You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > HOLS obsession with racism?
March 22 2019 10.23am

HOLS obsession with racism?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 35 of 38 < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >

 

Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 24 Feb 19 3.17pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't believe that there are any restrictions on lawful free speech. There are just those who feel that whatever they say ought not to be subject to any restrictions.

Restricting certain sections of society, whatever their political views might be, from making trouble, is a duty placed by us on those with the authority to do so.

But I would argue that all religious preaching should be restricted on that basis because it surely leads to more unrest than anything.

When you censor Churchill. you are giving power to the irrational and the violent. Is that what you advocate?

Did you sympathise with the attack on Charlie Hebdo?
They offended a particular group of people and were murderously attacked.
Is it right that free speech should pay the price or should it be those that use words and pictures as an excuse for law breaking who should be brought to book?

Who is more to blame? Both did what they do because they uphold a particular belief system.

People use words to incite but those that react violently should not be empowered. Equally, the validity of political ideas should not be selective unless the words used actually incite lawbreaking. There is also a question of the political influences on the law itself. The law is not above corruption.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 24 Feb 19 4.53pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by dannyboy1978

The girls in this video are the by product
Of universities.
[Link]

They use free speech to openly lie about people


Yep, the video pretty much shows why mainstream media are so effective.....because so many people trust, what they consider to be their betters, to 'pre digest' their thinking for them and tell them what they should think.


Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Feb 2019 4.54pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Cebu, Philippines & Wisbech, Cambr... 24 Feb 19 10.27pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

But I would argue that all religious preaching should be restricted on that basis because it surely leads to more unrest than anything.

I believe that a strong case can be made which restricts all proselytisation to private places, like Churches, Mosques or homes, where you can be invited to hear what is being said and decide for yourself whether to accept, or not.

When you censor Churchill. you are giving power to the irrational and the violent. Is that what you advocate?

Of course I don't advocate censoring Churchill. All I have said is that any quote, from any source, when taken out of context and/or selectively quoted can be misused. We all know that you can find a Biblical quote to support every prejudice known to man. That doesn't mean that the Bible should be censored! It just means nothing stands alone.

Did you sympathise with the attack on Charlie Hebdo?
They offended a particular group of people and were murderously attacked.
Is it right that free speech should pay the price or should it be those that use words and pictures as an excuse for law breaking who should be brought to book?

Of course I didn't support the attack on Charlie Hebdo. From all I saw about what was published it was a perfectly fair opinion being expressed in a legal way. If anyone felt offended then they need not buy, or read, the magazine.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 24 Feb 19 11.02pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

But I would argue that all religious preaching should be restricted on that basis because it surely leads to more unrest than anything.

I believe that a strong case can be made which restricts all proselytisation to private places, like Churches, Mosques or homes, where you can be invited to hear what is being said and decide for yourself whether to accept, or not.

No a strong case cannot be made for this.

This is a similar state of affairs for Christian churches in several Islamic countries. They are only allowed to practice their religion within their own building and if they are foolish enough to try and convert people they are punished for it.

Once you say religions cannot enter the public space then the next step is political opinions you don't like or that some people find offensive.

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course I don't advocate censoring Churchill. All I have said is that any quote, from any source, when taken out of context and/or selectively quoted can be misused. We all know that you can find a Biblical quote to support every prejudice known to man. That doesn't mean that the Bible should be censored! It just means nothing stands alone.

You have advocated for the laws that enabled this arrest to happen.

Before 'New Labour' arrived none of these laws existed to allow this.....you know...back in 'traditional Tory' times.

So this is disingenuous waffle.

As for your 'context' argument. This is more waffle. Context is subjective. Saying 'nothing stands alone' amounts to nothing.

If the 'perception' of offence doesn't exist as a charge then no one can be arrested for quoting Churchill or anything else.

You support the laws that enable that and we don't.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2019 1.16am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Cebu, Philippines & Wisbech, Cambr... 25 Feb 19 9.13am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

No a strong case cannot be made for this.

