Most tolerant countries
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Multiculturalism
Heard of Nelson Mandela?
How does Nelson Mandela make South Africa one of the most tolerant countries in the World?
Original post by ivybridge
First of all, that second article is a load of biased tosh that doesn't even explain the issue.
Secondly, the link for the article by The Guardian is also ridiculous because it doesn't show examples of what was said. As such, your point is invalid - hate crime is hate crime, a controversial opinion is something entirely different and you're jumping the gun completely. Using those articles to prove a point? Give over. You don't even know what was said.
Secondly, the link for the article by The Guardian is also ridiculous because it doesn't show examples of what was said. As such, your point is invalid - hate crime is hate crime, a controversial opinion is something entirely different and you're jumping the gun completely. Using those articles to prove a point? Give over. You don't even know what was said.
Want genuine example? There you go
Croydon man arrested after confronting Muslim woman and telling her to 'explain Brussels', follow link with what he said at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/croydon-man-arrested-after-confronting-muslim-woman-and-telling/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35677435/facebook-wants-to-crack-down-against-hate-speech-on-migrants
"Facebook has faced criticism in Germany for failing to police anti-immigration posts."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ivybridge
This is why you are deluded. Hate crime is a real problem and Europe has enough problems dealing with this mess, a mess with which the UK, America and so on share partial blame for. The posts made matter VERY much. If you don't even know what is said then you haven't a leg to ****ing stand on so move along.
That other link cites nothing of value either. Give up. Your argument has no basis in fact - it's *******s that you purport because you're a bit butthurt.
That other link cites nothing of value either. Give up. Your argument has no basis in fact - it's *******s that you purport because you're a bit butthurt.
Words are words if you restrict people using words that creates actually violence
Original post by ivybridge
Gay people have equal rights in Russia? Oh my word, you are actually thick 
Except it doesn't.
Except it doesn't.
He worded it wrongly, it does not include 'the right to offend people' per se, but being offended by what somebody said does not make what that person said a crime, or punishable in any way. Only when it crosses the line and speech involves a hateful message. By hateful message, that doesn't mean "f**k the [x]", but the kind of message that incites people into being abusive over a certain group.
Just think about if for a second. If you could put people in jail for having offended you, everybody would be offended by everything, and everybody.
Good because you're not debating - you're failing.
First Link: Right, and how is that acceptable? The man should be condemned for that. For one, it's putting all muslims into the same boat and it's hateful. It's assuming all muslims are terrorists which is extremely offensive and unreasonable. How you can even use that as an example makes me ****ing die laughing.
Second Link: I don't understand how this argues your point either?
The CNBC link doesn't show what is said about anything? Invalid, again.
Can you all not just ****ing realise already that you have no basis for this irrational argument?
Original post by LaMandarine
Want genuine example? There you go
Croydon man arrested after confronting Muslim woman and telling her to 'explain Brussels', follow link with what he said at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/croydon-man-arrested-after-confronting-muslim-woman-and-telling/http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35677435/facebook-wants-to-crack-down-against-hate-speech-on-migrants
"Facebook has faced criticism in Germany for failing to police anti-immigration posts."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
Croydon man arrested after confronting Muslim woman and telling her to 'explain Brussels', follow link with what he said at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/croydon-man-arrested-after-confronting-muslim-woman-and-telling/http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35677435/facebook-wants-to-crack-down-against-hate-speech-on-migrants
"Facebook has faced criticism in Germany for failing to police anti-immigration posts."
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angela-merkel-caught-on-hot-mic-pressing-facebook-ceo-over-anti-immigrant-posts.html
First Link: Right, and how is that acceptable? The man should be condemned for that. For one, it's putting all muslims into the same boat and it's hateful. It's assuming all muslims are terrorists which is extremely offensive and unreasonable. How you can even use that as an example makes me ****ing die laughing.
Second Link: I don't understand how this argues your point either?
The CNBC link doesn't show what is said about anything? Invalid, again.
Can you all not just ****ing realise already that you have no basis for this irrational argument?
Original post by ivybridge
Good because you're not debating - you're failing.
First Link: Right, and how is that acceptable? The man should be condemned for that. For one, it's putting all muslims into the same boat and it's hateful. It's assuming all muslims are terrorists which is extremely offensive and unreasonable. How you can even use that as an example makes me ****ing die laughing.
Second Link: I don't understand how this argues your point either?
