This discussion is closed.
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#521
Report 16 years ago
#521
(Original post by vienna95)
i was inaccurate in giving my opinion on the context of Kilroys piece?
No. That particular aspect of the post seems accurate.
You were not quoting (well, ish) Kilroy all the way through anyway, hence the 'as you point out' line (or some such wording) which obviously came from you not Kilroy. Your own view just crept in there I'm afraid.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#522
Report 16 years ago
#522
(Original post by JSM)
well its true
Errrrr, no it's not.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#523
Report 16 years ago
#523
(Original post by JSM)
he said they PRODUCE nothing except for oil - can none of you even get your own argument right
I am right dear.
Aliel has put it all very well already so I shan't bore you with reiterating.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#524
Report 16 years ago
#524
(Original post by lala)
I am right dear.
Aliel has put it all very well already so I shan't bore you with reiterating.
did you read the article or not and aliel does not make much sense anyway - about as much as me :rolleyes:
0
viviki
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#525
Report 16 years ago
#525
Going off topic a bit now but I found this very amusing pretty much sums up Kilroys skill as a chat show host

http://deadbrain.co.uk/dumbed_down/a...01_11_3839.php
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#526
Report 16 years ago
#526
(Original post by JSM)
And i wouldnt take any offense at abuse, just ignore them and theyd get bored.
By any stretch of the imagination - this is b******.
You would phone the police and have the offender removed.

(This is old, but i was revising today!)
0
Matt the cat
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#527
Report 16 years ago
#527
(Original post by JSM)
did you read the article or not and aliel does not make much sense anyway - about as much as me :rolleyes:

Ok, well i'm really i'sorry, but i think im going to have to make a bit of a mess here, i apologise. However i feel that the only reason you would say that Aliel is not making sense is because she seems to have a view which ultimatly clashes with alot of your opinions and frankly she is much better at expressing herself than you are, and so it makes you look bad... But just to remind you here is some of her magic:

Quote:
-----------
Originally Posted by JSM
but by protecting minorities you are protecting their rights of free speech and freedom of opinion by restricting that of others. Both groups are allowed to believe what they want.
-----------

A line has to be drawn. Is it right for people to stir up xenophobic feeling simply because they are racist? If that is the case..you are condoning racism. Which according to most people in society, is wrong. Of course there is a difference between freedom of speech (active) and freedom of opinion (passive). In America, the freedom of speech in regard to anti-bush behaviour is very much restricted,surely you have heard about this?

Quote:
-----------
Originally Posted by JSM
well i live in england. I want to reform our oppressive freedom of speech laws anyway. we dont have freedom of speech - Removal of the right to silence, slander, libel etc.

So be it, i would be condoning racism, i will not coerce people into believing something that they do not believe in or force them to restric their views, because then i am sinking down to their level and deciding what other people should believe. So the majority of society is always right is it, um no, otherwise labour would not be in power. Even better, whats right to one person can be wrong to another.
-----------

Despite me being openly left-wing in my views, the practicability of your proposition is extremely LOW. For example, you say:

"well i live in england. I want to reform our oppressive freedom of speech laws anyway. we dont have freedom of speech - Removal of the right to silence, slander, libel etc."

However, have you not considered the repurcussions such a move? Countless times have accusations been made openly ie. in newspapers, only to be later disproved. Of course there are cases which the opposite true, and here, is where i think you need to clarify your opinions-where circumstantial evidence is provided. Now i will move on to yet more impracticalities of your suggestions. Are you not aware that it is seen in the 'public interest' in some spheres, to limit the amount of information (ie. in defence intelligence) allowed to enter the public domain. And thus many people have to sign binding contracts, stipulating that cannot duplicate their learned information (where's the freedom of speech)?

Your next statement:

"So the majority of society is always right is it, um no, otherwise labour would not be in power. Even better, whats right to one person can be wrong to another.."