This is a similar state of affairs for Christian churches in several Islamic countries. They are only allowed to practice their religion within their own building and if they are foolish enough to try and convert people they are punished for it.

Once you say religions cannot enter the public space then the next step is political opinions you don't like or that some people find offensive.

That's bs! It is not at all like the repression of Christianity in Islamist countries because I am arguing for the restriction of ALL proselytisation in public spaces. That includes ALL religions and not just one and would also include anti-religion rallies and the like. Taken to an extreme it could include any attempt in public to convert others to your own opinion so would need some careful drafting.

You have advocated for the laws that enabled this arrest to happen.

You are the one being disingenuous once again. I have not advocated anything of the sort. All I have argued is that just because certain pieces of text appear in books doesn't mean you can quote them at will and expect to be able to justify using them just because of the author. It's the words and the context which need to be considered. You would not defend an Imam quoting aggressive passages from the Quran whilst waving his hands, calling for jihad and being able to successfully claim he was only quoting from a book.

Before 'New Labour' arrived none of these laws existed to allow this.....you know...back in 'traditional Tory' times.

This has nothing to do with "New Labour" or any other political party. It is just both the law, made by Parliament as a whole and common sense


As for your 'context' argument. This is more waffle. Context is subjective. Saying 'nothing stands alone' amounts to nothing.

More bs! Context is not subjective. It exists. It is real. It can be seen by everyone, except the willfully blind.

If the 'perception' of offence doesn't exist as a charge then no one can be arrested for quoting Churchill or anything else.

You support the laws that enable that and we don't.

You seek to introduce "perception" as an argument only because you don't agree with the law. There is nothing whatsoever new in this. Every law which requires a "reasonable" thing to have happened requires perception, otherwise known as a judgement. As those whose responsibility it is to make those judgements are professional, highly skilled and educated Judges, then it isn't our opinion of the law which matters. It is for the Judge to make a judgement.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2019 1.16am)

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (25 Feb 2019 9.16am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View blackheatheagle's Profile blackheatheagle Online Flag Blackheath 25 Feb 19 9.27am Send a Private Message to blackheatheagle Add blackheatheagle as a friend

Sorry to intervene but would like to add few comments of using some passages from Holy Books without understanding the context.

That is a reasonable ask but what i disagree is context of Holy Books is not so healthy as well thus understanding the context is not helping anything.

Context is us and them. Labeling `us` as good person and believers whereas `them` as non-believers no matter if they are good or not. This mindset is dictated several times, this is why i am not surprised when extremist motivate each other when mind is already set for them. This was the main element of any war which was driven by religious beliefs for over 1000 years, isn`t it?

Edited by blackheatheagle (25 Feb 2019 9.28am)

Edited by blackheatheagle (25 Feb 2019 9.28am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 25 Feb 19 10.56am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I believe that a strong case can be made which restricts all proselytisation to private places, like Churches, Mosques or homes, where you can be invited to hear what is being said and decide for yourself whether to accept, or not.

And yet people cannot decide for themselves when someone is quoting Churhill it seems.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Cebu, Philippines & Wisbech, Cambr... 25 Feb 19 11.06am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

And yet people cannot decide for themselves when someone is quoting Churhill it seems.

As many, if not most, won't have read him then no they cannot. Words on their own convey their own meaning, often interpreted by the reader to the listener with a particular emphasis.

It is that interpretation being judged and not the original author.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 25 Feb 19 11.16am Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As many, if not most, won't have read him then no they cannot. Words on their own convey their own meaning, often interpreted by the reader to the listener with a particular emphasis.

It is that interpretation being judged and not the original author.


I don't accept that.

People have a poor understanding of any number of things. The fact that someone has not read the entire works of an author or a religious book from cover to cover or have a detailed understanding of the intended meaning does not validate censorship.

If you allow the censorship mentality to prevail then you are into a Fahrenheit 451 scenario where what people might do with ideas is used as a justification for burning all books.

