This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Breaking terror attack in France
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 EverybodyDannsNow  SE19 18 Jul 16 4.21pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by elgrande
I think this about sums it up.... Sums what up? I don't even understand what point it's trying to make.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 18 Jul 16 4.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's all very well to discuss the limits of free speech and the abuse of said but this kind of intellectual discussion just hides the reality. This is really a choice between the better of two evils. I know which side I'm on. There is no reasonable comparison between the two. This over-simplifying of the situation is a massive part of the problem - this 'us v them' mentality does nothing but promote conflict and further entrench each side in their position. 'Intellectual discussion' is exactly what there needs to be more of.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
This over-simplifying of the situation is a massive part of the problem - this 'us v them' mentality does nothing but promote conflict and further entrench each side in their position. 'Intellectual discussion' is exactly what there needs to be more of. It is us v them. It is our culture that defends free speech and is free to criticise and satarise v fanatical religious murderers who want to destroy everything we stand for. We won't be able to defend ourselves with good debating skills.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 18 Jul 16 4.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Sums what up? I don't even understand what point it's trying to make. Really.....FFS
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 18 Jul 16 4.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Sums what up? I don't even understand what point it's trying to make. Which bit is hard for you to understand,or are just being deliberately dumb.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Jul 16 5.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Sums what up? I don't even understand what point it's trying to make. In that case you are either thicker than a whale omelette, or being deliberately obtuse. I'll bet my sweet ass it's the later of the two, because you have precisely sh1tall counter argument against his rather splendid analogy
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| EverybodyDannsNow SE19 19 Jul 16 8.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dannyh
In that case you are either thicker than a whale omelette, or being deliberately obtuse. I'll bet my sweet ass it's the later of the two, because you have precisely sh1tall counter argument against his rather splendid analogy No surprise to see you not actually make a point and throw insults around - the signature of you and your right wing boy band on here. Please explain to me what the 'splendid analogy' sums up, if you can.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jul 16 9.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It is us v them. It is our culture that defends free speech and is free to criticise and satarise v fanatical religious murderers who want to destroy everything we stand for. We won't be able to defend ourselves with good debating skills. I think if you use the phrase 'religious' in that phrase, it becomes accurate. Of course, we should consider the abuse of free speech to incite hatred, free speech isn't an absolute. Incidents where right wing groups deliberately use the defence of free speech to promote hate and incite others, should be addressed. After all we do all have to live togeather, and that does mean including some respect of the people who make up our society - all of those people.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 19 Jul 16 10.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think if you use the phrase 'religious' in that phrase, it becomes accurate. Of course, we should consider the abuse of free speech to incite hatred, free speech isn't an absolute. Incidents where right wing groups deliberately use the defence of free speech to promote hate and incite others, should be addressed. After all we do all have to live togeather, and that does mean including some respect of the people who make up our society - all of those people. Right wing groups are beside the point. What they say or do has nothing to do with the basic principle. The law says what they can and can't do.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jul 16 10.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
It's all very well to discuss the limits of free speech and the abuse of said but this kind of intellectual discussion just hides the reality. This is really a choice between the better of two evils. I know which side I'm on. There is no reasonable comparison between the two. Firstly, I don't think you can compromise with the likes of IS et al, they've chosen their side, and its us against them. However, that's not to say that Muslims in the UK and issues that are alienating them from society, which is leading to them being radicalised, can't be addressed and resolved. Free Speech and expression can exist alongside curtailing the right to incite and anger. There is no reason why the UK couldn't make it illegal to print images of the prophet Mohammed, provided they made an exception on the basis of artistic merit or for religious purposes. We have to include different subcultures and groups of minorities into society, for society to function, and part of that is compromise (because for a large part most of us, will fit into some minority subculture and group), and its reasonable to compromise 'values' within reason, to allow other citizens a richer existence. You'll always have some people who want more. But the important thing is to engage the majority. As seen in the rise of the Labour movement, accepting some form of socialism and an outlet, has proven far more productive than just ignoring the issue. Hell you can see it with UKIP's rise, on the back of the failure of Labour to represent traditional working class voters that made up the party's core. The rising militancy and radicalisation isn't anything new. Issues, alienation and lack of a means of affecting change, feed into militancy. It did in Ireland, it resulted in the Red Brigades and Baader Meinhoff phenomena, and its been that way throughout history.