |||
"There is absolutely no freedom of speech in this country, absolutely none at all. Freedom of speech to me is being able to share any opinion you want about any subject without any penalty to you." taking that logic one would have no laws that also protect the majority of the population.. one could at will get into a car after 10 pints and drive at 80 mph through our towns and cities.. one could pour petrol into someone's letter box cos they looked at you in a way you thought out of order.. the laws of the land whilst not perfect and added to by human error and interpretation etc is there to enable a stable society.. | |||
"Yesterday was a tragic event, angd, when they catch the perpetrators, they should be locked of for life, not given the opportunity of martyrdom. Freedom of speech to me is the right to express _iews responsibly, the key here is responsibly, no one deserves to die for what they say, but I do question the wisdom of antagonising and already volatile situation. I'm Not sure really what I think, I most certainly condemn the tragedy in Paris, but I have a nagging feeling that it is very unwise to fuel such a potentially dangerous fire. In a way, isn't it a bit like inciting a terrorist act. I felt the same about Sony's film. Anyhow, to me every human life is precious, violence an murder resolves nothing. Hope I've expressed myself right and don't upset anyone but that's me exercising my freedom of speech which my grandfather fought in 2 world wars for Sad sad times
What you seem to be saying is that people should sensor themselves. And that's the problem. Once you start saying that you should not say this or you should not say that in case it offends someone where do you stop. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to make fun of Muslims or Islam. Why just them? So let's bring all religions in. But you can't stop their either. Christian religion teaches that ALL authority comes from God and is only exercised by his will through HIS appointments on earth. Technically that could be read as any criticism of any authority is a criticism of God and, as such, offensive.
People have a right to criticise any religion, authority, gods, God or man (and Mohamed was only a man) as they do anything else that claims to have authority other them or others. If those who support the religion don't like it then they need to be taught what living in a democratic, free society is all about. And it's not about not allowing other people to criticise your beliefs.
To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion"Yes, people should censor themselves responsibly for the good of society. Whilst not particularly religious, I consider myself a Polytheist with a leaning toward Christianity, and I do get upset when people critisize other people's beliefs, mainly through ignorance in my experience. I have my beliefs based on my own personal and extensive research, but I will not, in this lifetime, be able to prove or disprove any of them. On this basis, I can see no logic in criticising someone else's beliefs or opinions, nor they mine. One thing I emphatically do believe is, unless it's in defence, it is wrong to take another human beings life. I do however acknowledge that the human race are mamals and, as an old friend of mine (she was a professor in psychology) stated, "if you knew what I know about people, nothing would surprise you" ....yes she was very hot and I did fuck her. Anyhow, whether you believe in something bigger or not, for the sake of your own safety, and that of society, everyone should act in a responsible manner when there's a risk of inciting a catastrophic outcome. The news today seems to be stating that innocent people have been taken hostage, and some killed by the perpetrators of the Paris attack. I suspect that they were neither Muslim, nor gave a fuck about the comic. Would those people still be alive if the comic had not incited the attack, and if so, how responsible was it to incite the attack by publishing potentially volatile material in the name of free speech or comedy. As Ive said, no one deserves to die, but if you taunt an animal, it'll bite you. | |||
"Yeah until u say something the major don't agree with. Then there's no freedom of speech. . Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That's quite a statement. It's also very true
That most people are full of shit?
While I wouldn't put it quite so crudely I believe that many on here say what they think others want to hear. To some popularity and the chance of getting laid is far more important than integrity.
And I suspect that a similar mindset can be found in many places"I really don't think anything I've said is likely to get me laid anytime soon. If anything quite the opposite. I'm saying what I say because I believe it. Somethings are more important than just getting laid. Yours and my freedom being one of them | |||
" Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That most people are full of shit? . Don't get this the wrong way but... Most is figure of speech! I've told myself a billion times not to exaggerate but it just comes out without thinking!.. Of course I meant 49% are full of shit
49%.....is that of the entire members or just the men?
.Forum users!...I wouldn't want to be sexist and say it's just men but yeah it's just the men and of course the women who are also men
tend to agree and that's a rarity with sexy bum and i..
you only need to look at the white knights who gallop to what they see as the damsel in distresses rescue spreading vomit inducing sycophantic comments as they do..
in the faintest hope that they will be seen to be noble, different and worthy of touching flesh with..
hey ho..
so, any ladies who want a foot massage and some chocolate just holler..
