FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Charlie hebdo
Charlie hebdo
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please " Do you mean.... The one appearing to depict a drowned Syrian refugee as a potential future sex pest ?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please " It is a traditional French satire publication, often designed to inflame, sometimes offend and spark debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech.... "Why not? They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights. I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides? 
-Courtney | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney "Enjoy your cringe..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe..... "I did.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech.... "Maybe you'd like to rethink this one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe.....
I did. "That's good,,,, I glad for you.... But I find competitive outrage is so last year,,, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please " What's your opinion? Or U waiting to see which way the mob goes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe.....
I did.
That's good,,,, I glad for you....
But I find competitive outrage is so last year,,, "Competitive outrage?  You say this as you continue to comment on my comments. Go on then 
-Courtney | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Maybe you'd like to rethink this one.
"No I'm quite comfortable with my opinion..... But feel free to express one of you own.... I've no reason to challenge your right to hold a different view.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech.... "If they are purely doing it for cash, then I hope they are paid very well as last years events show they run quite a risk. I think the images are very uncomfortable. Partly they want me to be outraged n behalf of a poor innocent child and partly they also bring into sharp relief the events in Cologne. Unfortunelty the two events aren't unconnected and both have to bring a lot of soul searching for all Europeans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe.....
I did.
That's good,,,, I glad for you....
But I find competitive outrage is so last year,,,
Competitive outrage? You say this as you continue to comment on my comments. Go on then
-Courtney "Yeah here's the thing.... you seem to have interpreted my comments as a challenge to your own.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Maybe you'd like to rethink this one.
No I'm quite comfortable with my opinion.....
But feel free to express one of you own....
I've no reason to challenge your right to hold a different view.... "But your comment doesn't make sense. Let's do a little compare + contrast. French - print and be damned. Or in this case murdered. British - make a lot of noise abiut 'free speech' but do nothing. You seen our friend mo in any British publication ever? Your turn to help us understand who fights for free speech | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe.....
I did.
That's good,,,, I glad for you....
But I find competitive outrage is so last year,,,
Competitive outrage? You say this as you continue to comment on my comments. Go on then
-Courtney
Yeah here's the thing.... you seem to have interpreted my comments as a challenge to your own....
"I didn't, really. I saw them as an opportunity to discuss the OP. But we've deviated unnecessarily.
-Courtney | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Maybe you'd like to rethink this one.
No I'm quite comfortable with my opinion.....
But feel free to express one of you own....
I've no reason to challenge your right to hold a different view....
But your comment doesn't make sense.
Let's do a little compare + contrast.
French - print and be damned. Or in this case murdered.
British - make a lot of noise abiut 'free speech' but do nothing.
You seen our friend mo in any British publication ever?
Your turn to help us understand who fights for free speech "The whole idea that the a right to freedom of speech exists on terms dictated by the provocateur is such a immaturely juvenile train of thought... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe.....
I did.
That's good,,,, I glad for you....
But I find competitive outrage is so last year,,,
Competitive outrage? You say this as you continue to comment on my comments. Go on then
-Courtney
Yeah here's the thing.... you seem to have interpreted my comments as a challenge to your own....
I didn't, really. I saw them as an opportunity to discuss the OP. But we've deviated unnecessarily.
-Courtney "I do enjoy a bit of deviation... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
If they are purely doing it for cash, then I hope they are paid very well as last years events show they run quite a risk.
I think the images are very uncomfortable. Partly they want me to be outraged n behalf of a poor innocent child and partly they also bring into sharp relief the events in Cologne. Unfortunelty the two events aren't unconnected and both have to bring a lot of soul searching for all Europeans. "
I think this reflects the concerns of a lot of people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole idea that the a right to freedom of speech exists on terms dictated by the provocateur is such a immaturely juvenile train of thought... "See, I disagree with this. The right to freedom of speech exists for the good of society as a whole, not on the terms dictated by the "provocateur." Society has a right to hear opposing sides in any debate, and in a democracy some would argue that that right turns into a duty. We cant dictate terms of freedom of speech based on the aggrieved party either, because, as the forums regularly show, there is always an aggrieved party with an eggshell emotional state. The best thing to do, therefore, for the sake of open discussion and free thought, is to leave speech as open as possible and limit only for speech that in completely valueless to society. However, we have to be careful who we give the right to determine that value, or we could end up with the unnecessary suppression of speech. -Courtney | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe.....
I did.
That's good,,,, I glad for you....
But I find competitive outrage is so last year,,,
Competitive outrage? You say this as you continue to comment on my comments. Go on then
-Courtney
Yeah here's the thing.... you seem to have interpreted my comments as a challenge to your own....
I didn't, really. I saw them as an opportunity to discuss the OP. But we've deviated unnecessarily.
-Courtney
I do enjoy a bit of deviation... "If we're going to deviate at all, we should keep it sexual, surely? 
-Courtney | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney
Enjoy your cringe.....
I did.
That's good,,,, I glad for you....
But I find competitive outrage is so last year,,,
Competitive outrage? You say this as you continue to comment on my comments. Go on then
-Courtney
Yeah here's the thing.... you seem to have interpreted my comments as a challenge to your own....
I didn't, really. I saw them as an opportunity to discuss the OP. But we've deviated unnecessarily.
-Courtney
I do enjoy a bit of deviation...
If we're going to deviate at all, we should keep it sexual, surely?
-Courtney "Unfortunately this mornings deviation involves a trip to the local recycling depot (which involves queuing) followed by the joys of more queuing at the returns counter of my local branch of Dunelm Mill where I shall endeavour to be entirely un-provocative as I exercise my right to complain...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They've lost all my sympathy and any respect they had, shocking using that child like that, as a parent to a child that age that is one of the most harrowing images I've ever come across its a heartbreaker, to use it as a cartoon and basically mock the child is disgusting." I can see that point of view. I'm a parent and yes the photos were heartbreaking. As were the dead kids I saw in Bosnia and Kosovo. But the cartoons can't hurt the child now, but if they make us look at ourselves then surely that's a good thing? I liked this quote from the independent; “The cartoon isn’t an attack on migrants. It’s an attack on our own fickleness" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Maybe you'd like to rethink this one.
No I'm quite comfortable with my opinion.....
But feel free to express one of you own....
I've no reason to challenge your right to hold a different view....
But your comment doesn't make sense.
Let's do a little compare + contrast.
French - print and be damned. Or in this case murdered.
British - make a lot of noise abiut 'free speech' but do nothing.
You seen our friend mo in any British publication ever?
Your turn to help us understand who fights for free speech
The whole idea that the a right to freedom of speech exists on terms dictated by the provocateur is such a immaturely juvenile train of thought...
