This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Free Speech, Whatever The Cost

Reply 20

numb3rb0y

15

Socrates

I thought you said "free speech was free speech with no boundaries"? :wink:

Disapproving of expression != Approving censorship of expression, in the same way that Disapproving censorship of expression != Approving of expression.

Though Geert Wilders is a raging hypocrite when you consider his suggestion that the Qur'an be banned.

Reply 21

~|Shock|~

Bagration

I am not against repercussions... I'm against legal repercussions.

Why should absolute free speech be considered "essential"?

Reply 22

Socrates

17

numb3rb0y

Disapproving of expression != Approving censorship of expression, in the same way that Disapproving censorship of expression != Approving of expression.

Well no, I wasn't implying that. I was just saying you can't complain about the effects of free speech if you are advocating it without limits.

Reply 23

numb3rb0y

15

~|Shock|~

Why should absolute free speech be considered "essential"?

Because speech alone does not have the capacity to cause harm.

Socrates

Well no, I wasn't implying that. I was just saying you can't complain about the effects of free speech if you are advocating it without limits.

Of course you can. You say something I don't like, and I complain about it, rather than trying to ban you from saying it.

Reply 24

J-E-N-O-V-A

Rather than writing about it on TSR, why not do something about it, like me?

Fetch your rifle.

Reply 25

Socrates

17

numb3rb0y

Of course you can. You say something I don't like, and I complain about it, rather than trying to ban you from saying it.

I suppose that's true to an extent. As long as it is something I have said, rather something you think I have said or done, as Pavlik has done.

Reply 26

~|Shock|~

numb3rb0y

Because speech alone does not have the capacity to cause harm.

Of course you can. You say something I don't like, and I complain about it, rather than trying to ban you from saying it.

I think you misunderstood me.

I was questioning the first line in OP's original post which reads

"Let it be known that British liberties are not the grants of Princes or Parliaments; that many of our rights are inherent and essential!"

Reply 27

Socrates

17

Anony mouse

I think people who cause offence do have the right to complain about the repercussions, if those repercussions are violent in nature.

Define violence.

Reply 28

crushdtinbox

8

numb3rb0y

Because speech alone does not have the capacity to cause harm.

Physical harm? Perhaps not. Though lasting damage can be inflicted in other ways.

Reply 29

numb3rb0y

15

crushdtinbox

Physical harm? Perhaps not. Though lasting damage can be inflicted in other ways.

Offence is not harm.

Reply 30

Bagration

OP

18

Tbf Shock, I just thought it would be a good quote.

Reply 31

Anony mouse

10

Socrates

I'm all for free speech, and I think people should be allowed to offend, but they then should not complain when they face the consequences of offending people.

I think people who cause offence do have the right to complain about the repercussions, if those repercussions are violent in nature.

Socrates

Define violence.

I define the term ‘violent’ as ‘physically injurious or the threatening of physical injury’.

Reply 32

~|Shock|~

Bagration

Tbf Shock, I just thought it would be a good quote.

[joke]

what does tbf stand for, does it stand for this"

[/joke]

Back to the serious stuff, no.It is not a "bad" quote in any shape or form. Or indeed your ideal of "A cohesive society sits around a table and talks about their problems openly and freely."

Yet this ideal is based on everyone present at the table are able to communicate in a sensible, civil manner. If half of the table makes a speech which reads "we are going to eradicate the other half of the table because you are the source of the problem", I wonder whether the other half of the table will still feel so comfortable in continue that particular discussion.

This brings me to my point. Yes, no matter how repugnant and disgusting a particular piece of speech is, it can only cause offence. Yet most of the time, the one that is on the receiving end will not take it lightly and let it pass. Repercussions will occur, and it can escalate quite frightenly. Mr Wilders's case is a quite good example.

You seemed to have played down the power of speech itself. Speech is a tool of influence, and human are extremely prone to influence.

To conclude, the ideal, total freedom of expression, or the "Free Speech", is when the majority of people in this world, not just Britain, are civil enough not to be a IRL troll, as well as not foolish enough to be a IRL troll feeder. Otherwise we will simply see Mr Wilders' case repeated again and again.

Reply 33

~|Shock|~

Pavlik

Just because you asked, although it's not like these statements need backing up in this way:

I'm afraid such atrocities or worse are not confined to the "Muslim race" alone. And I dont think this statement needs backing up.

Reply 34

~|Shock|~

Pavlik

Pick any example when somebody upset muslims, and as you say repercussions will occur.

Like the teacher who called a stuffed bear mohammed, or the cartoons that were posted in a little-known Danish newspaper.

People were killed because of those cartoons, by muslims.

Yet there are plenty of cases and examples where when a muslim or muslims are offended they simply swallows it and minimal repercussion occur. However, I do believe "proof by example" is not a valid.