".I disagree with my wife on almost everything were polar opposite in mindset, disagreeing with someone doesn't mean I dislike them, I disagree with some of my dearest friends and family often, I sometimes disagree with myself. In hundreds of forum users there's only 1 or 2 that get my hackles up, I'd say that's a pretty fair reflection on society. To disagree with someone's argument or philosophy is not a bad thing,it's a good thing, I've learnt lots of things from here and changed my initial opinion of one or two subjects from other people's points of _iew. To have a set in stone rigid stance over everything from a left wing, right wing, green wing _iew point is terrible. I certainly don't care what some random stranger on an internet forum thinks of me from any of my comments, it doesn't mean I'm bad and their good or visa versa. In fact some of the people I'm polar opposed too in terms of thinking I've probably got the most respect for like "Lincoln six echo" . I like to think I agree on more things than we disagree on. Freedom and free speech regardless of whether I find it offensive or you find it offensive( providing it doesn't impede any laws) is my first bill of rights for any human!. Look to Norway and how they handled their gun massacre, with more free speech, more open debate, more rights, more freedom!. Now there's an ideology I hope spreads but others are desperate not to. | |||
"Yesterday was a tragic event, angd, when they catch the perpetrators, they should be locked of for life, not given the opportunity of martyrdom. Freedom of speech to me is the right to express _iews responsibly, the key here is responsibly, no one deserves to die for what they say, but I do question the wisdom of antagonising and already volatile situation. I'm Not sure really what I think, I most certainly condemn the tragedy in Paris, but I have a nagging feeling that it is very unwise to fuel such a potentially dangerous fire. In a way, isn't it a bit like inciting a terrorist act. I felt the same about Sony's film. Anyhow, to me every human life is precious, violence an murder resolves nothing. Hope I've expressed myself right and don't upset anyone but that's me exercising my freedom of speech which my grandfather fought in 2 world wars for Sad sad times
What you seem to be saying is that people should sensor themselves. And that's the problem. Once you start saying that you should not say this or you should not say that in case it offends someone where do you stop. Are you saying that no one should be allowed to make fun of Muslims or Islam. Why just them? So let's bring all religions in. But you can't stop their either. Christian religion teaches that ALL authority comes from God and is only exercised by his will through HIS appointments on earth. Technically that could be read as any criticism of any authority is a criticism of God and, as such, offensive.
People have a right to criticise any religion, authority, gods, God or man (and Mohamed was only a man) as they do anything else that claims to have authority other them or others. If those who support the religion don't like it then they need to be taught what living in a democratic, free society is all about. And it's not about not allowing other people to criticise your beliefs.
To me it's simple, unless it's slander, people should be allowed to say what they want and there words will be judged my the court of public opinion
Yes, people should censor themselves responsibly for the good of society.
Whilst not particularly religious, I consider myself a Polytheist with a leaning toward Christianity, and
I do get upset when people critisize other people's beliefs, mainly through ignorance in my experience.
I have my beliefs based on my own personal and extensive research, but I will not, in this lifetime, be able to prove or disprove any of them. On this
basis, I can see no logic in criticising someone
else's beliefs or opinions, nor they mine.
One thing I emphatically do believe is, unless it's in defence, it is wrong to take another human beings life.
I do however acknowledge that the human race are mamals and, as an old friend of mine (she was a professor in psychology) stated, "if you knew what I know about people, nothing would surprise you" ....yes she was very hot and I did fuck her.
Anyhow, whether you believe in something bigger or not, for the sake of your own safety, and that of society, everyone should act in a responsible manner when there's a risk of inciting a catastrophic outcome.
The news today seems to be stating that innocent people have been taken hostage, and some killed by the perpetrators of the Paris attack. I suspect that they were neither Muslim, nor gave a fuck about the comic. Would those people still be alive if the comic had not incited the attack, and if so, how responsible was it to incite the attack by publishing potentially volatile material in the name of free speech or comedy.
As Ive said, no one deserves to die, but if you taunt an animal, it'll bite you."Whilst I respect what you say I have to disagree. If a religion, with all the power of an all powerful God, can not stand up to a bit of ridicule with out turning to violence I have to question how much value that religion can possible have. Whilst I personally have never, and would never, ridicule anybody for their beliefs; I see nothing wrong with people who believe that a particular religion is saying something ridiculous ridiculing it. If the ridicule is not valid the religion should be able to defend itself against it with out turning to violence. If it is valid then maybe the religion should question itself a little more. | |||
"There is absolutely no freedom of speech in this country, absolutely none at all. Freedom of speech to me is being able to share any opinion you want about any subject without any penalty to you." If you really think we have no freedom of speech in this country, try going to Russia and saying you like anal sex. Presumably since your profile says you do, there IS some freedom of speech in this country | |||
"I'm not sure anymore. Freedom is not the word.
I'm sure of one thing. Your eyes still look gorgeous to me.
Is that freedom of expression or just me being a numpty again. "That's you being a numpty. | |||
| |||
"I'm not sure anymore. Freedom is not the word.
I'm sure of one thing. Your eyes still look gorgeous to me.
Is that freedom of expression or just me being a numpty again.
That's you being a numpty."  for me. | |||
" Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That most people are full of shit? . Don't get this the wrong way but... Most is figure of speech! I've told myself a billion times not to exaggerate but it just comes out without thinking!.. Of course I meant 49% are full of shit
49%.....is that of the entire members or just the men?
.Forum users!...I wouldn't want to be sexist and say it's just men but yeah it's just the men and of course the women who are also men
tend to agree and that's a rarity with sexy bum and i..
you only need to look at the white knights who gallop to what they see as the damsel in distresses rescue spreading vomit inducing sycophantic comments as they do..
in the faintest hope that they will be seen to be noble, different and worthy of touching flesh with..
hey ho..
so, any ladies who want a foot massage and some chocolate just holler..