The CNBC link doesn't show what is said about anything? Invalid, again.
Can you all not just ****ing realise already that you have no basis for this irrational argument?
First Link: Right, and how is that acceptable? The man should be condemned for that. For one, it's putting all muslims into the same boat and it's hateful. It's assuming all muslims are terrorists which is extremely offensive and unreasonable. How you can even use that as an example makes me ****ing die laughing.
Second Link: I don't understand how this argues your point either?
The CNBC link doesn't show what is said about anything? Invalid, again.
Can you all not just ****ing realise already that you have no basis for this irrational argument?
Yes let's just silence views that go against mainstream ideas because that always works.
Original post by joecphillips
Words are words if you restrict people using words that creates actually violence
And words have different meanings. Do not try to cloud the reality of it with yet more ********.
Original post by LaMandarine
He worded it wrongly, it does not include 'the right to offend people' per se, but being offended by what somebody said does not make what that person said a crime, or punishable in any way. Only when it crosses the line and speech involves a hateful message. By hateful message, that doesn't mean "f**k the [x]", but the kind of message that incites people into being abusive over a certain group.
Just think about if for a second. If you could put people in jail for having offended you, everybody would be offended by everything, and everybody.
Just think about if for a second. If you could put people in jail for having offended you, everybody would be offended by everything, and everybody.
Offence has varying degrees of severity. People don't put you in prison for saying "you're a prick". That is, technically, offensive. Making comments about race, sexuality, women, so on and so forth, in a distasteful and unreasonably negative way - even a derogatory way, then you bring it to a new level and deserve to be put in your place.
No, you just think about it for a second. You are ignoring the key distinction everyone makes in this argument because it suits your own irrational point of view.
Original post by ivybridge
And words have different meanings. Do not try to cloud the reality of it with yet more ********.
Offence has varying degrees of severity. People don't put you in prison for saying "you're a prick". That is, technically, offensive. Making comments about race, sexuality, women, so on and so forth, in a distasteful and unreasonably negative way - even a derogatory way, then you bring it to a new level and deserve to be put in your place.
No, you just think about it for a second. You are ignoring the key distinction everyone makes in this argument because it suits your own irrational point of view.
Offence has varying degrees of severity. People don't put you in prison for saying "you're a prick". That is, technically, offensive. Making comments about race, sexuality, women, so on and so forth, in a distasteful and unreasonably negative way - even a derogatory way, then you bring it to a new level and deserve to be put in your place.
No, you just think about it for a second. You are ignoring the key distinction everyone makes in this argument because it suits your own irrational point of view.
Words have meaning yes that is why I have said something like a call to arms should be illegal but expressing an opinion should not be illegal but you seem to think it should be.
Bold 1: "Neither same-sex marriages nor civil unions of same-sex couples are allowed in Russia."
"A couple can adopt children together, as a couple, only if they are a married heterosexual couple."
"There have been notable objections to the organization of gay pride parades in several Russian cities, most prominently Moscow, where authorities have never approved a request to hold a gay pride rally. Former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov supported the city's refusal to authorize the first two editions of Nikolay Alexeyev's Moscow Pride events, calling them as "satanic".
"On 29 December 2014, Russia passed a road safety law, allowing the government to deny driver's licenses to those living confused in Gender Dysphoria categorized as Transgender by the World Health Organization, which listed transgenderism, fetishism, exhibitionism, and voyeurism as examples of sexual disorders."
Bold 2: "A 2013 survey found that 84% of Russians said homosexuality should not be accepted by society (up from 60% in 2002), compared to 16% who said that homosexuality should be accepted by society. In a 2007 survey, 68% of Russians said homosexuality is always wrong (54%) or almost always wrong (14%). In a 2005 poll, 44% of Russians were in favor of making homosexual acts between consenting adults a criminal act; at the same time, 43% of Russians supported a legal ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2013, 16% of Russians surveyed said that gay people should be isolated from society, 22% said they should be forced to undergo treatment, and 5% said homosexuals should be "liquidated". In Russian psychiatry, Soviet mentality about homosexuality has endured into the present day. For instance, in spite of the removal of homosexuality from the nomenclature of mental disorders, 62.5% of 450 surveyed psychiatrists in the Rostov Region view it as an illness, and up to three quarters view it as immoral behavior. The psychiatrists sustain the objections to pride parades and the use of veiled schemes to lay off openly lesbian and gay persons from schools, child care centers, and other public institutions."
