You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The curious case of Count Dankula
December 14 2018 8.24pm

The curious case of Count Dankula

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 8 of 10 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

 

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 24 Mar 18 12.38am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Mapletree

Not really. You yourself have argued there is no such thing as objectivity. So to understand someone’s subjectivity it is relevant to look at their history and the provenance of their philosophies.

That's incorrect, in my view.

Regardless of a person's history or philosophy it makes zero difference to the validity of a point.

A point stands on its own. Who makes a point does not increase nor decrease the relevance of the point being made.

A point is not subject to the inconsistencies of who is or isn't associated with it. It stands or falls by itself.

It is true that true objectivity is impossible. However, this recognition of bias does not mean that the noble amongst us should not attempt a form of it.

As for news organizations.....the problem of objectivity tells us that the better outlets will allow both sides of an argument without directly favouring any.

I'm cynical about this in practice however. as a producer's choice of what to cover is always going to come down to their bias......and the fairness of news remains a problem.

Perhaps the US with their openly opposed news networks is the more honest approach.


Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Mar 2018 1.29am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ketteridge's Profile Ketteridge Flag Brighton 24 Mar 18 7.57am Send a Private Message to Ketteridge Add Ketteridge as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

It isn't only grumpy it's irrelevant. A point stands on its own regardless of who makes it.

He attacks everything you argued for on this whether he worked for 'Russia today' or Breitbart.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Mar 2018 10.30pm)


I think it is relevant to question Jonathan Pie's commitment to free speech when he happily accepted money and built his career at an organisation that is directly funded by one of the the world's most oppressive regimes.
As much as I might dislike breitbart they do not directly threaten or imprison opposing voices, they operate with and a based in County which allows free expression.
As I said in my original post for me the Dankula cases isn't about free speech. It is about him breaking laws on social norms, every society in history has had these laws either formal or informal , and with a few exceptions, every sub group, club, institution and work place has them.

You can use the former to challenge the latter. I will defend the right of people all around and in Britain if needed, I'd rather we supported those people who freedom of speech is genuinely being threatened and aren't just breaking social norms and laws for a cheap laugh and a few views.


 


One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 24 Mar 18 2.58pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Ketteridge


I think it is relevant to question Jonathan Pie's commitment to free speech when he happily accepted money and built his career at an organisation that is directly funded by one of the the world's most oppressive regimes.
As much as I might dislike breitbart they do not directly threaten or imprison opposing voices, they operate with and a based in County which allows free expression.
As I said in my original post for me the Dankula cases isn't about free speech. It is about him breaking laws on social norms, every society in history has had these laws either formal or informal , and with a few exceptions, every sub group, club, institution and work place has them.

You can use the former to challenge the latter. I will defend the right of people all around and in Britain if needed, I'd rather we supported those people who freedom of speech is genuinely being threatened and aren't just breaking social norms and laws for a cheap laugh and a few views.


So for you it isn't about free speech...

To quote you, 'It is about him breaking laws on social norms, every society in history has had these laws either formal or informal , and with a few exceptions, every sub group, club, institution and work place has them.'

Who is to say what 'social norms' are valid reasons to lock people up on?....I certainly disagree with you about the 'norms' you suggest here...The US doesn't have what you refer to as 'norms' and yet is a very similar state to this one. Also we didn't have the 'norms' that Dankula was been perversely convicted over as recently as a decade or so ago.....because as I stated this type of conviction was not the original intention of that act...it was tacked on.

Ok, a few decades ago, homosexuality was banned and that was not only the law but the 'social norm'. Hence given that your objection isn't one of free speech but of abiding by the law.....I take it that seeing as you defend the law being enacted that you are happy with those convictions and punishments laid out by the legal profession of those times.

I take it you also reject pardons that have been retrospectively provided.

If you don't agree with that then rather obviously your opinions are actually just about this interpretation of the law agreeing with your own convictions.....rather than any rubbish about following the law.

Also, I have to state again, the validity of a point has nothing to do with the person making it. So you smearing Pie over work he did in the past is a logical fallacy......just as is the absurd suggestion that if you take money from any institution that this automatically means that you agree with the institution.


Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Mar 2018 3.09pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ketteridge's Profile Ketteridge Flag Brighton 24 Mar 18 7.17pm Send a Private Message to Ketteridge Add Ketteridge as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

So for you it isn't about free speech...