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 19 Jul 16 10.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Firstly, I don't think you can compromise with the likes of IS et al, they've chosen their side, and its us against them. However, that's not to say that Muslims in the UK and issues that are alienating them from society, which is leading to them being radicalised, can't be addressed and resolved. Free Speech and expression can exist alongside curtailing the right to incite and anger. There is no reason why the UK couldn't make it illegal to print images of the prophet Mohammed, provided they made an exception on the basis of artistic merit or for religious purposes. We have to include different subcultures and groups of minorities into society, for society to function, and part of that is compromise (because for a large part most of us, will fit into some minority subculture and group), and its reasonable to compromise 'values' within reason, to allow other citizens a richer existence. You'll always have some people who want more. But the important thing is to engage the majority. As seen in the rise of the Labour movement, accepting some form of socialism and an outlet, has proven far more productive than just ignoring the issue. Hell you can see it with UKIP's rise, on the back of the failure of Labour to represent traditional working class voters that made up the party's core. The rising militancy and radicalisation isn't anything new. Issues, alienation and lack of a means of affecting change, feed into militancy. It did in Ireland, it resulted in the Red Brigades and Baader Meinhoff phenomena, and its been that way throughout history. This all sounds very reasonable but I do not agree. I think there is every reason not to ban images of the prophet. It would be the thin end of the wedge and run totally counter to our secular principles. This is our country and we set the rules. The rise of UKIP had been partly because a large section of society resents having mass migration forced on them and the cultural effects that has had as well as all the financial issues. How will pandering to religious medievalism go down? It is unthinkable. We have a duty to uphold what is right and true to our beliefs. If people are offended by our attitudes then they should not choose to live in the West. We the people are not responsible for radicalising Muslims. Politicians are the ones who have throw out the welcome mat to Muslims and at the same time have been involved in very questionable military action in predominantly Muslim countries. If any one is to blame for helping radicalise it is them. The vast majority of people in the West cannot compromise their belief systems to pander to a small minority because of the actions of their governments. They created this situation and they need to sort it out by all means necessary bar appeasement. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (19 Jul 2016 10.53am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 19 Jul 16 11.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Firstly, I don't think you can compromise with the likes of IS et al, they've chosen their side, and its us against them. However, that's not to say that Muslims in the UK and issues that are alienating them from society, which is leading to them being radicalised, can't be addressed and resolved. Free Speech and expression can exist alongside curtailing the right to incite and anger. There is no reason why the UK couldn't make it illegal to print images of the prophet Mohammed, provided they made an exception on the basis of artistic merit or for religious purposes. We have to include different subcultures and groups of minorities into society, for society to function, and part of that is compromise (because for a large part most of us, will fit into some minority subculture and group), and its reasonable to compromise 'values' within reason, to allow other citizens a richer existence. You'll always have some people who want more. But the important thing is to engage the majority. As seen in the rise of the Labour movement, accepting some form of socialism and an outlet, has proven far more productive than just ignoring the issue. Hell you can see it with UKIP's rise, on the back of the failure of Labour to represent traditional working class voters that made up the party's core. The rising militancy and radicalisation isn't anything new. Issues, alienation and lack of a means of affecting change, feed into militancy. It did in Ireland, it resulted in the Red Brigades and Baader Meinhoff phenomena, and its been that way throughout history. There are no images of him, only drawings that people say are him. So making a generic image illegal would be impossible. Actual real, living, people struggle to control having their image published so making a law for a circa 1300 year old dead bloke is utter lunacy.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterAll images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.