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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    http://www.naturalnews.com/052358_te...p_Germany.html
    There is a crackdown on free speech.

    His posts should not matter unless he has encouraged people to attack the immigrants and there is absolutely nothing in any report that suggests he has.

    He has also been banned from the Internet just like Gregory Allen Elliot.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    http://www.naturalnews.com/052358_te...p_Germany.html
    There is a crackdown on free speech.

    His posts should not matter unless he has encouraged people to attack the immigrants and there is absolutely nothing in any report that suggests he has.

    He has also been banned from the Internet just like Gregory Allen Elliot.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    PRSOM
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Multiculturalism)
    Heard of Nelson Mandela?
    How does Nelson Mandela make South Africa one of the most tolerant countries in the World?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    Don't you respect Russia for banning "homosexual propaganda"? I don't think I can ever take you seriously after that.

    Also South Africa is rife with racial tension and hate crime; read a book OP
    You've got the wrong end of the stick here.

    LGBT people have equal rights in Russia, but a lot of the population disagrees with homosexuality (it's not homophobia though, just difference of opinion). If the Russian populace had a wave of LGBT propaganda shoved in its face people would get pretty annoyed. That'd lead to tension between LGBT people and everyone else and could end up causing conflicts in which LGBT Russians could potentially be ostracised by everyone else, as well as having major impacts on international relations and their economy (which is currently in a recession anyway). Such a thing would also generate a lot of intolerance towards LGBT people, which could last for years after everything had calmed down. Putin actually made a very smart move when he banned LGBT propaganda. The man did what was best for all citizens of Russia, completely ignoring the defamation he'd get from it. He put the interests of the Russian people first, as is his duty as president. None can deny that he acted as a president should do. You may not agree with his actions, but you've got to admit the man deserves some respect for putting the interests of his people first.

    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Mate, my friends live in Moscow and have done ever since they were born. They actually could not contain their laughter at this comment. Another friend of mine is the sister of Natalia Vodianova. The same was said by her. She studies in America now.

    Research means jack-**** in comparison with the experiences of those who actually live there. 'Tolerance' - no way. Perhaps people can get on with their lives in many cases but by and large, that does not mean tolerant. Russia is quite proud of being intolerant - it thinks its the best approach to life: keeping things traditional, Russian, and so on. Nobody is saying there's anything oh-so wrong with that but saying it demonstrates tolerance is ****ing laughable.
    Yea, protecting tradition is important. Traditions are part of a nation's culture, identity and history, throwing all of that away is just ridiculous.

    'Tolerance' is a double edged blade by the way. Tolerating something is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as: the action or practice of tolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forbearance; catholicity of spirit. So by definition, Russia is tolerant of homosexuals and various other minorities. Russian people may not like or agree with homosexuality, but since they are putting up with it they are being tolerant. On the other hand, you're being very intolerant towards people who don't share your opinion.

    Oh and by the way, eye witness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence.

    I'm glad that my previous post served as entertainment at least.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I should point out that free speech includes the right to offend people. Trying to censor someone because you don't agree with their opinion (however stupid it may be) is incredibly childish. It's one of the core parts of fascism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    You've got the wrong end of the stick here.

    LGBT people have equal rights in Russia, but a lot of the population disagrees with homosexuality (it's not homophobia though, just difference of opinion). If the Russian populace had a wave of LGBT propaganda shoved in its face people would get pretty annoyed. That'd lead to tension between LGBT people and everyone else and could end up causing conflicts in which LGBT Russians could potentially be ostracised by everyone else, as well as having major impacts on international relations and their economy (which is currently in a recession anyway). Such a thing would also generate a lot of intolerance towards LGBT people, which could last for years after everything had calmed down. Putin actually made a very smart move when he banned LGBT propaganda. The man did what was best for all citizens of Russia, completely ignoring the defamation he'd get from it. He put the interests of the Russian people first, as is his duty as president. None can deny that he acted as a president should do. You may not agree with his actions, but you've got to admit the man deserves some respect for putting the interests of his people first.



    Yea, protecting tradition is important. Traditions are part of a nation's culture, identity and history, throwing all of that away is just ridiculous.

    'Tolerance' is a double edged blade by the way. Tolerating something is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as: the action or practice of tolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forbearance; catholicity of spirit. So by definition, Russia is tolerant of homosexuals and various other minorities. Russian people may not like or agree with homosexuality, but since they are putting up with it they are being tolerant. On the other hand, you're being very intolerant towards people who don't share your opinion.

    Oh and by the way, eye witness accounts are the least reliable form of evidence.

    I'm glad that my previous post served as entertainment at least.
    Gay people have equal rights in Russia? Oh my word, you are actually thick :lol:

    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    I should point out that free speech includes the right to offend people. Trying to censor someone because you don't agree with their opinion (however stupid it may be) is incredibly childish. It's one of the core parts of fascism.
    Except it doesn't.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Gay people have equal rights in Russia? Oh my word, you are actually thick :lol:



    Except it doesn't.
    I can't be bothered to debate this with you anymore. But look up free speech, you'll see that it does.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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...n-and-telling/
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...ch-on-migrants
    "Facebook has faced criticism in Germany for failing to police anti-immigration posts."

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/27/angel...ant-posts.html
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Words are words if you restrict people using words that creates actually violence
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Gay people have equal rights in Russia? Oh my word, you are actually thick :lol:



    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    I can't be bothered to debate this with you anymore. But look up free speech, you'll see that it does.
    Good because you're not debating - you're failing.

    (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/angel...ant-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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    I can't be bothered to debate this with you anymore. But look up free speech, you'll see that it does.
    He doesn't believe in free speech.
    Words and opinions are hate crimes he will soon be wanting thought crimes in law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Yes let's just silence views that go against mainstream ideas because that always works.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    You've got the wrong end of the stick here.

    LGBT people have equal rights in Russia, but a lot of the population disagrees with homosexuality (it's not homophobia though, just difference of opinion). If the Russian populace had a wave of LGBT propaganda shoved in its face people would get pretty annoyed. That'd lead to tension between LGBT people and everyone else and could end up causing conflicts in which LGBT Russians could potentially be ostracised by everyone else, as well as having major impacts on international relations and their economy (which is currently in a recession anyway). Such a thing would also generate a lot of intolerance towards LGBT people, which could last for years after everything had calmed down. Putin actually made a very smart move when he banned LGBT propaganda. The man did what was best for all citizens of Russia, completely ignoring the defamation he'd get from it. He put the interests of the Russian people first, as is his duty as president. None can deny that he acted as a president should do. You may not agree with his actions, but you've got to admit the man deserves some respect for putting the interests of his people first.
    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?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    So you do believe in free speech but not free speech.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

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

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