ISIS
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| I'm glad we agree. That David is a cool dude. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | I agree David but HBT aren't pro-free speech.
If they had any kind of power to change laws regarding freedom of speech or trample on our human rights they'd do so in a heartbeat. |
um... yeah, but that's not quite the point. The whole idea of universal freedom of speech is that it is granted to all groups and individuals, regardless of their views or ambitions. That doesn't mean that we're endorsing their views or want them to be in power.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Jezza wrote: | I agree David but HBT aren't pro-free speech.
If they had any kind of power to change laws regarding freedom of speech or trample on our human rights they'd do so in a heartbeat. |
um... yeah, but that's not quite the point. The whole idea of universal freedom of speech is that it is granted to all groups and individuals, regardless of their views or ambitions. That doesn't mean that we're endorsing their views or want them to be in power. |
You're right as I said earlier but I'm saying it's ironic that the very group where free speech would protect these groups or individuals would not be reciprocated the other way if they held any sort of power against groups or individuals who oppose their views. As a result HBT wouldn't allow for such freedoms to exist if they had the power to control these rights and freedoms.
Thankfully we live in a free and tolerant society where ideas from all walks of life (whether popular or controversial) can be heard freely and peacefully. That for mine is the ideal society we should live in and should be preserved heading into the future.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | | David wrote: | | Jezza wrote: | I agree David but HBT aren't pro-free speech.
If they had any kind of power to change laws regarding freedom of speech or trample on our human rights they'd do so in a heartbeat. |
um... yeah, but that's not quite the point. The whole idea of universal freedom of speech is that it is granted to all groups and individuals, regardless of their views or ambitions. That doesn't mean that we're endorsing their views or want them to be in power. |
You're right as I said earlier but I'm saying it's ironic that the very group where free speech would protect these groups or individuals would not be reciprocated the other way if they held any sort of power against groups or individuals who oppose their views. As a result HBT wouldn't allow for such freedoms to exist if they had the power to control these rights and freedoms.
Thankfully we live in a free and tolerant society where ideas from all walks of life (whether popular or controversial) can be heard freely and peacefully. That for mine is the ideal society we should live in and should be preserved heading into the future. |
Jezza, it's not so much ironic, but standard fringe nuttery. Don't waste your precious CPU on fringe groups once you've determined they're fringe idiots. To do so is to be mentally and emotionally undisciplinedno matter how much the media tries to goad you into the topic to improve their advertising revenue. These problems are difficult enough without getting sidetracked by loons.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Let us try to break it down into parts. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ yes, that's a pretty good summary of the centralisation vs decentralisation argument, ptid. It really is a oit what you can control sensibly, amd the limits of your knowledge. Centralisation is always attractive because it strokes the pseudo-omnipotent ego of the powerful, who tend to think that they can run anything better than the people at the front line. I've been on both sides of that dilemma.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There is no such thing as freedom of speech & never has been. To suggest there has been is a folly.
There are always limits.
Given that I would fully support a ban on HBT, quite a few countries ban them now.
God willing I would support sending them to Syria / Iraq to join those they support right now - with a one way ticket. They provide succour & support to the young idiots becoming radicalized now & clearly don't want to remain here.
Send them via Egypt or Jordan.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | There is no such thing as freedom of speech & never has been. To suggest there has been is a folly.
There are always limits.
Given that I would fully support a ban on HBT, quite a few countries ban them now.
God willing I would support sending them to Syria / Iraq to join those they support right now - with a one way ticket. They provide succour & support to the young idiots becoming radicalized now & clearly don't want to remain here.
Send them via Egypt or Jordan. |
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So yes, there has been and still is. Despite all its many faults, the USA has enshrined total freedom of speech into its laws. Of course, that only means you wont face sanction from the government for what you say, there can still be consequences to exercising that right.
Banning groups for what they say however is disgusting, even or especially if they're saying things you don't like. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech & never has been. To suggest there has been is a folly. |
Important edit needed there.
Does the impossibility of absolute freedom of speech mean that what we have shouldn't be defended vigorously? That's pretty much the definition of the nirvana fallacy.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| A lot more the impossibility of absolute freedom of speech mean that what wes would have more it if they could get it. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | There is no such thing as freedom of speech & never has been. To suggest there has been is a folly.
There are always limits.
Given that I would fully support a ban on HBT, quite a few countries ban them now.
God willing I would support sending them to Syria / Iraq to join those they support right now - with a one way ticket. They provide succour & support to the young idiots becoming radicalized now & clearly don't want to remain here.
Send them via Egypt or Jordan. |
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So yes, there has been and still is. Despite all its many faults, the USA has enshrined total freedom of speech into its laws. Of course, that only means you wont face sanction from the government for what you say, there can still be consequences to exercising that right.
