Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Belgian minister says many Muslims 'celebrated' after attacks Watch

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SemiteLog)
    Then you have no right to complain about it.
    What a stupid line of argument. Whether something is legal or not has no relevance to whether it should be discussed or not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Well this story is connected closely with the one about how terrorists like the Paris attackers were able to have asylum, safety and protection from the police and live openly in a Muslim community in Belgium. Do you not think this is an issue?
    Yeah I get to it
    It's just so boring. Every thing is Muslims this Muslims that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xxvine)
    Yeah I get to it
    It's just so boring. Every thing is Muslims this Muslims that.
    Sure, but the complete refusal by people to even acknowledge there is an issue will ensure that this will remain the case.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Funny people asking for evidence. Everyone is so scientific nowadays... What kind of evidence do you want ? A video of them literally dancing and screaming: "Well done bombers" ? !
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    What a stupid line of argument. Whether something is legal or not has no relevance to whether it should be discussed or not.
    What makes the difference between a "discussion" and "hate speech" ? or "discussion" and "religious hatred" ?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SemiteLog)
    What makes the difference between a "discussion" and "hate speech" ? or "discussion" and "religious hatred" ?
    There's no objective demarcation. It depends on the observer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The West is very stupid to deny the right of Palestine to statehood while housing millions of Muslims. Most of these people are of the belief (maybe even correctly) that the government is supporting murder of civilians through Israel.

    Time to admit the West cannot do two things at once, either stop housing Muslims or stop supporting foreign policy against their people.

    Most recruits are losers looking for a bit of action using atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine as an excuse. The idea that terrorism is just because of Islamism is not true, it is because a lot of the population are persuaded that their people are being hurt by us
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    There's no objective demarcation. It depends on the observer.
    Here the objective demarcations for them.

    Discussion: an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informaldebate.

    Hate Speech: speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, genderidentity, sexual orientation, or disability.

    Hatred: the feeling of one who hates; intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility.

    Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hatred?s=t


    Implying that a group of people performing terrorism actions or celebrating terrorist actions in an insult, this makes the conversation a "hate speech" more than a "discussion".
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SemiteLog)
    Here the objective demarcations for them.

    Discussion: an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., especially to explore solutions; informaldebate.

    Hate Speech: speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, genderidentity, sexual orientation, or disability.

    Hatred: the feeling of one who hates; intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility.

    Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hatred?s=t
    These aren't any more objective than the people who wrote them. Which is to say, they aren't objective at all. Consider the categories included in the definition of hate speech -- who decided which ones to include and which ones not to include? What was their criteria for including these? Why is it hate speech to criticise a religion, but not a political ideology? Or a political or state religion (of the kind that they have in closed, totalitarian societies like North Korea, where the leaders are elevated to god-status)? Why isn't social class/status included in this particular definition, as it most probably would be in another definition in a different dictionary?

    The definitions included in any dictionary reflect the biases and shortcomings of its writers and the times. Quoting them in the way that you have doesn't prove that they are objective, only that enough of the people who deliberate on the contents of the dictionary agreed on what should and shouldn't be included. Use an old enough dictionary, and the term 'hate speech' and any equivalent disappear altogether, which says much about the objective truth of it.

    Implying that a group of people performing terrorism actions or celebrating terrorist actions in an insult, this makes the conversation a "hate speech" more than a "discussion".
    Hardly. It's no insult to say that the Islamic State, a group of people, commits terrorism -- it's just a statement of fact. Similarly, while I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence to substantiate the Interior Minister's claim about celebrations of the Brussels atrocity, I don't think that, if true, it would be abhorrent to say that that was the case.

    One must remember that 'hate' isn't universally a bad thing, as the increasingly ludicrous standards of speech would have you believe. There is nothing wrong with hating -- verbally, even -- those who perpetrate or celebrate an atrocity, if there is evidence to suggest that either of those things has happened.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Sure, but the complete refusal by people to even acknowledge there is an issue will ensure that this will remain the case.
    Well there really isn't an issue

    its just evil crazy people doing evil crazy things. Sad but thats society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    These aren't any more objective than the people who wrote them. Which is to say, they aren't objective at all. Consider the categories included in the definition of hate speech -- who decided which ones to include and which ones not to include? What was their criteria for including these? Why is it hate speech to criticise a religion, but not a political ideology? Or a political or state religion (of the kind that they have in closed, totalitarian societies like North Korea, where the leaders are elevated to god-status)? Why isn't social class/status included in this particular definition, as it most probably would be in another definition in a different dictionary?

