PC censorship vs debate and free speech, worrying trends.

[Bacon Is Proof]

Not-The-Messiah said:

It's not just this thread its any discussion in general now. It's seems that many people can't grasp the idea that people can be rational adults and stand back and look at arguments from both sides. Seeing pros and cons, sense and stupidity in both.

It's just seems to be the you are either with us or you are against us mentally.

Seeing things from both sides is to be encouraged.
Some posters however, only ever seem to argue from one side.
Good to have a think about whether or not that applies to you, and to what side you ascribe...

[ATG]

Rovinghawk said:

ATG said:

But if you don't conclude that facism is a bad thing, and subsequent choose to opposr it, then I'd say that that was a blatant and profound moral failure.

You are free to believe what you wish. It would be nice if you believed that others could have the same freedom.

It would be nice if you stopped repeating this same basic mistake over and over again.

You are free to believe whatever you like. I am free to judge people on their beliefs. There is no contradiction there.

For example, someone animal rights activist might sincerely believe that it is OK to kill people to defend an animal. I am free to think their moral compass is broken. In doing so I'm not impinging on their freedom of belief.

You seem to have your needle stuck on the somewhat juvenile complaint "you can't tell me what to think". It's a stupid thing for anyone to say because (a) it's a truism and (b) it's almost always used as a deflection. When people use that phrase, what they often really mean is "don't judge me", or "don't challenge me to question my own opinions".

Edited by ATG on Tuesday 22 August 06:07

[NWTony]

Bacon Is Proof said:

Rovinghawk said:

Presume that the answer is no.

There is no point in trying to talk with someone who is devoid of morality.
That's just not normal.

So what is the difference between right and wrong? I'm keen to know because I always presumed they were subjective.

[Rovinghawk]

NWTony said:

Bacon Is Proof said:

Rovinghawk said:

Presume that the answer is no.

There is no point in trying to talk with someone who is devoid of morality.
That's just not normal.

So what is the difference between right and wrong? I'm keen to know because I always presumed they were subjective.

I keep asking but don't think I'm going to get an answer.

[anonymous-user]

Stickyfinger said:

Raygun said:

TurboHatchback said:

I support everyones right to express their views without fear of violence as a fundamental condition of being able to express mine.

But Isis and Nazis run people over in cars/vans so they can't be trusted to hold a peaceful demonstration. Are you ok with how they express their views?

Whereas the Far Left are systematically destroying our democracy by violent protests and their actions against free speech.......(forgetting the direct violent protests in places like the G7 meeting in Hamburg and other cities around the world).

But they don't murder people by running them over like Unite the ste.

[ATG]

Rovinghawk said:

NWTony said:

Bacon Is Proof said:

Rovinghawk said:

Presume that the answer is no.

There is no point in trying to talk with someone who is devoid of morality.
That's just not normal.

So what is the difference between right and wrong? I'm keen to know because I always presumed they were subjective.

I keep asking but don't think I'm going to get an answer.

He said you're not worth talking to, so why do you expect him to answer you?

Luckily for you, I'll try and fill in :-)

He asked you if YOU knew right from wrong. I.e. do you have a sense of sense of some things being right and other things being wrong. If you do not, then you are amoral. He isn't making the claim that there is a single correct morality that everyone must agree to.

[Stickyfinger]

Raygun said:

But they don't murder people by running them over like Unite the ste.

Do you think the murder in the USA was a planned "operation" ?

[anonymous-user]

Stickyfinger said:

Raygun said:

But they don't murder people by running them over like Unite the ste.

Do you think the murder in the USA was a planned "operation" ?

Planned or not planned is immaterial but it does show that Unite the ste attracts a very nasty element that takes violence to a new level, you knew that anyway.
As for left wing marches(not to be confused with people standing up to Nazis) I tend to find annoying most of the time but at no time would I feel threatened that my life was going to end if I showed my disapproval.

[AW111]

Stickyfinger said:

Do you think the murder in the USA was a planned "operation" ?

No, just a spur of the moment act of terrorism.
Or maybe just hate.



The guys who set fire to a mosque in Australia last year have been charged with committing a terrorist act.

[Eric Mc]

I've never been of the opinion that a terrorist act is defined by the time gap between the origination of the idea to carry out an act of violence and its actual execution.

[Stickyfinger]

AW111 said:

Stickyfinger said:

Do you think the murder in the USA was a planned "operation" ?

No, just a spur of the moment act of terrorism.
Or maybe just hate.



The guys who set fire to a mosque in Australia last year have been charged with committing a terrorist act.

Do you regard the street violence and destruction seen in Hamburg as a "terrorist action" ?

[Not-The-Messiah]

Raygun said:

Stickyfinger said:

Raygun said:

But they don't murder people by running them over like Unite the ste.

Do you think the murder in the USA was a planned "operation" ?

Planned or not planned is immaterial but it does show that Unite the ste attracts a very nasty element that takes violence to a new level, you knew that anyway.
As for left wing marches(not to be confused with people standing up to Nazis) I tend to find annoying most of the time but at no time would I feel threatened that my life was going to end if I showed my disapproval.

I think you should have a quick search on YouTube and see the behaviour of these people. Personally if I was in the middle of any group that has shown the levels of violence both sides have, I would be in fear from my safety. Especially having a slight understand of mob rule and how such situations can get out of hand very quickly.