To quote you, 'It is about him breaking laws on social norms, every society in history has had these laws either formal or informal , and with a few exceptions, every sub group, club, institution and work place has them.'

Who is to say what 'social norms' are valid reasons to lock people up on?....I certainly disagree with you about the 'norms' you suggest here...The US doesn't have what you refer to as 'norms' and yet is a very similar state to this one. Also we didn't have the 'norms' that Dankula was been perversely convicted over as recently as a decade or so ago.....because as I stated this type of conviction was not the original intention of that act...it was tacked on.

Ok, a few decades ago, homosexuality was banned and that was not only the law but the 'social norm'. Hence given that your objection isn't one of free speech but of abiding by the law.....I take it that seeing as you defend the law being enacted that you are happy with those convictions and punishments laid out by the legal profession of those times.

I take it you also reject pardons that have been retrospectively provided.

If you don't agree with that then rather obviously your opinions are actually just about this interpretation of the law agreeing with your own convictions.....rather than any rubbish about following the law.

Also, I have to state again, the validity of a point has nothing to do with the person making it. So you smearing Pie over work he did in the past is a logical fallacy......just as is the absurd suggestion that if you take money from any institution that this automatically means that you agree with the institution.


Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Mar 2018 3.09pm)


To Quote 'The US doesn't have what you refer to as 'norms' of course it does I'm not an expert on but if you want to test it we could go on prime time tv in the U.S and flop out my little 'ketteridge'and your little 'stirling'and see what the reactions is, either social or legal.


'I take it you also reject pardons that have been retrospectively provided.'
'
If you don't agree with that then rather obviously your opinions are actually just about this interpretation of the law agreeing with your own convictions.....rather than any rubbish about following the law'
Sorry the one position doesn't follow the other. The law derives it's basis from a democratic process and reflects the will of the people. However if these are wrong, unjust or indanger peoples personal freedoms than it is right that people use their freedom of speech to fight them.
This is really the point I've been making all along, if he breaks these social norms to better society or right injustice I would defend him, even if these imjustices were just percieved rather than actual. This man wanted to annoy his girlfiend.

As it happens I think your right about Pie, his support doesn't vaildate the arguement, neither does the support of Gervais and Baddiel. His being funded by Russia Today doesn't ivalidate his point it simple make him a hypocrite but as you say the point is the point not who is saying it.

 


One supporter of hacking argued that without it "you will do away with the courage and pluck of the game, and I will be bound to bring over a lot of Frenchmen who would beat you with a week's practice -Blackheath secretary at first meeting of the F.A

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View pefwin's Profile pefwin Flag Fighting the politics of envy 24 Mar 18 8.50pm Send a Private Message to pefwin Add pefwin as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I keep making this mistake with this word.

dyslexic

lol

 


"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 24 Mar 18 9.59pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by pefwin

dyslexic

lol

You can't even get this right. The word wasn't misspelt it was simply the wrong word choice.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Beanyboysmd's Profile Beanyboysmd Flag 25 Mar 18 3.24am Send a Private Message to Beanyboysmd Add Beanyboysmd as a friend

Several spinoff points here...

If a comedian did this, they would be a satirical genius, walking the fine lines of social norms in our society. Unfortunatly he is a YouTuber, and for some reason YouTubers doing things that comedians do is automaticly 'dispicable' and 'an indication that the fabric of society has broken down. I have seen countless examples of this but this one has hit mainstream fully. 'Gas the jews'...disgraceful if a youtuber uses it ironicly and £6 on dvd if its done on Borat.

They claim context doesnt matter, but surely thats the only thing that matters, it is almost the definition of comedy. If context doesnt matter then the person reading the quote in court broke the law too...

People are claiming free speech is at stake but we are all hypocrites here, we want free speech to be limited but only when it suits us. I am a borderline leftie hippie but I was first in line for wanting Abu Hamsa to be deported for hate speech.

Comedy/entertainment is subjective but should only be restrictive if it causes harm, so you need to look realisticlyas to whether or not this would cause potential harm. I dont think it would but if its devisive enough to have 8 pages of threads then I have to admit that maybe it does...

Just chucking my first thoughts on it in there. I will definatly be interested in where this goes though...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 23 Apr 18 11.06am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

Several spinoff points here...