    The definitions included in any dictionary reflect the biases and shortcomings of its writers and the times. Quoting them in the way that you have doesn't prove that they are objective, only that enough of the people who deliberate on the contents of the dictionary agreed on what should and shouldn't be included. Use an old enough dictionary, and the term 'hate speech' and any equivalent disappear altogether, which says much about the objective truth of it.



    Hardly. It's no insult to say that the Islamic State, a group of people, commits terrorism -- it's just a statement of fact. Similarly, while I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence to substantiate the Interior Minister's claim about celebrations of the Brussels atrocity, I don't think that, if true, it would be abhorrent to say that that was the case.

    One must remember that 'hate' isn't universally a bad thing, as the increasingly ludicrous standards of speech would have you believe. There is nothing wrong with hating -- verbally, even -- those who perpetrate or celebrate an atrocity, if there is evidence to suggest that either of those things has happened.
    I didnt read your post after the first sentence.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    As usual, this will turn out to be a gross distortion of the facts. We've had exactly the same thing in relation to 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK, with scores of allegations emanating from reactionary sources that 'Muslims were dancing in the streets', etc, which have all turned out to be false on close examination.

    What's depressing here is that apparently Belgian government sources are saying it. Anything to transfer blame from their own grotesque inability to govern properly, to secure the country or run proper joined up intelligence services. So far this saga has mainly demonstrated that the Jihadis are shooting at an open goal when it comes to Belgium.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by xxvine)
    Well there really isn't an issue

    its just evil crazy people doing evil crazy things. Sad but thats society.
    (Original post by SemiteLog)
    I didnt read your post after the first sentence.
    Healthy attitudes
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SemiteLog)
    I didnt read your post after the first sentence.
    That says more about you than it does about my post.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    As usual, this will turn out to be a gross distortion of the facts. We've had exactly the same thing in relation to 9/11 in the US and 7/7 in the UK, with scores of allegations emanating from reactionary sources that 'Muslims were dancing in the streets', etc, which have all turned out to be false on close examination.
    In the absence of any convincing evidence for either position, why are you so sure that what happened after 9/11 and 7/7 must necessarily be the case this time as well? :holmes: I'm sure you can see that that's a The Boy Who Cried Wolf approach to determining the truth of a statement (even though the 'boy' in this case is a government minister, not a reactionary source, as you claim).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    That says more about you than it does about my post.
    You denied a language to justify your claim. No sense to talk more.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    In the absence of any convincing evidence for either position, why are you so sure that what happened after 9/11 and 7/7 must necessarily be the case this time as well? :holmes: I'm sure you can see that that's a The Boy Who Cried Wolf approach to determining the truth of a statement (even though the 'boy' in this case is a government minister, not a reactionary source, as you claim).
    In the case of the US, it was John McCain, a leading Republican, making the false statements, recently repeated by Donald Trump. (amongst others) So seniority is no guarantee of accuracy in these things.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by SemiteLog)
    You denied a language to justify your claim. No sense to talk more.
    I refuted your shoddy reasoning, and you failed to come up with a rebuttal. Indeed, it seems that there's not much sense in talking more. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    In the case of the US, it was John McCain, a leading Republican, making the false statements, recently repeated by Donald Trump. (amongst others) So seniority is no guarantee of accuracy in these things.
    Forgetting for a moment that the Republican Party is something of an anomaly in the West and that I haven't said that seniority proves anything here, what would you say to rest of my post? :holmes:

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    In the absence of any convincing evidence for either position, why are you so sure that what happened after 9/11 and 7/7 must necessarily be the case this time as well? :holmes: I'm sure you can see that that's a The Boy Who Cried Wolf approach to determining the truth of a statement (even though the 'boy' in this case is a government minister, not a reactionary source, as you claim).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.