Personally I think it's only a matter of time until they do kill someone especially now they have been endorsed and emboldened by the media and politicians.

[Eric Mc]

Sounds like you would like them too - to justify your viewpoint.

[Stickyfinger]

Eric Mc said:

Sounds like you would like them too - to justify your viewpoint.

Get a grip man.............

[rscott]

Not-The-Messiah said:

Raygun said:

Stickyfinger said:

Raygun said:

But they don't murder people by running them over like Unite the ste.

Do you think the murder in the USA was a planned "operation" ?

Planned or not planned is immaterial but it does show that Unite the ste attracts a very nasty element that takes violence to a new level, you knew that anyway.
As for left wing marches(not to be confused with people standing up to Nazis) I tend to find annoying most of the time but at no time would I feel threatened that my life was going to end if I showed my disapproval.

I think you should have a quick search on YouTube and see the behaviour of these people. Personally if I was in the middle of any group that has shown the levels of violence both sides have, I would be in fear from my safety. Especially having a slight understand of mob rule and how such situations can get out of hand very quickly.

Personally I think it's only a matter of time until they do kill someone especially now they have been endorsed and emboldened by the media and politicians.

Where has the media endorsed the actions of the violent protesters? Far as I can see, the media have reported that many, many people marched peacefully and a small number were violent. Or are you still unable to accept that not all who protest are violent AntiFa?

[babatunde]

chrispmartha said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

I agree with you. All should be able to have their say. Some are defenders of the faith but we should be allowed to pass comment on any shortcomings that faith may have. Just like they can pass comment on anything they want to.

You are allowed to pass comment, who has said otherwise?

All I see here is arguments that speech shouldn't have repercussions, there are certain things that a person could say to me that would evoke a physical response, pretty sure most people have that trigger point as well. I keep coming back to the power of words, words create suicide bombers and terrorists, do we allow such speech understanding where it leads?

[chrispmartha]

babatunde said:

chrispmartha said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

I agree with you. All should be able to have their say. Some are defenders of the faith but we should be allowed to pass comment on any shortcomings that faith may have. Just like they can pass comment on anything they want to.

You are allowed to pass comment, who has said otherwise?

All I see here is arguments that speech shouldn't have repercussions, there are certain things that a person could say to me that would evoke a physical response, pretty sure most people have that trigger point as well. I keep coming back to the power of words, words create suicide bombers and terrorists, do we allow such speech understanding where it leads?

Well quite, with freedom of speech comes a responsibility.

Abu Hamza - should he have been allowed to say whatever he wanted with no consequence?

[Stickyfinger]

babatunde said:

chrispmartha said:

Boosted LS1 said:

Not-The-Messiah said:

Can we try and keep it about free speech guys? We all know what happens to any topic that start going on about the religion of peace it get closed down. Slight ironical for a free speech thread.

Having said that with regards to Islam I do now believe that the more extreme side should be allowed to express their views in public. It will show to the general public how stty these people are and how much support they have. But the people perticualy the left need to show the same anger and disgust to them as they do to the KKK and Nazis.

I agree with you. All should be able to have their say. Some are defenders of the faith but we should be allowed to pass comment on any shortcomings that faith may have. Just like they can pass comment on anything they want to.

You are allowed to pass comment, who has said otherwise?

All I see here is arguments that speech shouldn't have repercussions, there are certain things that a person could say to me that would evoke a physical response, pretty sure most people have that trigger point as well. I keep coming back to the power of words, words create suicide bombers and terrorists, do we allow such speech understanding where it leads?

Do we use mass mobs to police these laws/regulations on hate-words/dangerous-phrase, then ?
Who is going to write this extensive "Check List" ?

[Eric Mc]

Ah - the dilemma of living in a balanced democracy.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Bacon Is Proof said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Of course it was.

Glad you agree with me.

I don't think the fact of it being a bit of a wind up in any way mitigates the lack of reasoning, the level of intolerance, or the violent behaviour on the part of that group of protesters.

I have yet to see any proof of far right or Nazi demonstrators at the Boston free speech rally, or any signs of physical violence on their part. There was some pretty 'brutal' taunting going on in one long clip I watched.

In the clip in question;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KiNWJ8FiYg

The opening line that we hear is "no one wants you here. No speech about free speech"
Irony or just stupidity?

An aside;
One might use the argument that we didn't see or hear what went on before the video started. Fair enough, but it can't have been terribly controversial, because we can see how quickly that group was prepared to use and support the use of violence, and it is quite clear there hadn't yet been any.


"Can you please tell me why I should join your political movement?"
"Because it's the right thing to do"

Okay, didn't expect the question, no answer prepared, let that mindless response go, we've probably all said something similar...
Then
"These people have been oppressed for years" eh? which people? Presumably the black girl to her right who's voice she is shouting over top of?

They are standing in the streets of Boston, not Yemen.

How does the historical oppression of one group of people, justify another group of people who are assuming the unelected privilege of speaking for the first group, in demanding that yet another group of people should not be allowed to speak their thoughts on the rights of all three of these unidentifiable groups (unidentifiable without barriers in place to delineate) to enjoy the right to speak freely?

It doesn't take long for the "he doesn't agree with me, he must be a Nazi" mentality to come to the surface.