"the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think bill Hicks's was qouted as saying something comical should make you think about what your laughing at, while it holds a candle to that dark corner of your brain that's laughing!. Satire is completely about offending people, as I said on many threads, it's just people getting upset about who's offended!. As for cartoonists just doing it for money, well upto now they've been shot, beheaded, live under armed guard, death threats on their family, schools... There's alot easier ways to earn 500 Euros a week!. The fact of the matter is your free to be offended and your free to offend... What you can't do is chop peoples heads of from your offence!. If were not willing to fight against imposed censorship through violence... Then quite frankly we may as well just move to fucking Saudi Arabia " I think I'd look good in a burqa
-Courtney | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think bill Hicks's was qouted as saying something comical should make you think about what your laughing at, while it holds a candle to that dark corner of your brain that's laughing!. Satire is completely about offending people, as I said on many threads, it's just people getting upset about who's offended!. As for cartoonists just doing it for money, well upto now they've been shot, beheaded, live under armed guard, death threats on their family, schools... There's alot easier ways to earn 500 Euros a week!. The fact of the matter is your free to be offended and your free to offend... What you can't do is chop peoples heads of from your offence!. If were not willing to fight against imposed censorship through violence... Then quite frankly we may as well just move to fucking Saudi Arabia " Bloody well said! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think bill Hicks's was qouted as saying something comical should make you think about what your laughing at, while it holds a candle to that dark corner of your brain that's laughing!. Satire is completely about offending people, as I said on many threads, it's just people getting upset about who's offended!. As for cartoonists just doing it for money, well upto now they've been shot, beheaded, live under armed guard, death threats on their family, schools... There's alot easier ways to earn 500 Euros a week!. The fact of the matter is your free to be offended and your free to offend... What you can't do is chop peoples heads of from your offence!. If were not willing to fight against imposed censorship through violence... Then quite frankly we may as well just move to fucking Saudi Arabia I think I'd look good in a burqa
-Courtney ". I picture you in one every day to stop me getting over horny and raping someone!. That's the trouble with theocracy... It's a fucking terrible idea  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"80,000 children die every day from starvation!. Is that any crueler than drowning fleeing a civil war!. The red cross shows adverts daily showing dying starving children, where's the mass rush from society to fund the red cross. In the end there all using imagery for their own ends to procure your intension because humans have a habit of not giving a fuck!" this.. preventable diseases and infant mortality as well.. day in day out.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please It is a traditional French satire publication, often designed to inflame, sometimes offend and spark debate." I'm not sure it counts as satire | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole idea that the a right to freedom of speech exists on terms dictated by the provocateur is such a immaturely juvenile train of thought...
See, I disagree with this. The right to freedom of speech exists for the good of society as a whole, not on the terms dictated by the "provocateur." Society has a right to hear opposing sides in any debate, and in a democracy some would argue that that right turns into a duty.
We cant dictate terms of freedom of speech based on the aggrieved party either, because, as the forums regularly show, there is always an aggrieved party with an eggshell emotional state. The best thing to do, therefore, for the sake of open discussion and free thought, is to leave speech as open as possible and limit only for speech that in completely valueless to society.
However, we have to be careful who we give the right to determine that value, or we could end up with the unnecessary suppression of speech.
-Courtney "Such a wise head on young shoulders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney "The Lefties decide what free speech is then the rest have to follow suit or be deemed the worst criminals ever | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please It is a traditional French satire publication, often designed to inflame, sometimes offend and spark debate. I'm not sure it counts as satire" .The dictionary definition of satire. the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. "the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time". I think it fits the definition. It might be satire that you don't like, but that's why we protect freedoms and freedom of speech, otherwise society would end up in joey world, that might not be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be by free choice, simply dictatorial or theocratic! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? " Ones with no other option. Sometimes people make shit choices because that's their only choice. You've seen the starving families in war zones, maybe they didn't want to end up like that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? " Parents that don't have great options? Risk dying in a war torn country or risk dying on the sea? Not a choice I would like to have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please It is a traditional French satire publication, often designed to inflame, sometimes offend and spark debate. I'm not sure it counts as satire" It has its roots in the 1960's Hara-Kiri magazine which was stridently and proudly non-conformist. You may find the approach les-than-humourous at times and provocative (I know I do), but that does not stop it being satirical. The cartoon in question, I suspect, was not meant to be taken literally but to provoke reaction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun" Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Ones with no other option. Sometimes people make shit choices because that's their only choice. You've seen the starving families in war zones, maybe they didn't want to end up like that." Yes maybe, but where do 'starving' people get the fortune it costs to get on one of these flimsy boats? Admittedly, sitting here in our comfy risk-free abodes playing 'keyboard warrior' we find it easy to question the moral compass of people in bad situations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Ones with no other option. Sometimes people make shit choices because that's their only choice. You've seen the starving families in war zones, maybe they didn't want to end up like that. Yes maybe, but where do 'starving' people get the fortune it costs to get on one of these flimsy boats? Admittedly, sitting here in our comfy risk-free abodes playing 'keyboard warrior' we find it easy to question the moral compass of people in bad situations. " No maybe about it. I didn't say they were starving, i said they didn't want to end up starving like others right now. They made the best choice it seems. Loads of the starving in war zones aren't even poor, they just don't have access to food. That's how wars and war zones work, they make innocent people suffer for just for being in them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... ". Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?. I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far... Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises.. Which one do you favour?. Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!. So do many Muslims!. So do many western people The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!. Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please It is a traditional French satire publication, often designed to inflame, sometimes offend and spark debate. I'm not sure it counts as satire.The dictionary definition of satire. the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. "the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time". I think it fits the definition. It might be satire that you don't like, but that's why we protect freedoms and freedom of speech, otherwise society would end up in joey world, that might not be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be by free choice, simply dictatorial or theocratic!" are you sure that we protect free speech in the uk as if it were a positve right? if you do please supply the evidence to back this claim up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please It is a traditional French satire publication, often designed to inflame, sometimes offend and spark debate. I'm not sure it counts as satire.The dictionary definition of satire. the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. "the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time". I think it fits the definition. It might be satire that you don't like, but that's why we protect freedoms and freedom of speech, otherwise society would end up in joey world, that might not be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be by free choice, simply dictatorial or theocratic! are you sure that we protect free speech in the uk as if it were a positve right? if you do please supply the evidence to back this claim up." . You'd need to define we,I think personally most people in this country enjoy and have fought for many freedoms from the civil war through to ww2. Free speech is crucial to all other societal changes!. How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?. Censorship imo is never a good idea whether it be from government, religion or other sources. It nearly always leads to dictatorship with theocratic ideology | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?." I think you'll find they fought for voting rights despite the repercussions. After all they were shoved in Holloway...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please " It's distasteful and offensive to his family. It's also inaccurate since the alleged perpetrators were mostly Afghans. So I'd say it was racist in that he had a dark skin they had dark skins so he is an abuser. On top of that the drawing makes light of the crime in a Benny Hill way. It also says that in 15 years of growing up he would be incapable of assimilating a European life So though they have a right to print it, it's not very good. They should see Private Eye to see how it should be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'd need to define we," fair enough, i mean we as a nation through a constitution and the rule of law "I think personally most people in this country enjoy and have fought for many freedoms." most people enjoy a certain amount of freedoms in the UK but certainly the majority have done nothing but sit on their arse complaining while a tiny minority have stood up and fought for those freedoms. "How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?." quite simply ... they didn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? " Is this for real? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? " dunno .... maybe the same kind of person who jumps out of a window in what used to be the world trade centre when fire had taken hold several floors below them  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole idea that the a right to freedom of speech exists on terms dictated by the provocateur is such a immaturely juvenile train of thought...
See, I disagree with this. The right to freedom of speech exists for the good of society as a whole, not on the terms dictated by the "provocateur." Society has a right to hear opposing sides in any debate, and in a democracy some would argue that that right turns into a duty.
We cant dictate terms of freedom of speech based on the aggrieved party either, because, as the forums regularly show, there is always an aggrieved party with an eggshell emotional state. The best thing to do, therefore, for the sake of open discussion and free thought, is to leave speech as open as possible and limit only for speech that in completely valueless to society.
However, we have to be careful who we give the right to determine that value, or we could end up with the unnecessary suppression of speech.
-Courtney "The whole stick and stones won't break your bones but calling names cant hurt..... is trusted analogy used by many a schoolyard bully..... I would suggest that in the real world provocatively insulting someone and then expecting only verbal retaliation is a train of thought long proven to have little value.... ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please " Yes a good isn't it It's the bastion of free speech - like its views or not the point is it pushes the boundaries to keep us all in a society with freedoms If you never exercise your right they could go Not sure they care what they print - they just want to be controversial to show they can | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?. I think you'll find they fought for voting rights despite the repercussions. After all they were shoved in Holloway......" . Not really, your confusing two issues. Firstly they were free to discuss whether women should have voting rights, so they had freedom of speech and thought. The repercussions came from law breaking, of which many of those laws then themselves moved along with societal influence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech.... "Free speech and capitalism can go hand in hand Private eye? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Maybe you'd like to rethink this one.
