The Student Room Group

Would you support laws against people denouncing Islam?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Errm42
You clearly have no idea what you are prattling on about.


Yeah, I've already read all that before. You're only digging yourself a deeper grave in this argument, though not unusual for you. You're just grasping at straws here.

It's true that the majority of us cherish democracy as Cameron says. You've yet to provide any solid argument or evidence stating how people who say things against democracy or voting would be imprisoned.
Reply 121
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by Fango_Jett
Yeah, I've already read all that before. You're only digging yourself a deeper grave in this argument, though not unusual for you. You're just grasping at straws here.

It's true that the majority of us cherish democracy as Cameron says. You've yet to provide any solid argument or evidence stating how people who say things against democracy or voting would be imprisoned.


What does "opposing fundamental British values" mean to you?
Original post by Errm42
What does "opposing fundamental British values" mean to you?


well done lad, you got everyone on this thread locked off, keep it up
Original post by Errm42
What does "opposing fundamental British values" mean to you?


The pit you're digging is just getting bigger and the straws are getting thinner. Simple verbal criticism against democracy and voting is not same as encouraging people to join active terror groups and to fight against our country, which is what counter terrorism bills target. You're just fallaciously trying to equivocate the two and it's not working. People are free to talk against our values here, but are not free to encourage people to fight against our country.
Reply 124
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by Fango_Jett
The pit you're digging is just getting bigger and the straws are getting thinner. Simple verbal criticism against democracy and voting is not same as encouraging people to join active terror groups and to fight against our country, which is what counter terrorism bills target. You're just fallaciously trying to equivocate the two and it's not working. People are free to talk against our values here, but are not free to encourage people to fight against our country.


That's already covered under existing terror legislation, as many people have pointed out.

Why is there a need for a "counter-extremism" bill?
Obviously not. Free speech is exactly that. No religion or cult is or should be above the law, period.
Original post by Errm42

Why is there a need for a "counter-extremism" bill?


So that the brainwashing of young impressionable people into extreme interpretations of mainstream beliefs can be tackled, even if the brainwasher isn't overtly breeding terrorists, and before the stage has reached of actual violence.
Reply 127
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by Good bloke
So that the brainwashing of young impressionable people into extreme interpretations of mainstream beliefs can be tackled, even if the brainwasher isn't overtly breeding terrorists, and before the stage has reached of actual violence.


So that's "I don't know but it might, it might not but let's just arrest them anyway".

Let's arrest all black people because they are most likely to commit crimes even though we don't know if they will or will not but let's just make sure.

In fact, let's just arrest babies because we don't know if they may or may not commit an offence later in life but just to make sure.

:facepalm:
Reply 128
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by thunder_chunky
Obviously not. Free speech is exactly that. No religion or cult is or should be above the law, period.


Sexism, Racism, opposition to democracy, human rights should also be allowed?
Original post by Errm42
Sexism, Racism, opposition to democracy, human rights should also be allowed?


What the **** are you talking about?
Original post by Errm42
Sexism, Racism, opposition to democracy, human rights should also be allowed?


Discussion about those absolutely should be allowed. Put in practice they should not.
Original post by Errm42
So that's "I don't know but it might, it might not but let's just arrest them anyway".

Let's arrest all black people because they are most likely to commit crimes even though we don't know if they will or will not but let's just make sure.

In fact, let's just arrest babies because we don't know if they may or may not commit an offence later in life but just to make sure.


Black people are not being indoctrinated and brainwashed as children to commit crimes. That being the critical difference. Another excellent false equivalence fallacy by you.
Reply 132
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by Fango_Jett
Discussion about those absolutely should be allowed. Put in practice they should not.


What would constitute a "discussion"?
Reply 133
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by Fango_Jett
Black people are not being indoctrinated and brainwashed as children to commit crimes. That being the critical difference. Another excellent false equivalence fallacy by you.


It's only a crime because someone has said: "yep, if anyone crosses this line, it's a crime".
Original post by Errm42
It's only a crime because someone has said: "yep, if anyone crosses this line, it's a crime".


You are the dumbest person in this thread
Reply 135
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by Saint-Saens
You are the dumbest person in this thread


Thank you for your contribution to the thread. :smile:
Original post by Errm42
It's only a crime because someone has said: "yep, if anyone crosses this line, it's a crime".


Yes those are called laws. They are a human creation.
Reply 137
Avatar for Errm42
Errm42
Original post by Fango_Jett
Yes those are called laws. They are a human creation.


And who decides what those laws should be?

Are we back to Judges, Politicians and the security services?
Original post by Errm42
And who decides what those laws should be?


Politicians who we elect democratically.
Original post by Errm42
And who decides what those laws should be?

Are we back to Judges, Politicians and the security services?


Original post by Fango_Jett
Politicians who we elect democratically.


These laws have come about following thousands of years of philosophising and debate. They are not arbitrary

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you