(yes it's I'm using Wikipedia, but I'm not going to waste time summing up what has already been summed up; the sources are all in the article if you care)
Bold 3: What even is "LGBT" propaganda? Does it try to convert people to LGBT? Well, LGBT isn't a choice so it's no that. Does it try to again acceptence for LGBT folk? Well that's certainly a good thing unless you're literal scum.
What the Russian state sees it as is "non-traditional sexual relationships", which while in itself is stupid (LGBT isn't a choice), it's a such a nebulous term as to legitimise the oppresion of those open about their sexuality- "Under the statute it is effectively illegal to perform any of the following in the presence of minors: hold gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships". How is that not intolerence of homosexuality if the law is actively forcing it to be hidden ? Surely you're not that dense.
General comments: Forcing LGBT "underground" DOES NOT make life better for anyone. Besides them constantly fearing for their wellbeing and having to supress their natural urges, this makes it an all-the-more-stronger taboo, which results in greater oppression and persection. Is there any example of a time where LGBTs were forced to supress themselves where homophobia and persecution of LGBT people wasn't rife, and then didn't begin to lessen when the supression did?
Allowing LGBTs to be open about themselves allows understanding, from which follows acceptance. Yes, there might be a transitionary period of unrest, but that's true of any change in society.
There is nothing smart about oppression, ok?
"A couple can adopt children together, as a couple, only if they are a married heterosexual couple."
"There have been notable objections to the organization of gay pride parades in several Russian cities, most prominently Moscow, where authorities have never approved a request to hold a gay pride rally. Former Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov supported the city's refusal to authorize the first two editions of Nikolay Alexeyev's Moscow Pride events, calling them as "satanic".
"On 29 December 2014, Russia passed a road safety law, allowing the government to deny driver's licenses to those living confused in Gender Dysphoria categorized as Transgender by the World Health Organization, which listed transgenderism, fetishism, exhibitionism, and voyeurism as examples of sexual disorders."
Bold 2: "A 2013 survey found that 84% of Russians said homosexuality should not be accepted by society (up from 60% in 2002), compared to 16% who said that homosexuality should be accepted by society. In a 2007 survey, 68% of Russians said homosexuality is always wrong (54%) or almost always wrong (14%). In a 2005 poll, 44% of Russians were in favor of making homosexual acts between consenting adults a criminal act; at the same time, 43% of Russians supported a legal ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2013, 16% of Russians surveyed said that gay people should be isolated from society, 22% said they should be forced to undergo treatment, and 5% said homosexuals should be "liquidated". In Russian psychiatry, Soviet mentality about homosexuality has endured into the present day. For instance, in spite of the removal of homosexuality from the nomenclature of mental disorders, 62.5% of 450 surveyed psychiatrists in the Rostov Region view it as an illness, and up to three quarters view it as immoral behavior. The psychiatrists sustain the objections to pride parades and the use of veiled schemes to lay off openly lesbian and gay persons from schools, child care centers, and other public institutions."
(yes it's I'm using Wikipedia, but I'm not going to waste time summing up what has already been summed up; the sources are all in the article if you care)
Bold 3: What even is "LGBT" propaganda? Does it try to convert people to LGBT? Well, LGBT isn't a choice so it's no that. Does it try to again acceptence for LGBT folk? Well that's certainly a good thing unless you're literal scum.
What the Russian state sees it as is "non-traditional sexual relationships", which while in itself is stupid (LGBT isn't a choice), it's a such a nebulous term as to legitimise the oppresion of those open about their sexuality- "Under the statute it is effectively illegal to perform any of the following in the presence of minors: hold gay pride events, speak in favor of gay rights, or say that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships". How is that not intolerence of homosexuality if the law is actively forcing it to be hidden ? Surely you're not that dense.
General comments: Forcing LGBT "underground" DOES NOT make life better for anyone. Besides them constantly fearing for their wellbeing and having to supress their natural urges, this makes it an all-the-more-stronger taboo, which results in greater oppression and persection. Is there any example of a time where LGBTs were forced to supress themselves where homophobia and persecution of LGBT people wasn't rife, and then didn't begin to lessen when the supression did?
Allowing LGBTs to be open about themselves allows understanding, from which follows acceptance. Yes, there might be a transitionary period of unrest, but that's true of any change in society.
There is nothing smart about oppression, ok?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by joecphillips
He doesn't believe in free speech.