No I'm quite comfortable with my opinion.....
But feel free to express one of you own....
I've no reason to challenge your right to hold a different view....
But your comment doesn't make sense.
Let's do a little compare + contrast.
French - print and be damned. Or in this case murdered.
British - make a lot of noise abiut 'free speech' but do nothing.
You seen our friend mo in any British publication ever?
Your turn to help us understand who fights for free speech
The whole idea that the a right to freedom of speech exists on terms dictated by the provocateur is such a immaturely juvenile train of thought...
"To be fair so is your statement | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? dunno .... maybe the same kind of person who jumps out of a window in what used to be the world trade centre when fire had taken hold several floors below them "Big difference 1. Building was burning no choice 2. They were leaving turkey - a safe country with no immediate threat to life No comparing situations at all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real?" Yes It's a valid point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think bill Hicks's was qouted as saying something comical should make you think about what your laughing at, while it holds a candle to that dark corner of your brain that's laughing!. Satire is completely about offending people, as I said on many threads, it's just people getting upset about who's offended!. As for cartoonists just doing it for money, well upto now they've been shot, beheaded, live under armed guard, death threats on their family, schools... There's alot easier ways to earn 500 Euros a week!. The fact of the matter is your free to be offended and your free to offend... What you can't do is chop peoples heads of from your offence!. If were not willing to fight against imposed censorship through violence... Then quite frankly we may as well just move to fucking Saudi Arabia I think I'd look good in a burqa
-Courtney .
I picture you in one every day to stop me getting over horny and raping someone!.
That's the trouble with theocracy... It's a fucking terrible idea "Is rape funny? Not sure why you need to mention it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point " Is this for real? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?. I think you'll find they fought for voting rights despite the repercussions. After all they were shoved in Holloway....... Not really, your confusing two issues. Firstly they were free to discuss whether women should have voting rights, so they had freedom of speech and thought. The repercussions came from law breaking, of which many of those laws then themselves moved along with societal influence. " you'll find that many were arrested under the sedition laws when they attempted to speak in public in support of womens suffrage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real?" Yes Stop trying to ride the moral high ground You view is no more valid than others Just accept each to their own And as I said they were leaving turkey A safe country will no compelling reason to get in that boat As such they did it for greed - to get to a richer country They took and chose that risk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No comparing situations at all " how very dictatorial of you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!"Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way" Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No comparing situations at all how very dictatorial of you " I know shocking But it's pretty clear they are different Good to see you can't defend your other views just pick up on that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way"
Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority....
"And by no platforming them what does it say about you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Stop trying to ride the moral high ground You view is no more valid than others Just accept each to their own " Sorry, no. I speak from a position of intelligence and understanding. As a consequence, not every view is as valid as mine. in fact, most views held by people do not have any claim to validity at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny how father always servive these accidents and wife and kids die,You think they would try to save wife and kids before there own safety" Is this for real? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way"
Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority....
And by no platforming them what does it say about you?"Dunno .... or perhaps I'm simply defending their right to free speech..... no matter how unpersuasive I find their opinions..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No comparing situations at all how very dictatorial of you I know shocking But it's pretty clear they are different Good to see you can't defend your other views just pick up on that " clear as mud unless you're naive, stupid, narrow minded or a mixture of the three | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Stop trying to ride the moral high ground You view is no more valid than others Just accept each to their own Sorry, no. I speak from a position of intelligence and understanding. As a consequence, not every view is as valid as mine. in fact, most views held by people do not have any claim to validity at all." Haha how arrogant A. You think you are intelligent - subjective B. You have an opinion - not the only one C. The second you start getting into relativism - think If you are more superior - should we not allow the less intelligent people have a view? Maybe prevent them from voting? Slippery slope Like or not in a democracy all views are applicable - like it or lump it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. " I like this.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way"
Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority....
And by no platforming them what does it say about you?
Dunno .... or perhaps I'm simply defending their right to free speech..... no matter how unpersuasive I find their opinions.....
"Oh I accept your right to say something but I think I am morally superior so won't engage in conversation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please " Yeah, I heard the aunt of the reckless idiot who put his wife and family (who couldn't swim) into a dinghy without life jackets to cross rough seas at 2.00 am from outside a tourist resort, was very upset!? C4 invited the idiot to do an alternative Christmas message for them when he should have been prosecuted for reckless manslaughter. And I'm sure the family and friends of Europe's numerous new rape and sex attack victims are also upset...at the fact that they have been attacked by criminals posing as asylum seekers and by the fact that thanks to people like Merkel, taxpayers' are funding the criminal activities of racist and sexist muslims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this.... "Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way"
Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority....
And by no platforming them what does it say about you?
Dunno .... or perhaps I'm simply defending their right to free speech..... no matter how unpersuasive I find their opinions.....
Oh I accept your right to say something but I think I am morally superior so won't engage in conversation?"If you say so.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Funny how father always servive these accidents and wife and kids die,You think they would try to save wife and kids before there own safety Is this for real?" Sounds like a 'stuck record' as we used to say in the vinyl days lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No comparing situations at all how very dictatorial of you I know shocking But it's pretty clear they are different Good to see you can't defend your other views just pick up on that clear as mud unless you're naive, stupid, narrow minded or a mixture of the three" Really - enlighten me the How is leaving turkey - a plac epeople pay to go on holiday the same as leaving a burning building? Please tell me! too much mud on my face to see! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please Yeah, I heard the aunt of the reckless idiot who put his wife and family (who couldn't swim) into a dinghy without life jackets to cross rough seas at 2.00 am from outside a tourist resort, was very upset!? C4 invited the idiot to do an alternative Christmas message for them when he should have been prosecuted for reckless manslaughter. And I'm sure the family and friends of Europe's numerous new rape and sex attack victims are also upset...at the fact that they have been attacked by criminals posing as asylum seekers and by the fact that thanks to people like Merkel, taxpayers' are funding the criminal activities of racist and sexist muslims. " Great point Couldn't agree more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No comparing situations at all how very dictatorial of you I know shocking But it's pretty clear they are different Good to see you can't defend your other views just pick up on that clear as mud unless you're naive, stupid, narrow minded or a mixture of the three Really - enlighten me the How is leaving turkey - a plac epeople pay to go on holiday the same as leaving a burning building? Please tell me! too much mud on my face to see!" that's not mud .... that's egg | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way"
Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority....
And by no platforming them what does it say about you?
Dunno .... or perhaps I'm simply defending their right to free speech..... no matter how unpersuasive I find their opinions.....
Oh I accept your right to say something but I think I am morally superior so won't engage in conversation?
If you say so.... "I do But I only care about my view because in your worlds ' I am more intelligent than you' as such I don't value your opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No comparing situations at all how very dictatorial of you I know shocking But it's pretty clear they are different Good to see you can't defend your other views just pick up on that clear as mud unless you're naive, stupid, narrow minded or a mixture of the three Really - enlighten me the How is leaving turkey - a plac epeople pay to go on holiday the same as leaving a burning building? Please tell me! too much mud on my face to see! that's not mud .... that's egg "Childish comment - shows you can't defend your position - weak really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way"
Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority....
And by no platforming them what does it say about you?
Dunno .... or perhaps I'm simply defending their right to free speech..... no matter how unpersuasive I find their opinions.....
Oh I accept your right to say something but I think I am morally superior so won't engage in conversation?
If you say so....