.I disagree with my wife on almost everything were polar opposite in mindset, disagreeing with someone doesn't mean I dislike them, I disagree with some of my dearest friends and family often, I sometimes disagree with myself.
In hundreds of forum users there's only 1 or 2 that get my hackles up, I'd say that's a pretty fair reflection on society.
To disagree with someone's argument or philosophy is not a bad thing,it's a good thing, I've learnt lots of things from here and changed my initial opinion of one or two subjects from other people's points of _iew.
To have a set in stone rigid stance over everything from a left wing, right wing, green wing _iew point is terrible.
I certainly don't care what some random stranger on an internet forum thinks of me from any of my comments, it doesn't mean I'm bad and their good or visa versa.
In fact some of the people I'm polar opposed too in terms of thinking I've probably got the most respect for like "Lincoln six echo" .
I like to think I agree on more things than we disagree on.
Freedom and free speech regardless of whether I find it offensive or you find it offensive( providing it doesn't impede any laws) is my first bill of rights for any human!.
Look to Norway and how they handled their gun massacre, with more free speech, more open debate, more rights, more freedom!. Now there's an ideology I hope spreads but others are desperate not to."Ummm didn't l read somewhere that Norway were actively deporting Muslims who have a more fundimentalist ideology. I'd post the link to the newspaper if l could find it. Great debate by the way. | |||
"What do you believe freedom of speech to actually be? Do you believe we have genuine freedom of speech in the UK and West? Should there be any limitations to freedom of speech? Although this thread has been inspired by yesterday's sad events it is not a debate on those events or Islam. Do you believe you can say absolutely anything you want to without sanction?" The UK has never had free speech. Free speech is an absolute, and therefore cannot have clauses. What we have is "free speech within certain defined parameters which are subject to change at any time". Two very different things. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Bollocks I learnt along time ago it's better to be true to yourself and have one true friend than run with the crowd and have multiple so called friends!. Most people on here are full of shit and post anything that will gain them a contact. That most people are full of shit? . Don't get this the wrong way but... Most is figure of speech! I've told myself a billion times not to exaggerate but it just comes out without thinking!.. Of course I meant 49% are full of shit
49%.....is that of the entire members or just the men?
.Forum users!...I wouldn't want to be sexist and say it's just men but yeah it's just the men and of course the women who are also men
tend to agree and that's a rarity with sexy bum and i..
you only need to look at the white knights who gallop to what they see as the damsel in distresses rescue spreading vomit inducing sycophantic comments as they do..
in the faintest hope that they will be seen to be noble, different and worthy of touching flesh with..
hey ho..
so, any ladies who want a foot massage and some chocolate just holler..
.I disagree with my wife on almost everything were polar opposite in mindset, disagreeing with someone doesn't mean I dislike them, I disagree with some of my dearest friends and family often, I sometimes disagree with myself.
In hundreds of forum users there's only 1 or 2 that get my hackles up, I'd say that's a pretty fair reflection on society.
To disagree with someone's argument or philosophy is not a bad thing,it's a good thing, I've learnt lots of things from here and changed my initial opinion of one or two subjects from other people's points of _iew.
To have a set in stone rigid stance over everything from a left wing, right wing, green wing _iew point is terrible.
I certainly don't care what some random stranger on an internet forum thinks of me from any of my comments, it doesn't mean I'm bad and their good or visa versa.
In fact some of the people I'm polar opposed too in terms of thinking I've probably got the most respect for like "Lincoln six echo" .
I like to think I agree on more things than we disagree on.
Freedom and free speech regardless of whether I find it offensive or you find it offensive( providing it doesn't impede any laws) is my first bill of rights for any human!.
Look to Norway and how they handled their gun massacre, with more free speech, more open debate, more rights, more freedom!. Now there's an ideology I hope spreads but others are desperate not to.
Ummm didn't l read somewhere that Norway were actively deporting Muslims who have a more fundimentalist ideology. I'd post the link to the newspaper if l could find it. Great debate by the way. ". I don't see anything wrong with that myself, providing its openly debated and decided that's the best course of action in a democratic fashion where's the problem!. | |||
"I would like to share this article with you. "A Swedish artist has been sentenced to six months in prison for works a court said depicted Roma and black people in a racist way. Dan Park was convicted on Thursday of defamation and inciting hatred against an ethnic group. The case focused on nine framed posters by Park that were seized from an art gallery in the city of Malmo in July. One depicted three black men with nooses around their necks. Another showed Roma community leaders with text suggesting they condoned crime. It is unusual for Swedish courts to hand out prison terms for art works. Park, who has several similar convictions, said his works were satirical and claimed the right to freedom of speech". " . So sense won through and by a court appointed by mandate of the population!. Sweden has free speech but he impeded the same racial hatred laws we have here, and was jailed for doing so. Seems like the perfect outcome. | |||
| |||
| |||
"saying what the fuck I want" Should that not read What! I want the fuck | |||
"Glad to see everyone celebrating free speech in Paris and Trafalgar Square, and not in Parliament Square where they'd be arrested ...." this is so apt.. | |||