In terms of right/wrong i think there is no need to argue here the philosophic problems with claiming either way. But what i do think has happened, is that it is more clear that these fearful people are in more in the wrong that right. Psychologists have long researched the consequences of fear and hate manifesting itself in their public behaviour ie. BNP voting!

Quote:
-----------
Originally Posted by JSM
so, people should be able to say what they want, contracts are different, as they are willingly signed. I would agree with you on defence intelligence - as people agree to that willingly. What about the removal of the right to silence in courts, that your silence can and will be used against you.


so you can make the judgement that they are more in the wrong than in the right "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - despite me not being properly christian. Psychologists rely on statistics - lies, damned lies and statistics. So you want to restrict the free speech of a minority (BNP) to prevent the restriction of the free speech of another minority (eg those with racial differences). So who are you/public opinion/ in fact anyone to say, those people are wrong and should not be allowed to speak. IT is a totalitarian view.
-----------

You tend to skip from one thing to another, and do not stick to the question! Would hate to be your teaceher marking your essays You say:

"What about the removal of the right to silence in courts, that your silence can and will be used against you..... "

I am sure i do not have to remind you that "silence" as you put it, is a form of expression. However, what point are you trying to make in response to mine? To endeavour to create freedom of speech is in itself a worthy cause. My last post attempted simply to underline the true difficulty and potential negativity in arguing for "total" freedom of speech (incl. in this sense hateful speech).

Again here:

"So who are you/public opinion/ in fact anyone to say, those people are wrong and should not be allowed to speak."

If you read my post properly, I acknowledged the difficulties in attempting to take on the issue of right/wrong in a philosophical sense. Who am I to say people are wrong? I did not say anything of the type. Merely that psychologists, (who in fact do not rely on statistics only to determine conclusions but qualatitive research as well), observe strong correlations between 'fearful' individuals and those who vote for extremist parties!

Quote:
-----------
Originally Posted by Kurdt Morello
Problem is their speech causes racial tension and they can be charged with the offence of causing a disturbance to the peace and racially aggravated assault because assault encompasses threats of both a verbal and physical nature
-----------

Not to mention that their hate-filled opinions, are based on little more than fearful opinion, they lack substance in most respects. JSM, subscribe to 'Index', a periodical dedicated to freedom of expression. It is a truly fantastic, and really opens your mind to the importance of freedom of expression as well as potential repurcussions.

JSM i will provide you with an example of sorts.

Due to the Hutton Inquiry, there has been a dispense of a 30-year-rule and the disclosure of dozens of contemporary emails and documents from the heart of the government. Consequently, blowing a hole in the case against greater freedom of information.

The inquiry has also been uncomfortable for the media (the apparent mouthpieces for free speech), revealing much about the editors' relationships to their journalists. Secrecy, hidden agendas, freedom of information-all aspects which are important to our discussion-have been crucial in this inquiry!

But is has also exposed the clash between those who deal with words as a means of presentation, spin, exaggeration and half-truths, and those who believe words matter. In short: it's told us a great deal about the world we're living in.

There is an extremely delicate relatinship between law and its authority and freedom of expression. It's so important you recognise this, and stop claiming that freedom of speech should be absolute!

Quote:
-----------
Originally Posted by JSM
and, what is wrong with absolute freedom of speech - who condemed the nazis within germany. There was not freedom of speech, so who could.
-----------

JSM you are now arguing from the other extreme, that of a totalitarian dictatorship. Where there was a monopoly of the media, and incidentally freedom of speech, in the hands of the Nazi state. Have I arued that freedom of speech needs to be absolutely restricted...no i have not. I have simply asked for an acknowledgement of the potential negative repurcussions of ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. That's all.