I do
But I only care about my view because in your worlds ' I am more intelligent than you' as such I don't value your opinion "Pffft that made me chuckle... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two ".....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday. What was that about slippery slopes? Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?"A. Didn't say burn the people inside Just burn the illegal camp down B. I haven't advocated exterminating an entire race because they were socially successful That was a state run propaganda machine fronting a systematic approach to dealing with Jews Compared a a fringe independent French newspaper Big difference | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?"The Nazi's also built motorways and produced the Beetle If others do the same does that make them as bad as the Nazi's? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?"Blimey some people have short memories!? 12 Hebdo journalists were murdered by Islamo-Nazis...including a Jewish lady who was specifically singled out because of her religion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... "Well here we go; - a natural right is one that exists in a state of nature, as opposed to 'civilized society'. Or controlled society. So because it's a natural right , you get various legislation to try enshrine that, when we started looking at ways to structure society, eg us constitution. Taking it into the realms of a legal right. But yeah always with caveats- cos there's no pint in legislation if someone doesn't get to pull the strings.. Offense being the 21st century string. Before that it was heresy/treason /then slander and defamation . So the question became- what is Liberty ? Church and state both want to decide for you. - I said 'best expressed' because his essay/treatise is considered the defining work on Liberty. That's why it's the standard university text. Now , I've answered your questions . How's about answering mine. Who are these 'genuine defenders of free speech' you mentioned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dunno .... or perhaps I'm simply defending their right to free speech..... no matter how unpersuasive I find their opinions..... "May I point out that there is no right to free speech here (or anywhere else to my knowledge). And just to be clear here in the UK it is a criminal offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison to incite racial or religious hatred and it is also an offence to incite public disorder by the use of inflammatory language or gestures. As for these cartoons, they would not have been published or cause so much controversy if they were not a reflection (no matter how distorted) of what is happening throughout Europe (including the UK). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
The Nazi's also built motorways and produced the Beetle
If others do the same does that make them as bad as the Nazi's?"I don't mean to derail your contributions to an interesting and enjoyable exchange of ideas and opinions.... and I genuinely applaud enthusiasm in these forums .... But what I really wanted to ask, is do you drink a lot of coffee by any chance  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
A. Didn't say burn the people inside
Just burn the illegal camp down
B. I haven't advocated exterminating an entire race because they were socially successful
That was a state run propaganda machine fronting a systematic approach to dealing with Jews
Compared a a fringe independent French newspaper
Big difference "If you really don't understand this simple point there is little point in continuing. It is very interesting how many extreme right wingers have appeared both here and across internet forums since Britain First were kicked off Facebook. New tactic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dunno .... or perhaps I'm simply defending their right to free speech..... no matter how unpersuasive I find their opinions.....
May I point out that there is no right to free speech here (or anywhere else to my knowledge). And just to be clear here in the UK it is a criminal offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison to incite racial or religious hatred and it is also an offence to incite public disorder by the use of inflammatory language or gestures.
As for these cartoons, they would not have been published or cause so much controversy if they were not a reflection (no matter how distorted) of what is happening throughout Europe (including the UK)."I like this post too.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
The Nazi's also built motorways and produced the Beetle
If others do the same does that make them as bad as the Nazi's?
I don't mean to derail your contributions to an interesting and enjoyable exchange of ideas and opinions.... and I genuinely applaud enthusiasm in these forums ....
But what I really wanted to ask, is do you drink a lot of coffee by any chance "Thanks - no I don't - don't drink it at all actually Not my cup of tea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are simply cartoonist motivated by money who are employed to create images that sell the magazine that pays their wages... Certainly not to be confused with genuine defenders of free speech....
Why not?
They aren't claiming to be defenders of free speech, that I know of. They are just practicing their free speech rights.
I cringe whenever I see the words "genuine" and "free speech" in the same sentence. I mean, who decides?
-Courtney "Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
The Nazi's also built motorways and produced the Beetle
If others do the same does that make them as bad as the Nazi's?
I don't mean to derail your contributions to an interesting and enjoyable exchange of ideas and opinions.... and I genuinely applaud enthusiasm in these forums ....
But what I really wanted to ask, is do you drink a lot of coffee by any chance
Thanks - no I don't - don't drink it at all actually
Not my cup of tea " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
Blimey some people have short memories!? 12 Hebdo journalists were murdered by Islamo-Nazis...including a Jewish lady who was specifically singled out because of her religion."I really don't see your point, apart from an attempt to dilute? Nobody is defending what those criminals did? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
A. Didn't say burn the people inside
Just burn the illegal camp down
B. I haven't advocated exterminating an entire race because they were socially successful
That was a state run propaganda machine fronting a systematic approach to dealing with Jews
Compared a a fringe independent French newspaper
Big difference
If you really don't understand this simple point there is little point in continuing.
It is very interesting how many extreme right wingers have appeared both here and across internet forums since Britain First were kicked off Facebook.
New tactic?"How patronising - I think you don't understand just how bad the treatment of Jews were And to call me an effective Nazi when I am defending the Jewish race and appalled by the treated they received . So appalled I think it's degrading to compare this to that There's not many if any things that compare to the holocaust And yes I understand simple things - I understand you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Face facts camps in France are 95% single males " Yes,they should be back where they came from fighting for their families instead of trying to get to UK to fight for benefits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please What's your opinion? Or U waiting to see which way the mob goes " no I no my own mind thanks I hate islam with a passion how ever bringing dead kids into a properganda war is not a good way to get a point across I can understand how the French feel but insulting dead kids ain't going to help anyone's cause | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? " Well said as a parent myself that's what I thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? " Parents who are desperate and see that terrifyingly dangerous opinion as the best and only one possible for any possible future for their kids. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Parents who are desperate and see that terrifyingly dangerous opinion as the best and only one possible for any possible future for their kids." What - leaving a Turkish holiday resort? People in England pay to go there on holiday Can't be that bad It smacks of stupid greediness And yes they have options and the one they picked was incredible reckless The only person to blame was his parents . Full stop | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Ones with no other option. Sometimes people make shit choices because that's their only choice. You've seen the starving families in war zones, maybe they didn't want to end up like that." so true! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Ones with no other option. Sometimes people make shit choices because that's their only choice. You've seen the starving families in war zones, maybe they didn't want to end up like that. so true!"They were in a holiday resort in a safe country ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
A. Didn't say burn the people inside
Just burn the illegal camp down
B. I haven't advocated exterminating an entire race because they were socially successful
That was a state run propaganda machine fronting a systematic approach to dealing with Jews
Compared a a fringe independent French newspaper
Big difference
If you really don't understand this simple point there is little point in continuing.
It is very interesting how many extreme right wingers have appeared both here and across internet forums since Britain First were kicked off Facebook.
New tactic?
How patronising - I think you don't understand just how bad the treatment of Jews were
And to call me an effective Nazi when I am defending the Jewish race and appalled by the treated they received . So appalled I think it's degrading to compare this to that
There's not many if any things that compare to the holocaust
And yes I understand simple things - I understand you"I think you have deliberately misunderstood the initial comment. The poster compared it to the dehumanising of the Jews in the 1930s. The destruction of the Jews started after this once public opinion was successfully turned against them. Nobody played down the persecution of the Jews. What is does do a disservice to those Jews who died is to allow it to happen again and not to learn the lessons of history. Your arguments are disingenuous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
.....says someone who was advocating burning down the Calais camp only yesterday.
What was that about slippery slopes?
Have a look at some of the cartoons produced by Goebbels in the 30's and tell me why they aren't comparable?
A. Didn't say burn the people inside
Just burn the illegal camp down
B. I haven't advocated exterminating an entire race because they were socially successful
That was a state run propaganda machine fronting a systematic approach to dealing with Jews
Compared a a fringe independent French newspaper
Big difference
If you really don't understand this simple point there is little point in continuing.
It is very interesting how many extreme right wingers have appeared both here and across internet forums since Britain First were kicked off Facebook.
New tactic?
How patronising - I think you don't understand just how bad the treatment of Jews were
And to call me an effective Nazi when I am defending the Jewish race and appalled by the treated they received . So appalled I think it's degrading to compare this to that
There's not many if any things that compare to the holocaust
And yes I understand simple things - I understand you
I think you have deliberately misunderstood the initial comment. The poster compared it to the dehumanising of the Jews in the 1930s. The destruction of the Jews started after this once public opinion was successfully turned against them.