If a comedian did this, they would be a satirical genius, walking the fine lines of social norms in our society. Unfortunatly he is a YouTuber, and for some reason YouTubers doing things that comedians do is automaticly 'dispicable' and 'an indication that the fabric of society has broken down. I have seen countless examples of this but this one has hit mainstream fully. 'Gas the jews'...disgraceful if a youtuber uses it ironicly and £6 on dvd if its done on Borat.

A complete non point that exists only in your own head.

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

They claim context doesnt matter, but surely thats the only thing that matters, it is almost the definition of comedy. If context doesnt matter then the person reading the quote in court broke the law too...

Amusingly you get this completely arse faced. It's the court who claimed that 'context doesn't matter'. Dankula's whole point was that 'context does matter'....which is precisely why at the start of the video that he makes clear that it's a joke video intended to upset his girlfriend by training the dog she adores to do the most vile thing he can think of....which is a Nazi salute.

It was the people charging Dankula that said that context doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

People are claiming free speech is at stake but we are all hypocrites here, we want free speech to be limited but only when it suits us. I am a borderline leftie hippie but I was first in line for wanting Abu Hamsa to be deported for hate speech.

Errr...sorry? Give me an example of where I'm a hypocrite mate.

I'm not a free speech absolutist.....and importantly free speech has never been absolute in this country or in any country.

Free speech used to be about free except for 'incitement to violence, libel or obscenity.' These aspects had to quite rightly require to be proven.

The fact that our politicians have made 'offence' a factor in this is truly disappointing.....and many of us are genuinely envious of the American first amendment.

Originally posted by Beanyboysmd

Comedy/entertainment is subjective but should only be restrictive if it causes harm, so you need to look realisticlyas to whether or not this would cause potential harm. I dont think it would but if its devisive enough to have 8 pages of threads then I have to admit that maybe it does...

Just chucking my first thoughts on it in there. I will definatly be interested in where this goes though...

Who gets to decide on whether something 'causes harm'. That's what the idiot judge did here and frankly I quite happy to call him an idiot and all those that support him as idiots.

Most things can be claimed to be offensive to somebody....There's a reason why the US Constitution ruled this out and is a bastion of free speech.

When 'perception' is classed as 'harm' then society opens itself up to snowflakes and outrage culture having legal enforcement support.

No thank you.....but one day these laws will be used against your beliefs.....and when that day comes I won't support it but at least I'll know who the real hypocrites are.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Apr 2018 12.22pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 23 Apr 18 11.11am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Dankula fined £800 quid.

I don't know yet if he's going to pay it.

Demonstration occurring as we speak.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Park Road's Profile Park Road Flag 23 Apr 18 11.33am Send a Private Message to Park Road Add Park Road as a friend

After the guilty verdict last month, comedian Ricky Gervais wrote on Twitter: "A man has been convicted in a UK court of making a joke that was deemed 'grossly offensive'.

"If you don't believe in a person's right to say things that you might find 'grossly offensive', then you don't believe in Freedom of Speech."

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Beanyboysmd's Profile Beanyboysmd Flag 23 Apr 18 12.09pm Send a Private Message to Beanyboysmd Add Beanyboysmd as a friend

Originally posted by Ketteridge


I think it is relevant to question Jonathan Pie's commitment to free speech when he happily accepted money and built his career at an organisation that is directly funded by one of the the world's most oppressive regimes.
As much as I might dislike breitbart they do not directly threaten or imprison opposing voices, they operate with and a based in County which allows free expression.
As I said in my original post for me the Dankula cases isn't about free speech. It is about him breaking laws on social norms, every society in history has had these laws either formal or informal , and with a few exceptions, every sub group, club, institution and work place has them.

You can use the former to challenge the latter. I will defend the right of people all around and in Britain if needed, I'd rather we supported those people who freedom of speech is genuinely being threatened and aren't just breaking social norms and laws for a cheap laugh and a few views.


You do know that Jonathan Pie is a character right? This is like watching people trying to use Alan Partridge as an arguement for their ideology. Yes Mr Pie is slightly to the left and I hate his controversial views on the pedestrianisation of Norwich city centre but his links to the bbc and radio norwich destroy his credibility...

He is an entertainer ffs, he is a parody of reporters that have to read out guff while having to hold back his own opinions on stuff that should actually be discussed, he is funny, he is brilliant satirical and he is about as real as wrestling...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 23 Apr 18 3.30pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Tim Pool filming a video on the demonstration for Count Dankula....a demonstration the impartial BBC described as 'small'.


[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 8 of 10 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > The curious case of Count Dankula