Quote:
-----------
Originally Posted by JSM
Exaclty thats why you don't give anyone power over freedom of speech. No, i understand what you have argued, sorry if i am not being clear (but i am younger than you ). I acknowledge the potential negative repurcussions of free speech but i would argue that it is outweighed by the potential negative repurcussions if you allow the government/public/anyone to limit free speech.
-----------

Certainly, more freedom of speech rather than less is more beneficial for society. But you appear to see it in absolute terms. By stating:

"I acknowledge the potential negative repurcussions of free speech but i would argue that it is outweighed by the potential negative repurcussions if you allow the government/public/anyone to limit free speech"

You seem to assume that there can/should only be ABSOLUTE freedom of speech or NO freedom of speech. Surely if you recognise the limits in the assertion for absolute freedom of speech, you would seek to find a more balanced solution?

Quote:
-----------
Originally Posted by JSM
well it is getting more restricted although as a socialsit i suppose you like that.
-----------

Well shall i put in more harsher terms? I hope you will not take any offence to this, as I am simply wanting to demonstrate what your proposal would effectively mean. If one was given complete freedom of speech, someone could essentially stand outside your home shouting abuse at you and your family, for this would be only a manifestation of their concept of freedom of speech. Not only would this cause harm and be unfair to you and your family...the very principles and moreover,the spirit of freedom of speech would be grossly undermined.

JSM:
"i would seek to find a balanced solution"

Only now do you say that, that is what i have been trying to make you accept the need for, for the last hour! Hehe.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#528
Report 16 years ago
#528
(Original post by Matt the cat)
Ok, well i'm really i'sorry, but i think im going to have to make a bit of a mess here, i apologise. However i feel that the only reason you would say that Aliel is not making sense is because she seems to have a view which ultimatly clashes with alot of your opinions and frankly she is much better at expressing herself than you are, and so it makes you look bad... But just to remind you here is some of her magic:
whos this cowboy?
we dont need heroes..
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#529
Report 16 years ago
#529
(Original post by aliel)
I am afraid, I am yet to have noticed :rolleyes:
If you had *actually* re-read the posts your statement would read differently. When i have more time on my hands, i will paste the numerous incidents for you.....
dont waste your time.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#530
Report 16 years ago
#530
(Original post by vienna95)
whos this cowboy?
we dont need heroes..
he doesnt have a life and i do make sense, i respond to everyone of her comments.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#531
Report 16 years ago
#531
(Original post by vienna95)
dont waste your time.
aliel and matt the cat, her friend have both obviously got far too much time
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#532
Report 16 years ago
#532
(Original post by vienna95)
whos this cowboy?
we dont need heroes..
Vienna, please don't quote all of that.
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#533
Report 16 years ago
#533
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Vienna, please don't quote all of that.
please dont copy and past all of that
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#534
Report 16 years ago
#534
(Original post by JSM)
aliel and matt the cat, her friend have both obviously got far too much time
Pot:

"Kettle... you're black!".
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#535
Report 16 years ago
#535
(Original post by JSM)
please dont copy and past all of that
"Copy and past"?

Please step out of character and be coherent.
0
username9816
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#536
Report 16 years ago
#536
(Original post by Bigcnee)
"Copy and past"?

Please step out of character and be coherent.
some may say thats ironic coming from a mathematician (J/K)
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#537
Report 16 years ago
#537
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Vienna, please don't quote all of that.
sorry..
0
JSM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#538
Report 16 years ago
#538
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Pot:

"Kettle... you're black!".
um, no, i havnt got much time, i bin doing my homework and i am coherant, i jsut type very fast and dont see the need for proper sentances.
0
lala
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#539
Report 16 years ago
#539
(Original post by JSM)
did you read the article or not and aliel does not make much sense anyway - about as much as me :rolleyes:
Yes, I skim-read the original when it was shown to me the other week, and I've also seen it transcribed somewhere online since (though I have forgotten where, does anyone have a link?)
Making sense? Well you said it not me!
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#540
Report 16 years ago
#540
(Original post by vienna95)
sorry..
An proper apology would involve affirmative action.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Has your university offer been reduced?

Yes (8)
29.63%
No (16)
59.26%
Don't know (3)
11.11%

Watched Threads

View All