Nobody played down the persecution of the Jews. What is does do a disservice to those Jews who died is to allow it to happen again and not to learn the lessons of history.
Your arguments are disingenuous. "Big difference is the propaganda was state run in an age of no internet and free press compared to a publication which normally sells 40k a week Big difference - I'm sure the Jewish race would rather protect free speech It's not even in the same ball park and there is no slippery slope | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?. I think you'll find they fought for voting rights despite the repercussions. After all they were shoved in Holloway....... Not really, your confusing two issues. Firstly they were free to discuss whether women should have voting rights, so they had freedom of speech and thought. The repercussions came from law breaking, of which many of those laws then themselves moved along with societal influence. you'll find that many were arrested under the sedition laws when they attempted to speak in public in support of womens suffrage." . Sedition laws were not laws against free speech perse they were no different than limiting freedom of speech today by inciting racial hatred!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A question to all you liberals guardian readers left wing activists if you want mass immigration you have them living with you and pay there benefits not us British tax payers" Shucks,,,,, I don't meet the criteria for answering this question,,,,, Tuh,,,, I'll just have to reconcile my humanitarian leanings with an ability to show compassion ..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?. I think you'll find they fought for voting rights despite the repercussions. After all they were shoved in Holloway......" Being a bit pedantic maybe but they were not actually locked up for what they said but for what they did (such as chaining themselves to railings and actual physical violence against those (men) in power at the time). Non were locked up in prison simply for saying they wanted votes for women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Face facts camps in France are 95% single males Yes,they should be back where they came from fighting for their families instead of trying to get to UK to fight for benefits." Is this for real? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real?" It would seem so. I stopped being shocked by some of the comments made by some on here a long time ago. It still saddens me tho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A question to all you liberals guardian readers left wing activists if you want mass immigration you have them living with you and pay there benefits not us British tax payers" Is this for real? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?. I think you'll find they fought for voting rights despite the repercussions. After all they were shoved in Holloway....... Not really, your confusing two issues. Firstly they were free to discuss whether women should have voting rights, so they had freedom of speech and thought. The repercussions came from law breaking, of which many of those laws then themselves moved along with societal influence. " Good analysis of the true situation at the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A question to all you liberals guardian readers left wing activists if you want mass immigration you have them living with you and pay there benefits not us British tax payers Is this for real?" Is that all you say? I bet you've just cancelled your guardian subscription! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could someone translate what it says on the front cover please,so I can form an opinion. " What would little Aylan have become if he had grown up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could someone translate what it says on the front cover please,so I can form an opinion. What would little Aylan have become if he had grown up" A good question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? dunno .... maybe the same kind of person who jumps out of a window in what used to be the world trade centre when fire had taken hold several floors below them
Big difference
1. Building was burning no choice
2. They were leaving turkey - a safe country with no immediate threat to life
No comparing situations at all "Turkey maybe safer than Syria but I would not call it safe. I think a closer analogy would be to compare Turkey to be on a floor a few flights above the fire. It's just a question of time before the flames reach you, if the smoke doesn't get you first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real?" You've given better responses than that against me in the past. Take him on, make the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? dunno .... maybe the same kind of person who jumps out of a window in what used to be the world trade centre when fire had taken hold several floors below them
Big difference
1. Building was burning no choice
2. They were leaving turkey - a safe country with no immediate threat to life
No comparing situations at all
Turkey maybe safer than Syria but I would not call it safe. I think a closer analogy would be to compare Turkey to be on a floor a few flights above the fire. It's just a question of time before the flames reach you, if the smoke doesn't get you first."No Turkey is generally safe Yes in later years they may have issues - but now there's no reason to get in a boat at 2 am to get to a Greek island Again - people go to a turkey on holiday - can't be that bad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Could someone translate what it says on the front cover please,so I can form an opinion. What would little Aylan have become if he had grown up" Thank you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real? Yes Stop trying to ride the moral high ground You view is no more valid than others Just accept each to their own And as I said they were leaving turkey " Turkey is not a safe country for refugees from Syria. Turkey & Syria have long standing and on going ethnic disputes with each other. Turkey stands accused of forced deportations of Syrian (especially Kurdish Syrian) refugees back to Syria. It's also been alleged that Turkey and it's government are complicit in encouraging the refugees to continue into Europe offering the choice of either carrying on or being sent back. " A safe country will no compelling reason to get in that boat " Get on the boat or go back to Syria would seem to me to be quite a compelling reason to get on the boat. " As such they did it for greed - to get to a richer country They took and chose that risk " Or just to try and save their lives maybe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Sorry but I can't seriously motivate myself to respond to any contradiction of my opinions that starts with the works " lets put it another way"
Tailoring a completely alternative analogy attempting to force fit a point is just arguing for arguing sake and smacks of little more than a poor attempt to impose intellectual superiority....
"You may be right but you're not making your point so, by default, he's winning the argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real? Yes Stop trying to ride the moral high ground You view is no more valid than others Just accept each to their own And as I said they were leaving turkey Turkey is not a safe country for refugees from Syria. Turkey & Syria have long standing and on going ethnic disputes with each other. Turkey stands accused of forced deportations of Syrian (especially Kurdish Syrian) refugees back to Syria. It's also been alleged that Turkey and it's government are complicit in encouraging the refugees to continue into Europe offering the choice of either carrying on or being sent back. A safe country will no compelling reason to get in that boat Get on the boat or go back to Syria would seem to me to be quite a compelling reason to get on the boat. As such they did it for greed - to get to a richer country They took and chose that risk Or just to try and save their lives maybe." Ok How do you know they were under pressure to leave? Yes Turks have issues , but mainly with Kurdish Syrians As referees they can claim asylum - turkey is honour bound to take them under UN rules. And considering they WAnt to get into EU I'd assume they comply They could of flee east / north east but chose to head to Europe They were in a tourist area of bodrum There was no gun to their head - this was optional | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please Yeah, I heard the aunt of the reckless idiot who put his wife and family (who couldn't swim) into a dinghy without life jackets to cross rough seas at 2.00 am from outside a tourist resort, was very upset!? C4 invited the idiot to do an alternative Christmas message for them when he should have been prosecuted for reckless manslaughter. And I'm sure the family and friends of Europe's numerous new rape and sex attack victims are also upset...at the fact that they have been attacked by criminals posing as asylum seekers and by the fact that thanks to people like Merkel, taxpayers' are funding the criminal activities of racist and sexist muslims. " Would it have been any less of a crime if they had not been Muslims? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find all the comparisons between the press treatment of Syrian and N. African illegal immigrants of today and that of the Jews by the NAZI press of the 30's 40's disingenuous. Firstly the Jews were historical citizens of the countries where they were being persecuted, those being targeted now are not, in fact they are supposed to be refuges seeking sanctuary. Second and most importantly the reason these cartoons have been published is that gangs of men from Syria and N. Africa have been targeting, sexually assaulting and raping European women all over Europe and the authorities have been sweeping it under the carpet for what looks like reasons of political correctness. I would suggest that if this does not change the result will be a massive backlash with the vigilantism that suppressing information about the original attacks was meant to protect against." Very good point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please Yeah, I heard the aunt of the reckless idiot who put his wife and family (who couldn't swim) into a dinghy without life jackets to cross rough seas at 2.00 am from outside a tourist resort, was very upset!? C4 invited the idiot to do an alternative Christmas message for them when he should have been prosecuted for reckless manslaughter. And I'm sure the family and friends of Europe's numerous new rape and sex attack victims are also upset...at the fact that they have been attacked by criminals posing as asylum seekers and by the fact that thanks to people like Merkel, taxpayers' are funding the criminal activities of racist and sexist muslims. Would it have been any less of a crime if they had not been Muslims?" The crime is the crime Jeees a country opens their arms to you When others don't want to know and you repay them that way Scum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A question to all you liberals guardian readers left wing activists if you want mass immigration you have them living with you and pay there benefits not us British tax payers" its not an actual question though, its a statement.. and who are 'them' if i may ask, are you talking about just the people in Calais or immigrants in general..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sedition laws were not laws against free speech perse they were no different than limiting freedom of speech today by inciting racial hatred!. " at the time of the suffragette movement a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects. so they are wholly different from limiting freedom of speech today, and not just because the law of sedition and seditious libel was struck from statute six years and three days ago | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The whole idea that the a right to freedom of speech exists on terms dictated by the provocateur is such a immaturely juvenile train of thought...