A slippery slope.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Cebu, Philippines & Wisbech, Cambr... 25 Feb 19 12.22pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger


I don't accept that.

People have a poor understanding of any number of things. The fact that someone has not read the entire works of an author or a religious book from cover to cover or have a detailed understanding of the intended meaning does not validate censorship.

If you allow the censorship mentality to prevail then you are into a Fahrenheit 451 scenario where what people might do with ideas is used as a justification for burning all books.

A slippery slope.

I am not suggesting that Churchill, the Bible or the Quran be made unavailable, censored, let alone be burned.

All I am suggesting is that quoting from any of them, taken out of context and used in a particular way, can be enough to justify the users intent being considered unlawful. Not on their own, but taken as part of something else.

If someone decided to do a public reading of the whole Churchill book, Bible or Quran, without offering any interjections or interpretations of the meaning, then who could object? Selecting specific passages that support a particular narrative and then putting their own spin on them could well be considered unlawful if delivered in a way, or in a place, that might cause a breach of the peace.

It all depends on context and intent and has nothing at all to do with seeking to censor the original author.

You simply cannot justify hate speech by finding a passage in a book whose words, by chance, happen to support your hate.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 25 Feb 19 12.38pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am not suggesting that Churchill, the Bible or the Quran be made unavailable, censored, let alone be burned.

All I am suggesting is that quoting from any of them, taken out of context and used in a particular way, can be enough to justify the users intent being considered unlawful. Not on their own, but taken as part of something else.

If someone decided to do a public reading of the whole Churchill book, Bible or Quran, without offering any interjections or interpretations of the meaning, then who could object? Selecting specific passages that support a particular narrative and then putting their own spin on them could well be considered unlawful if delivered in a way, or in a place, that might cause a breach of the peace.

It all depends on context and intent and has nothing at all to do with seeking to censor the original author.

You simply cannot justify hate speech by finding a passage in a book whose words, by chance, happen to support your hate.

Something is unlawful or not.


Was the quote directly inciting unlawful behaviour or not?
More likely, someone in authority decided that they didn't like the politics of the person quoting it and therein lies the problem.

Who decides and why?

How far down this road shall we go and in whose name?

Does it not occur to you that 'hate speech' is often just another euphemism for wrong think?

Show me the 'hate speech' related to this case and let us decide what hate was involved.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag Wisbech, England 25 Feb 19 12.41pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am not suggesting that Churchill, the Bible or the Quran be made unavailable, censored, let alone be burned.

All I am suggesting is that quoting from any of them, taken out of context and used in a particular way, can be enough to justify the users intent being considered unlawful. Not on their own, but taken as part of something else.

If someone decided to do a public reading of the whole Churchill book, Bible or Quran, without offering any interjections or interpretations of the meaning, then who could object? Selecting specific passages that support a particular narrative and then putting their own spin on them could well be considered unlawful if delivered in a way, or in a place, that might cause a breach of the peace.

It all depends on context and intent and has nothing at all to do with seeking to censor the original author.

You simply cannot justify hate speech by finding a passage in a book whose words, by chance, happen to support your hate.

These are the kind of sentences that the far left write.

The 'hate' word has been used to justify criminalising speech which wasn't criminal before.

That is what has happened here.

There is no justification for a person who believes in free speech. Censorship of opinions someone doesn't like, describing a viewpoint as 'hate' is insidious.

There is 'incitement to violence', provable 'libel', provable 'obscenity'.....with the last of these being more subjective.

Those were 'traditional Tory' values on free speech. I still hold them.

This is why stand up comedians no longer play universities in the US.....it's spreading.....How long before the cancer of these people stops 'speaker's corner'?

That's what these people are doing here.....The Soviets tried to introduce this concept into international human rights law when it was being drafted after WW2 back in the forties and the western allies rejected it and now we have it because this generation of leaders are not a patch on our forebears.


Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Feb 2019 2.44pm)

 

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

 

Page 35 of 38 < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > HOLS obsession with racism?