THE KING Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 No. Although The King is quite clearly a disturbed individual who spends a lot of time obsessing over Israel and Judaism, he also has previous for posting nonsense and has had other "identities" on here banned for racism. Your kind of softly softly approach with the same disturbing underlying ideas is possibly more warped and dangerous though. ^^^^^Mention Israel = Racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 ^^^^^Mention Israel = Racist. No it was actually a racial slur on Pakistani people your captain kirk alias was banned for, nothing to do with Israel, but then I'm sure you're aware of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 No. Although The King is quite clearly a disturbed individual who spends a lot of time obsessing over Israel and Judaism, he also has previous for posting nonsense and has had other "identities" on here banned for racism. Your kind of softly softly approach with the same disturbing underlying ideas is possibly more warped and dangerous though. Right. So what is your view on the information on the link that was posted? Or is that an 'inconvenient truth' you'd prefer to ignore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Amazing how all these British and French politicans are so vehemently supportive of free speech when Muslims/Islam is the source of the fun but the when ever Nicolas Anelka's pal wanted to come here he was refused permission and the French authorities have went out of their way to prevent him exercising his right to take a satirical approach to Israel and Judaism.... He was a facist and it was correct for hi to be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 This is my point, there are limitations to your speech in law. These limitations mean that we do not have free speech. Do you honestly think making defamatory statements about people or communicating rape threats (for instance), constitute free speech? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Right. So what is your view on the information on the link that was posted? Or is that an 'inconvenient truth' you'd prefer to ignore? Ultra orthodox Jews, like 99% of people with fanatical religious views, are complete and utter roasters. I don't need him to tell me that though , not to mention it is also completely irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 So freedom of speech as long as you don't subscribe to fascism? What did he say that led you to believe he was a fascist? Any other political ideologies that should be restricted from speaking? Other folk on here have dealt with the concept of absolute freedom of speech. You should read their posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Ultra orthodox Jews, like 99% of people with fanatical religious views, are complete and utter roasters. I don't need him to tell me that though , not to mention it is also completely irrelevant. What separates 'fanatical religious views' from religious views? What is the dividing line and who decides it? The post was relevant within the context of a united condemnation of the atrocities committed by religious nutters being distorted by another bunch of religious nutters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Do you honestly think making defamatory statements about people or communicating rape threats (for instance), constitute free speech? I don't. Yes, I'm looking at this in absolute terms, either all speech is free, or it isn't. The debate is clearly about where the line is drawn, which is an opinion. That's what makes it so difficult, and so hypocritical. I'm pretty sure that Voltaire quote doing the rounds would fall flat for most people when giving the most extreme examples of negative speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Yes, I'm looking at this in absolute terms, either all speech is free, or it isn't. The debate is clearly about where the line is drawn, which is an opinion. That's what makes it so difficult, and so hypocritical. I'm pretty sure that Voltaire quote doing the rounds would fall flat for most people when giving the most extreme examples of negative speech. If it was a neo nazi paper that was attacked , would there be world leaders marching with millions supporting freedom of speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Ultra orthodox Jews, like 99% of people with fanatical religious views, are complete and utter roasters. I don't need him to tell me that though , not to mention it is also completely irrelevant. The entire Israeli government have extreme religous views, why do you constantly defend them and brand anyone as antisemitic if they question them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The entire Israeli government have extreme religous views, why do you constantly defend them and brand anyone as antisemitic if they question them? I don't and this subject has nothing to do with Israel or her government, I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't and this subject has nothing to do with Israel or her government, I'll leave it at that. Aye, it's a good idea to stop digging when you realise just how deep the hole has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I don't and this subject has nothing to do with Israel or her government, I'll leave it at that. If it has nothing to do with the Israeli government then why did the Israeli Priminister turn up in Paris ,(Against the express wishes of the French Government) to tell Jews to flee France and Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The entire Israeli government have extreme religous views, why do you constantly defend them and brand anyone as antisemitic if they question them? I don't and this subject has nothing to do with Israel or her government, I'll leave it at that.Thats funny ...just look back over the last 4/5 pages anytime someone mentions Israel , you jump to their defence...or do you not even realise that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Yes, I'm looking at this in absolute terms, either all speech is free, or it isn't. The debate is clearly about where the line is drawn, which is an opinion. That's what makes it so difficult, and so hypocritical. I'm pretty sure that Voltaire quote doing the rounds would fall flat for most people when giving the most extreme examples of negative speech. It would be a disaster if people were free to threaten and defame people as they pleased. Free speech was never meant to allow that to happen. I certainly don't think being free to criticise religion/politicians whilst not being allowed to threaten people is hypocritical. This definition is a good one: the right of people to express their opinions publicly withoutgovernmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Aye, it's a good idea to stop digging when you realise just how deep the hole has become. yeah that's exactly it ffs. Nothing to do with a pair of idiots attempting to lead me down an irrelevant blind alley, nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YassinMoutaouakil Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 All the Islamphobes are creaming themselves at the thought of being allowed to "ridicule" Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 All the Islamphobes are creaming themselves at the thought of being allowed to "ridicule" Islam. Islam is ridiculous. As is Judaism, Chrisianity, etc. We should be ridiculing them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It would be a disaster if people were free to threaten and defame people as they pleased. Free speech was never meant to allow that to happen. I certainly don't think being free to criticise religion/politicians whilst not being allowed to threaten people is hypocritical. This definition is a good one: the right of people to express their opinions publicly withoutgovernmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc. Right, except for the pretty fucking obvious point, that it is in fact a state (government) which determines the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion that ought to apply. The UK libel law is notoriously more liable to prosecuting speech than the US, under which speech is constitutionally guaranteed. In countless countries both in the modern day and not too long ago, incitement to violence/rebellion was and is easily stretched very, very loosely. All three of the above 'exceptions' are underpinned by the state. Which, in a country without a credible constitution like the UK, means that the claim to 'free speech' is in fact entirely subject to the goals of the state authority under which you live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.