See, I disagree with this. The right to freedom of speech exists for the good of society as a whole, not on the terms dictated by the "provocateur." Society has a right to hear opposing sides in any debate, and in a democracy some would argue that that right turns into a duty.
We cant dictate terms of freedom of speech based on the aggrieved party either, because, as the forums regularly show, there is always an aggrieved party with an eggshell emotional state. The best thing to do, therefore, for the sake of open discussion and free thought, is to leave speech as open as possible and limit only for speech that in completely valueless to society.
However, we have to be careful who we give the right to determine that value, or we could end up with the unnecessary suppression of speech.
-Courtney
The whole stick and stones won't break your bones but calling names cant hurt..... is trusted analogy used by many a schoolyard bully.....
I would suggest that in the real world provocatively insulting someone and then expecting only verbal retaliation is a train of thought long proven to have little value.... ...
"Oh, I haven't looked back on this thread until now, but I feel I should address this point. If someone can't refrain from physical violence, regardless of another person's words, then that person is the wrong party. There are, of course, exceptions for speech that is meant to insight violence, meaning speech that directly calls for violent acts. But if someone just gets over emotional because of someone else's opinion, that is there problem. Speech shouldn't be curtailed as a result. -Courtney | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!"Just throwing it out there - you're asking a trans person whether they want to go back to the good ole days as if you have a better appreciation as a cis white man? Oh Jesus. How condescending. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real? You've given better responses than that against me in the past. Take him on, make the case." I am giving people exactly the level of intelligent response their posts deserve. No more, no less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A question to all you liberals guardian readers left wing activists if you want mass immigration you have them living with you and pay there benefits not us British tax payers" That's not actually a question but, if you do have a question you want to ask I'm sure there are many on here who will try and answer it for you. Some might even be liberal guardian readers or left wing activists but most likely they'll be just plain old middle of the road tolerant people who, whilst not being in favour of mass immigration, happen to have a bit of human empathy and compassion for others who are in desperate situations often through no fault of their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please It is a traditional French satire publication, often designed to inflame, sometimes offend and spark debate. I'm not sure it counts as satire.The dictionary definition of satire. the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. "the crude satire seems to be directed at the fashionable protest singers of the time". I think it fits the definition. It might be satire that you don't like, but that's why we protect freedoms and freedom of speech, otherwise society would end up in joey world, that might not be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be by free choice, simply dictatorial or theocratic! are you sure that we protect free speech in the uk as if it were a positve right? if you do please supply the evidence to back this claim up.. You'd need to define we,I think personally most people in this country enjoy and have fought for many freedoms from the civil war through to ww2. Free speech is crucial to all other societal changes!. How would the suffragettes have fought for voting rights without being able to speak freely without repercussions?. Censorship imo is never a good idea whether it be from government, religion or other sources. It nearly always leads to dictatorship with theocratic ideology" Just throwing it out there - the reason anyone has ever heard of the suffragettes is because they had lots of repercussions for their speech, which was not free at all. They didn't have that right, and were imprisoned, force fed, humiliated etc. for stating opinions that were contrary to the government and general public. We don't have free speech in the uk - proof of that is we have laws against hate speech, which is why if you publicise something suggesting, for eg, that all homosexuals should be executed, you will face a prison sentence. This is the country you live in. You don't know what the laws are regarding communicating with other people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real? You've given better responses than that against me in the past. Take him on, make the case. I am giving people exactly the level of intelligent response their posts deserve. No more, no less." Just shows you to be ignorant and patronising It also means I have won No platforming is childish and anti free speech/ democratic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Just throwing it out there - you're asking a trans person whether they want to go back to the good ole days as if you have a better appreciation as a cis white man? Oh Jesus. How condescending.". No I don't think I wrote that at all?. I was asking a point about where he thought the societal changes came from that modernised the thinking of those matters!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the right to free speech is whats known as a natural right , often fought over by control freaks, but in 'modern' times is best expressed by JSM. Whereas cartoonists draw pictures- they don't set up laws etc. So go on then, who are - in your words , 'the genuine defenders of free speech'? This should be fun Ok well have fun with this.... Please educate us by explaining which of the many cultures that co-exist on this planet support your statement that freedom of speech is a natural right Oh and while your on....you might want too defend the statement which attempts too force-fit an opinion by offering selective definition and phrases like Best expressed..... I don't believe there is such a thing as a universally accepted definition of freedom of speech.... .
Let's put it another way, where did you get the right to dress as a woman, have anal sex or marry another man if you so choose?.
I would suggest the ability to express free thought ideas by verbal means to change societal practises the "best" system we've found so far...
Or we could go back to chopping peoples heads off who disagree with current practises..
Which one do you favour?.
Adolf Hitler had great theocratical ideas for how best for YOU to live your life!.
So do many Muslims!.
So do many western people
The first two wish to impose their theology through violence, the last one can just be quietly offended and usually by and large is!.
Utopia to my utter disappointment hasn't yet arrived and frankly I'm sceptical it ever will despite peoples very commendable and best efforts!
Just throwing it out there - you're asking a trans person whether they want to go back to the good ole days as if you have a better appreciation as a cis white man? Oh Jesus. How condescending..
No I don't think I wrote that at all?.
I was asking a point about where he thought the societal changes came from that modernised the thinking of those matters!.
"
Your right
I actually understand the point you made and agree | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? dunno .... maybe the same kind of person who jumps out of a window in what used to be the world trade centre when fire had taken hold several floors below them
Big difference
1. Building was burning no choice
2. They were leaving turkey - a safe country with no immediate threat to life
No comparing situations at all
Turkey maybe safer than Syria but I would not call it safe. I think a closer analogy would be to compare Turkey to be on a floor a few flights above the fire. It's just a question of time before the flames reach you, if the smoke doesn't get you first.
No
Turkey is generally safe
Yes in later years they may have issues - but now there's no reason to get in a boat at 2 am to get to a Greek island
Again - people go to a turkey on holiday - can't be that bad "I don't think many Syrians go there for holidays. The fact that it may be safe for British or European tourist does not mean it's safe for Syrian refugees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two "I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sedition laws were not laws against free speech perse they were no different than limiting freedom of speech today by inciting racial hatred!. at the time of the suffragette movement a seditious intention is an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to exite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects. so they are wholly different from limiting freedom of speech today, and not just because the law of sedition and seditious libel was struck from statute six years and three days ago" . I think if you read the sentence in your post.. To incite any person to commit a crime?. Surely that's no different than modern free speech curtailment! Especially given the historical context. Free speech but not freedom to incite crime!. Adding it was removed only a few years ago is a bit disingenuous, there lots of old laws still in acted or only just removed that don't really apply to modern life.. Like being allowed to shoot a Welshmen in Chester with a crossbow.. It sounds like a law.. But try it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A question to all you liberals guardian readers left wing activists if you want mass immigration you have them living with you and pay there benefits not us British tax payers That's not actually a question but, if you do have a question you want to ask I'm sure there are many on here who will try and answer it for you. Some might even be liberal guardian readers or left wing activists but most likely they'll be just plain old middle of the road tolerant people who, whilst not being in favour of mass immigration, happen to have a bit of human empathy and compassion for others who are in desperate situations often through no fault of their own." this.. common decency and humanity is not wholly exclusive to any one group.. with some obvious exceptions.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it.". So says king you, with your kingshit opinions.. Your really not that far away from king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are you! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? dunno .... maybe the same kind of person who jumps out of a window in what used to be the world trade centre when fire had taken hold several floors below them
Big difference
1. Building was burning no choice
2. They were leaving turkey - a safe country with no immediate threat to life
No comparing situations at all
Turkey maybe safer than Syria but I would not call it safe. I think a closer analogy would be to compare Turkey to be on a floor a few flights above the fire. It's just a question of time before the flames reach you, if the smoke doesn't get you first.