Words and opinions are hate crimes he will soon be wanting thought crimes in law.
Words and opinions are hate crimes he will soon be wanting thought crimes in law.
I believe in free speech. I do not believe free speech includes the right to offend. This is why laws about discrimination and hate speech exist. You are acting like the world is being censored and people are being shut up. They are not and you know it.
Original post by joecphillips
Yes let's just silence views that go against mainstream ideas because that always works.
What are you talking about? Controversial opinions are not the issue and never have been. Again, you are ignoring the obvious distinction which is always made between what is hate crime and what is silly and petty. Both of these things sit on the 'offence' spectrum.
Original post by joecphillips
Words have meaning yes that is why I have said something like a call to arms should be illegal but expressing an opinion should not be illegal but you seem to think it should be.
I actually cannot believe the drivel you have been sucked in by. An opinion is one thing. We are all entitled to them. We can also all express them in a way that is not distasteful and racked with disapproval and hatred. You are ignoring all of the fine lines and distinctions which are made, even within the law, on these issues because it does not allow your argument to stand. You have no argument, leave it alone.
Original post by ivybridge
I believe in free speech. I do not believe free speech includes the right to offend. This is why laws about discrimination and hate speech exist. You are acting like the world is being censored and people are being shut up. They are not and you know it.
What are you talking about? Controversial opinions are not the issue and never have been. Again, you are ignoring the obvious distinction which is always made between what is hate crime and what is silly and petty. Both of these things sit on the 'offence' spectrum.
What are you talking about? Controversial opinions are not the issue and never have been. Again, you are ignoring the obvious distinction which is always made between what is hate crime and what is silly and petty. Both of these things sit on the 'offence' spectrum.
So you do believe in free speech but not free speech.
Original post by joecphillips
So you do believe in free speech but not free speech.
Yet a further example of how little intellect you have.
Original post by ivybridge
I believe in free speech. I do not believe free speech includes the right to offend. This is why laws about discrimination and hate speech exist. You are acting like the world is being censored and people are being shut up. They are not and you know it.
Ofc free speech includes the right to offend.
Original post by ivybridge
I actually cannot believe the drivel you have been sucked in by. An opinion is one thing. We are all entitled to them. We can also all express them in a way that is not distasteful and racked with disapproval and hatred. You are ignoring all of the fine lines and distinctions which are made, even within the law, on these issues because it does not allow your argument to stand. You have no argument, leave it alone.
So you just want to stop people expressing their views how they like using that would mean that nothing ever changes as the qay these views are expressed have helped shape politics in the past
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A level philosophy
- Is she cheating on me?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Piercing Advice
- Do I choose UCL or LSE ? For Politics and Philosophy
- Opinion : You should no longer be able to drive high-performance cars if banned ?
- international student choosing oxford college
- Why do people become so uncivilised after drinking?
- How long will it take to lower my alcohol tolerance
- Nudity in Performance Art
- university course
- Why are you concerned about migration?
- How is the gay scence at Aber University?
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- LGBTQ scene at St Andrews
- Bullied, Insulted By Teacher
- HNC electrical engineering maths question
- Could someone mark my GCSE AQA Macbeth essay? thanks
- Are piercings unprofessional? (Legal career)
- What is it like as a bisexual guy at University?
Latest
Posted 10 minutes ago
Which school has a better political science education, UCL or KCL?Last reply 15 minutes ago
CSM Fashion communications: histories and theories 2024Last reply 16 minutes ago
Do you need to know Acylation mechanism for A level OCR chemistry ?Last reply 26 minutes ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 27 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryPosted 32 minutes ago
Lancaster University MSc Finance 2024/2025 - Interested in sharing a flat/house?Posted 39 minutes ago
Dịch vụ môi trường uy tín là đơn vị hoạt động chuyên nghiệp trong lĩnh vực môi trườngPosted 40 minutes ago
I don’t know what i want to do and subject choices are coming to a closeLast reply 42 minutes ago
Is getting a 3rd class honours in interior architecture and design bad?Last reply 49 minutes ago
What'll happen if a uni told me that my application is given to other schools?Last reply 1 hour ago
Zoom to Zoology? Uni open days, applications & more 2021-Present - a parents takeLast reply 1 hour ago
Deloitte Graduate Scheme 2024Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxesTrending
Last reply 6 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?Last reply 1 month ago
2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