Repercussions occurs in all shape of form and in different severiy. I do agree that at this moment in time the repercussions from the muslim community are generally more severe and over the top. But this does not mean it cannot change.

Reply 35

~|Shock|~

Pavlik

No, but muslims (sure there isn't a 'muslim race' obviously) are far more inclined towards these acts of savagery than are other ethnic groups, particularly when they are situated amongst Westerners.

At this moment of time, I agree with your statement. But its more about religious fundamentalism and theology.

This rather brings up an interesting theory that genes are not the only major replicators around but I think we've gone off-topic far enough.

Reply 36

pinkpont

2

Pavlik

Just because you asked, although it's not like these statements need backing up in this way:

a) They groom pre-teen white girls

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2237940.ece

http://tottenhamlad.blogspot.com/2006/10/remembering-charlene-downes.html

b) They murder hundreds of innocent citizens

c) They threaten and mock us en masse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054909/Have-babies-Muslims-UK-hate-fanatic-says-warning-comes-9-11-UK.html

If I'm honest, none of these examples are enough to condemn an entire religious and cultural group. In regards to grooming young girls, white men are doing exactly the same thing in Thailand, not to mention back in the UK. There have been a number of cases where white men have been doing this to their own families, e.g. Josef Fritzl in Austria. My point is, being Muslim doesn't automatically make you a monster, you can be a monster regardless of your demographic/religion.

"They murder hundreds of innocent civilians" - the total number of deaths as a direct cause of terrorism are relatively low compared to the death toll of civilians in Iraq. Numbers vary from about 100k to 1 million, with the WHO claiming that 600000 had been killed between the start of the war and July 2006 (source NY Times, 10/1/08. I can't deny that terrorists have killed hundreds in the name of Islam, but Western aggression has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Your logic is inherently flawed.

Finally, your point about protests. BNP protests anyone? Nothing Muslims do is unique to Islam. If you attack them by your reasoning, then surely the Western world deserves to be condemned to an even higher degree.

The issue we have here is extremism. We have to make a distinction between an ordinary Muslim and an extremist who commits foul acts in the name of Islam. They couldn't be further apart. I wholeheartedly agree that extremists should be clamped down on, but for the whole religion to be condemned? That's just asinine and ignorant.

Reply 37

Gremlins

11

Pavlik

I condemn them because they are invading Europe. These are our countries that we have lived in since the ice age, and they are calling for our extermination, abusing our women and generally provoking us to an incredible extent. I am not trying to say that all muslims participate in this, or that I would be happy for them to stay here if they behaved well.

'Since the Ice Age' my backside. Presumably you're opposed to speaking English aswell for the same reason as you oppose Muslim immigration?

Reply 38

pinkpont

2

Pavlik

I condemn them because they are invading Europe. These are our countries that we have lived in since the ice age, and they are calling for our extermination, abusing our women and generally provoking us to an incredible extent. I am not trying to say that all muslims participate in this, or that I would be happy for them to stay here if they behaved well.

On the other hand, I would like to see you provide evidence of white men doing these things on the same organised scale as the muslims men are in England. I don't think that there is a fair comparison to be made. There are numerous reports concerning the muslim grooming, including a BBC investigation, so it is not like I am clutching at straws concerning that point.

Yeah but we can do something about the *******, i.e. send them home, whereas the Iraqis are primitive so they cannot stop us meddling. I'm not Iraqi so I am only interested in pointing out the particular savagery that muslims in Europe and European-derived countries are inflicting on us.

Oh ********. BNP protests my arse.

Go on, go and find me some photos of white British people marching through the streets carrying placards calling for muslims to be exterminated and beheaded.

Not to mention that the BNP have a legitimate cause against the muslims, i.e. that they are racially alien invaders, whereas the muslims rise to these things at the slightest provocation, when they are guests in our countries in the first place.

There are moderate muslims, although there is hardly a distinction between them and the extremists, just a continuum of various shades of grey. Consider the polls, which have shown a wide degree of passive support for terrorism amongst the muslims, even if they would not do these things themselves - and consider the lack of any really strong moderate voice amongst the muslims in Britain. I live amongst many muslims, I know their attitude and it is a lie to say that they are overwhelmingly 'ordinary' or moderate.

But in any case, until these droves of Pakistanis and so forth have left Europe, I am quite happy to condemn the lot of them.

I feel sorry for the fact you're such a shortsighted bigot. It's one set of rules for you, and a different set for everyone else. It's no wonder people like you have zero credibility.

Reply 39

pinkpont

2

Pavlik

That is called an in-group/out-group dynamic. It is related to ethnic nepotism, which is a very healthy and normal human behaviour.

Those who are incapable of discriminating in such a way are the ones who lack credibility as fully functional human beings in my eyes.

It's a good thing you're in the minority. The Nazi thought process was very similar to yours, good luck in getting people to side with you.

Free Speech, Whatever The Cost

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you