Banning groups for what they say however is disgusting, even or especially if they're saying things you don't like. |
Go into a crowded cinema & yell out fire when there isn't one.
Of course there has never been "absolute" freedom of speech, there have always been limits. Even in the USA you can't go and defame someone for example. Hence a limit.
Next.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech & never has been. To suggest there has been is a folly. |
Important edit needed there.
Does the impossibility of absolute freedom of speech mean that what we have shouldn't be defended vigorously? That's pretty much the definition of the nirvana fallacy. |
Vigorously, shmigorously HBT exists on the goodwill of Australia hiding behind a so called belief in non violence yet supporting the actions of murderers. Sexist, chauvinist, racist (but not fattist) & essentially fascist. They will tolerate pluralism under a Muslim caliphate.
If they want a caliphate lets send them to fellow travellers & the people they support ISIS & ISIL via Amman & Cairo.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: |
Go into a crowded cinema & yell out fire when there isn't one. |
Nice cliche.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
There are hundreds of other writings about that fallacious attack against freedom of speech. If you want to insist on it, then doing that is an act of violence, not one of words. The 'speech' itself isn't being punished.
| watt price tully wrote: |
Of course there has never been "absolute" freedom of speech, there have always been limits. Even in the USA you can't go and defame someone for example. Hence a limit.
Next. |
Defamation isn't a crime, the state doesn't punish someone for it. It's a tort, a civil matter. The first amendment does protect some libelous speech as well as some incitement. I don't really want to get into Supreme Court rulings etc, but the info is all out there.
I would also contend that ideas such as democracy, individual freedoms and freedom of speech were all 'fringe' ideas at one stage. The next great ideological leap forward (well democracy was more a look back to Greece, but anyway) will almost certainly start as a fringe idea. Why should we silence those who have radical or novel things to say? Even if we disagree with it, we should debate them in open forums, not silence then and incentivise violence. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech & never has been. To suggest there has been is a folly. |
Important edit needed there.
Does the impossibility of absolute freedom of speech mean that what we have shouldn't be defended vigorously? That's pretty much the definition of the nirvana fallacy. |
Vigorously, shmigorously HBT exists on the goodwill of Australia hiding behind a so called belief in non violence yet supporting the actions of murderers. Sexist, chauvinist, racist (but not fattist) & essentially fascist. They will tolerate pluralism under a Muslim caliphate.
If they want a caliphate lets send them to fellow travellers & the people they support ISIS & ISIL via Amman & Cairo. |
Hey, our government supports the actions of murderers (Bush, etc.). Should their party be banned? What about the newspapers that supported the War in Iraq (oh God, I'm starting to sound like PTID...  ). But still, where do you draw the line? HBT is a religious organisation, and we have freedom of religion here. Start cracking down on them and you're setting a dangerous precedent.
Is anyone here aware enough to realise that one of our country's journalists was just released from a lengthy imprisonment in Egypt for 'supporting' a banned organisation? An organisation that was banned for 'supporting terrorism'? Do you really want to go down that path here?
Why can't we challenge their views through criticism and debate? Are we so weak that we need to censor in order to maintain public safety, or is our government just seeking to extend its control and authority?
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech & never has been. To suggest there has been is a folly. |
Important edit needed there.
Does the impossibility of absolute freedom of speech mean that what we have shouldn't be defended vigorously? That's pretty much the definition of the nirvana fallacy. |
Vigorously, shmigorously HBT exists on the goodwill of Australia hiding behind a so called belief in non violence yet supporting the actions of murderers. Sexist, chauvinist, racist (but not fattist) & essentially fascist. They will tolerate pluralism under a Muslim caliphate.
If they want a caliphate lets send them to fellow travellers & the people they support ISIS & ISIL via Amman & Cairo. |
Hey, our government supports the actions of murderers (Bush, etc.). Should their party be banned? What about the newspapers that supported the War in Iraq (oh God, I'm starting to sound like PTID... ). But still, where do you draw the line? HBT is a religious organisation, and we have freedom of religion here. Start cracking down on them and you're setting a dangerous precedent.
Is anyone here aware enough to realise that one of our country's journalists was just released from a lengthy imprisonment in Egypt for 'supporting' a banned organisation? An organisation that was banned for 'supporting terrorism'? Do you really want to go down that path here?
Why can't we challenge their views through criticism and debate? Are we so weak that we need to censor in order to maintain public safety, or is our government just seeking to extend its control and authority? |
No, the line is simple. HBT have crossed it. I'm amazed they weren't made illegal many years ago. I do wish to go down this path & the quicker the better.
Lets not be undergraduate with comments like we supported GWB.
That journalist was caught up with Egypt being pissed off with Qatar. It had nothing to do with supporting a banned organisation. Nil, nada, zilch. He & his mates were collateral damage.
Lets challenge their views with them out of here. I personally would agree to pay a levy to get rid of this detritus.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