No
Turkey is generally safe
Yes in later years they may have issues - but now there's no reason to get in a boat at 2 am to get to a Greek island
Again - people go to a turkey on holiday - can't be that bad
I don't think many Syrians go there for holidays. The fact that it may be safe for British or European tourist does not mean it's safe for Syrian refugees."Is this for real? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real? Yes Stop trying to ride the moral high ground You view is no more valid than others Just accept each to their own And as I said they were leaving turkey Turkey is not a safe country for refugees from Syria. Turkey & Syria have long standing and on going ethnic disputes with each other. Turkey stands accused of forced deportations of Syrian (especially Kurdish Syrian) refugees back to Syria. It's also been alleged that Turkey and it's government are complicit in encouraging the refugees to continue into Europe offering the choice of either carrying on or being sent back. A safe country will no compelling reason to get in that boat Get on the boat or go back to Syria would seem to me to be quite a compelling reason to get on the boat. As such they did it for greed - to get to a richer country They took and chose that risk Or just to try and save their lives maybe. Ok How do you know they were under pressure to leave? " I just told you above but I was not actually there anymore than you were. However I know people who live (or lived) in Syria and Lebanon and, long before this crisis, they had issues with Turkey. If you actually knew about the region you would be well aware of the problems that exists between Turkey (the former colonial power in the area) and most Arab countries. " Yes Turks have issues , but mainly with Kurdish Syrians As referees they can claim asylum - turkey is honour bound to take them under UN rules. And considering they WAnt to get into EU I'd assume they comply " Then you would be assuming incorrectly. " They could of flee east / north east but chose to head to Europe " Generally it makes sense to try and flee from danger to somewhere that is actually safer than the place you're fleeing from. North and East of Syria is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Chechnya and other such places which are just as dangerous, possibly more, than Syria itself. " They were in a tourist area of bodrum There was no gun to their head - this was optional " You don't have to have a gun constantly pointed at your head to feel threatened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I find all the comparisons between the press treatment of Syrian and N. African illegal immigrants of today and that of the Jews by the NAZI press of the 30's 40's disingenuous. Firstly the Jews were historical citizens of the countries where they were being persecuted, those being targeted now are not, in fact they are supposed to be refuges seeking sanctuary. Second and most importantly the reason these cartoons have been published is that gangs of men from Syria and N. Africa have been targeting, sexually assaulting and raping European women all over Europe and the authorities have been sweeping it under the carpet for what looks like reasons of political correctness. I would suggest that if this does not change the result will be a massive backlash with the vigilantism that suppressing information about the original attacks was meant to protect against." Whilst not agreeing with a lot of what you said I do agree with this last point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it..
So says king you, with your kingshit opinions..
Your really not that far away from king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are you!"Yeah, I'm from Saudi Arabia, because we don't get on in this particular forum. What a brilliant and astute point you made, well worth interacting with me. Another point to the validity of freedom of speech! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe what we should be questioning is the motives of these so called parents who hold their children up as moral hostages. What kind of parents would chuck their children on a flimsy boat into the middle of an ocean ffs? Is this for real? Yes It's a valid point Is this for real? You've given better responses than that against me in the past. Take him on, make the case. I am giving people exactly the level of intelligent response their posts deserve. No more, no less. Just shows you to be ignorant and patronising It also means I have won No platforming is childish and anti free speech/ democratic " Is this for real? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it..
So says king you, with your kingshit opinions..
Your really not that far away from king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are you!
Yeah, I'm from Saudi Arabia, because we don't get on in this particular forum.
What a brilliant and astute point you made, well worth interacting with me. Another point to the validity of freedom of speech! ". I gathered from your very first post you wanted to have a temper tantrum? All I'm doing is giving you exactly what you wanted?. I suggest rational intelligent replies usually get the same back! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any one seen the new hebdo cartons opinions please Yeah, I heard the aunt of the reckless idiot who put his wife and family (who couldn't swim) into a dinghy without life jackets to cross rough seas at 2.00 am from outside a tourist resort, was very upset!? C4 invited the idiot to do an alternative Christmas message for them when he should have been prosecuted for reckless manslaughter. And I'm sure the family and friends of Europe's numerous new rape and sex attack victims are also upset...at the fact that they have been attacked by criminals posing as asylum seekers and by the fact that thanks to people like Merkel, taxpayers' are funding the criminal activities of racist and sexist muslims. Would it have been any less of a crime if they had not been Muslims? The crime is the crime Jeees a country opens their arms to you When others don't want to know and you repay them that way Scum " I agree, a crime is a crime. I would also agree with you if you said that we should be more vigilant over who we allow in and how much freedom within Europe we give these people until we know better who and what type of person they are. However I also don't believe that those who have committed these crimes are necessarily representative of the whole migrant community and, whilst those that committed the crimes are scum, I don't think it helps to tar all migrants or refuges with the labels 'scum'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think if you read the sentence in your post.. To incite any person to commit a crime?. Surely that's no different than modern free speech curtailment! Especially given the historical context. Free speech but not freedom to incite crime!. Adding it was removed only a few years ago is a bit disingenuous, there lots of old laws still in acted or only just removed that don't really apply to modern life.. Like being allowed to shoot a Welshmen in Chester with a crossbow.. It sounds like a law.. But try it!" skipping over the parts that say "a seditious intention is an intention to bring into contempt, or to exite disaffection against the government and constitution of the United Kingdom, as by law established" and "to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects" also the welsh law is still on the statute but has been nullified by a progression of more modern laws whereas the sedition law was totally removed from statute so i don't believe you can compare the two. and no i wouldn't like to try to shoot a welshman in chester mostly because i am welsh  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jeees a country opens their arms to you and you repay them that way Scum " i'm sure a lot of spaniards feel the same way towards the english after 4 decades of alcohol fuelled rape and violence on the costas | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't seen the cartoons and don't care. Basically I think the cartoonists are cunts who offend because they can. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's polite or a good idea. " it appears to be legal in france but do you think if it were a UK publication there would've been consequences from the authorities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it..
So says king you, with your kingshit opinions..
Your really not that far away from king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are you!
Yeah, I'm from Saudi Arabia, because we don't get on in this particular forum.
What a brilliant and astute point you made, well worth interacting with me. Another point to the validity of freedom of speech! .
I gathered from your very first post you wanted to have a temper tantrum? All I'm doing is giving you exactly what you wanted?.
I suggest rational intelligent replies usually get the same back!"Ohreally? the only thing that gets me on threads like this is other people's irrational hissy fits, so ask yourself how you drew my attention?
Here it is then. I don't defend the concept of free speech because I do not encourage the promotion of hate speech against individuals or groups by individuals or groups. Nor the incitement of violence against the vulnerable. Luckily I live in the UK where that's the law.
Just like Saudi Arabia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't seen the cartoons and don't care. Basically I think the cartoonists are cunts who offend because they can. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's polite or a good idea. it appears to be legal in france but do you think if it were a UK publication there would've been consequences from the authorities?" Good question. I think there would have been consequences yes. I don't know enough about the legal aspects but i could see a lot of retailers not selling it for example. What do you think? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't seen the cartoons and don't care. Basically I think the cartoonists are cunts who offend because they can. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's polite or a good idea. it appears to be legal in france but do you think if it were a UK publication there would've been consequences from the authorities? Good question. I think there would have been consequences yes. I don't know enough about the legal aspects but i could see a lot of retailers not selling it for example. What do you think? " i'm not sure of the legal aspect either but i think they would have the police swoop in and take all the hard drives etc under the guise of a routine invetigation "in case" the law was broken ..... but of course it would be just to show them who runs things coz that's how our government roll ..... if the cps thought they had a chance then they'd scapegoat someone, probably the cartoonist and use his conviction to emasculate the satirical press by making an example of him with a ridiculously disproportionate sentence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it..
So says king you, with your kingshit opinions..
Your really not that far away from king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are you!
Yeah, I'm from Saudi Arabia, because we don't get on in this particular forum.
What a brilliant and astute point you made, well worth interacting with me. Another point to the validity of freedom of speech! .
I gathered from your very first post you wanted to have a temper tantrum? All I'm doing is giving you exactly what you wanted?.
I suggest rational intelligent replies usually get the same back!
Ohreally? the only thing that gets me on threads like this is other people's irrational hissy fits, so ask yourself how you drew my attention?
Here it is then. I don't defend the concept of free speech because I do not encourage the promotion of hate speech against individuals or groups by individuals or groups. Nor the incitement of violence against the vulnerable. Luckily I live in the UK where that's the law.
Just like Saudi Arabia. ". Well that's great were in agreement. Now let's remind yusaf Islam, who's quite happy to burn salmon Rushdie alive... Not only that, but he openly said it on tv.. In the presence of the cheif inspector for London.. Guess what.. Nothing, not even a warning!. Enjoy your night | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it..
So says king you, with your kingshit opinions..
Your really not that far away from king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are you!
Yeah, I'm from Saudi Arabia, because we don't get on in this particular forum.
What a brilliant and astute point you made, well worth interacting with me. Another point to the validity of freedom of speech! .
I gathered from your very first post you wanted to have a temper tantrum? All I'm doing is giving you exactly what you wanted?.
I suggest rational intelligent replies usually get the same back!
Ohreally? the only thing that gets me on threads like this is other people's irrational hissy fits, so ask yourself how you drew my attention?
Here it is then. I don't defend the concept of free speech because I do not encourage the promotion of hate speech against individuals or groups by individuals or groups. Nor the incitement of violence against the vulnerable. Luckily I live in the UK where that's the law.
Just like Saudi Arabia. .
Well that's great were in agreement.
Now let's remind yusaf Islam, who's quite happy to burn salmon Rushdie alive...
Not only that, but he openly said it on tv.. In the presence of the cheif inspector for London..
Guess what..
Nothing, not even a warning!.
Enjoy your night"I'm not going to disagree with you on what you're actually saying but I think context and time our also quite important. When did Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) actually say this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Haven't seen the cartoons and don't care. Basically I think the cartoonists are cunts who offend because they can. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's polite or a good idea. it appears to be legal in france but do you think if it were a UK publication there would've been consequences from the authorities?" U.K. Publications all decided not to print , while lamenting the attavk on people and free speech. Then after a few days of silence on The really big question (though picked up by people BTL saying well show us what the fuck this is about) one particular paper printed a minuscule copy on one of those inside pages. Make oif that what you will. And actually this particular battle was decided back first time around . No one in U.K. Printed or showed in tv. But yeah media will defend its right to trash people , for the Bucks - in name of 'public interest'. But is free speech not a 'public interest'? But course freedom of speech is only part of the equation. Without much info no-one will have much to say about anything important. So you come to freedom of info, ta dum. And in uk, we have foi at same time as a govt minister goes round to the guardian office and says he will take hammer to hard disk containing files from glen what's his face, greenwald? All the stuff about govt 'activities ' you must destroy. Then they collared his bf passing through at Heathrow and threw him in a cell, greenwald moved to Canada. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think it's an awful cartoon, which in my opinion is not far off the kind of cartoons the Nazis used to dehmanise Jews during the 1930's. Maybe they didn't intend it that way, maybe they can intellectually defend it in their own minds - French "humour" tends to be clunky and direct for the British palate - but it's hard to see it as anything other than deliberate, unhelpful and probably unwise provocation. I like this....
Don't trivialise the Nazis treatment of Jews by comparing the two
I think under the current speech laws, they are 100% fucking entitled to do exactly that, and as mentioned, soooooo many people fought for that right. Propaganda. Freedom of speech. Opinions. All the same shit. Charlie he do are just shitty racist cartoonists, and if that is the pinnacle of free speech, then fucking drown it..
So says king you, with your kingshit opinions..
Your really not that far away from king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia are you!
Yeah, I'm from Saudi Arabia, because we don't get on in this particular forum.
What a brilliant and astute point you made, well worth interacting with me. Another point to the validity of freedom of speech! .
I gathered from your very first post you wanted to have a temper tantrum? All I'm doing is giving you exactly what you wanted?.
I suggest rational intelligent replies usually get the same back!
Ohreally? the only thing that gets me on threads like this is other people's irrational hissy fits, so ask yourself how you drew my attention?
Here it is then. I don't defend the concept of free speech because I do not encourage the promotion of hate speech against individuals or groups by individuals or groups. Nor the incitement of violence against the vulnerable. Luckily I live in the UK where that's the law.
Just like Saudi Arabia. .
Well that's great were in agreement.
Now let's remind yusaf Islam, who's quite happy to burn salmon Rushdie alive...
Not only that, but he openly said it on tv.. In the presence of the cheif inspector for London..
Guess what..
Nothing, not even a warning!.
Enjoy your night
I'm not going to disagree with you on what you're actually saying but I think context and time our also quite important. When did Yusuf Islam (aka Cat Stevens) actually say this?". I'd say about 1990 ish after Rushdie's satanic verses book!. I'm not sure you can have context to burning somebody alive for the crime of writing a novel!(one that actually is quite a good read as well). Of course yusaf (he's dropped the Islam bit these days, wonder why?) Would put context to it, as the ayatollah had officially sanctioned the death of salman Rushdie for his free speech!. So in his mind it's lawful! Because sharia should come before man made laws, he has this in common with a great deal of British Muslims, about 40% think Rushdie should be locked up for life by the state and about 20% would actually like him killed!. Faith based theocracies over man made democracies... Err I'll take the latter thanks. Although were all free to emigrate.. I hear the weathers super this time of year in Mecca | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Moderate Muslim anyone! Watch "Cat Steven on BBC Program Discussing Salman Rushdie" on YouTube https://youtu.be/2-wjxwpvqps" That book was shit n all. Nobody would have read it if it wasn't insulting Islam... bit like CH | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That book was shit n all. Nobody would have read it if it wasn't insulting Islam... bit like CH " Really? Are you really saying that CH is only read by Islamophobes and only insults Islam? And are you truly saying that a book that was one of the 6 Booker Prize finalists and won the Whitbread award (now Costa award) had no literary merit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That book was shit n all. Nobody would have read it if it wasn't insulting Islam... bit like CH Really? Are you really saying that CH is only read by Islamophobes and only insults Islam? And are you truly saying that a book that was one of the 6 Booker Prize finalists and won the Whitbread award (now Costa award) had no literary merit?" I'm saying that I never heard of CH until they published those cartoons, nor did a lot of people. And yes I'm saying that book was shit. So shit in fact it had a South Park episode made about how shit it was. The only other things that can claim that are Indian Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal shit heap or the Passion of the a Christ. So yes it's on par with those. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Moderate Muslim anyone! Watch "Cat Steven on BBC Program Discussing Salman Rushdie" on YouTube https://youtu.be/2-wjxwpvqps That book was shit n all. Nobody would have read it if it wasn't insulting Islam... bit like CH " . Well that's a bit like someone liking take that or David Bowie, it's all very subjective. Personally I found it a very funny and well written book that's maybe a tad hard going but very enjoyable. Secondly It really doesn't insult Islam that much?. Most Muslims that have actually read it... There's not many, will tell you it's not that insulting and furthermore, it's fictional | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
