The EDL & SDL

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Donald F*ck said:
You said "anyone defending their rights to "free speech" is equally as much a fandan as this pile of slavering ****s." With you surely not declaring yourself to being a slavering **** fandan, that leads me to the only logical conclusion which is that you believe these people shouldn't be granted free speech. The only way to enforce that would be by repressing their ability to speak freely. But please do point out how my reasoning is wrong, unless I've made a false assumption and you are in fact professing to be a slavering ****. <ok>
It was a question from me anyway, not a statement. Why you didn't give a proper answer is beyond me, it was a pretty simple yes/no affair; no need to be so defensive and uppity, my man.
Click to expand...

Let's roll back to when you said "So you would ideally like to see a scenario where they are forcefully repressed from expressing their views?".
That was what you said despite me making no statement to that effect. I never said anything about anyone being "forcefully repressed" from airing their views, in fact what I was saying (which seemed to fly over your head) was that Free Speech is not what the EDL are partaking in.

So in essence what I was saying was Free Speech is fine and dandy but hatred based upon nothing but religious intolerance is not Free Speech and therefore anyone (including the EDL) should be forcefully repressed from expressing their views when those views are based upon nothing but blind ignorance.
 
Admiral Pure said:
You 'don't believe in human rights'. <laugh> Seriously, you 'don't believe in human rights'? <doh>

Either you believe in totalitarianism/authoritarianism or you do actually believe in human rights. The fact that you say you believe that 'noone has any legitimate reason to shut us up' rather contradicts your so-called lack of a belief in human rights (in this instance the right to speak freely). Which ever, your statement is complete bollocks.

If you believe in 'human realities', then the 'reality' is we live in a country in which the law attempts to balance the right to freedom of speech with the right to live free of intimidation. Whether or not the law is implemented fairly is of course a matter of debate. Regardless of your views of the rights and wrongs of the law, it is not 'human reality' to expect to be able to say anything free of any consequences and it never has been. To think otherwise is almost ridiculously naive.
Click to expand...

In precisely what way is having a different viewpoint an "intimidation". If you state that free speech has to be tempered by what one strata of society (rightly or wrongly) adheres to then you are precluding people from free speech just because it does not "sit well with your viewpoint". A dangerous road to go down no matter what your viewpoint. Verging on Facism and no say for anyone that does not "toe the majority's (or minorities) point of view.
 
1980EasterRoad said:
In precisely what way is having a different viewpoint an "intimidation". If you state that free speech has to be tempered by what one strata of society (rightly or wrongly) adheres to then you are precluding people from free speech just because it does not "sit well with your viewpoint". A dangerous road to go down no matter what your viewpoint. Verging on Facism and no say for anyone that does not "toe the majority's (or minorities) point of view.
Click to expand...

What Donald is suggesting is that he does not belive in Human Rights so who's the facist?

ps Trev, just **** off you moron.
 
DevAdvocate said:
What Donald is suggesting is that he does not belive in Human Rights so who's the facist?

ps Trev, just **** off you moron.
Click to expand...

Both of them are in that they have no understanding nor any intention of understanding someone that has a radically polarised view to their own.

That in itself is inherently intolerant and Facist.
 
Admiral Pure said:
You 'don't believe in human rights'. <laugh> Seriously, you 'don't believe in human rights'? <doh>
Click to expand...

Human rights are arbitrary. They don't exist in reality. I can invent a 'human right not to be offended' or a 'human right to ironing boards' which is complete bullshit and has no more legitimacy than any other 'human right'.

Admiral Pure said:
Either you believe in totalitarianism/authoritarianism or you do actually believe in human rights.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in either which means that's false.

Admiral Pure said:
The fact that you say you believe that 'noone has any legitimate reason to shut us up' rather contradicts your so-called lack of a belief in human rights (in this instance the right to speak freely). Which ever, your statement is complete bollocks.
Click to expand...

No, it's my belief in the self-evident natural law of human autonomy. Is any other person born with a legitimate reason to forcefully shut others up? No, because we are only born as ourselves and not as other people which means that unless they agree to enslave themselves, they are self-determined beings who should not legitimately be aggressed against.

Admiral Pure said:
If you believe in 'human realities', then the 'reality' is we live in a country in which the law attempts to balance the right to freedom of speech with the right to live free of intimidation. Whether or not the law is implemented fairly is of course a matter of debate. Regardless of your views of the rights and wrongs of the law, it is not 'human reality' to expect to be able to say anything free of any consequences and it never has been. To think otherwise is almost ridiculously naive.
Click to expand...

That's moral idealism for you. When I spoke of human realities, I was talking about the autonomy of the human being, not the tyranny of governments. But yes, it is the reality that laws suppress free speech and that's something we're all forced to live under at gunpoint.

DevAdvocate said:
Let's roll back to when you said "So you would ideally like to see a scenario where they are forcefully repressed from expressing their views?".
That was what you said despite me making no statement to that effect. I never said anything about anyone being "forcefully repressed" from airing their views, in fact what I was saying (which seemed to fly over your head) was that Free Speech is not what the EDL are partaking in.
Click to expand...

You're just repeating what was said earlier, see my previous answer about the only reasonable alternative to your proposition being a forceful repression. Anyway, you admit to wanting to forcefully repress free speech below so it's a moot point.

DevAdvocate said:
So in essence what I was saying was Free Speech is fine and dandy but hatred based upon nothing but religious intolerance is not Free Speech and therefore anyone (including the EDL) should be forcefully repressed from expressing their views when those views are based upon nothing but blind ignorance.
Click to expand...

Why is hatred based upon nothing but religious intolerance not free speech? Any person speaking freely is free speech, it doesn't matter what sounds they are making with their lips or what letters they are forming with their fingers on a keyboard. Their reasoning might be flawed and their beliefs might be repulsive, but unless I've missed something, free speech does not discriminate against opinions. That's for other people to do with their free speech. The fact you forcefully want to repress that shows you do not think free speech is "fine and dandy" at all, it's only fine and dandy when it suits you for it to be.
 
Donald F*ck said:
Why is hatred based upon nothing but religious intolerance not free speech? Any person speaking freely is free speech, it doesn't matter what sounds they are making with their lips or what letters they are forming with their fingers on a keyboard. Their reasoning might be flawed and their beliefs might be repulsive, but unless I've missed something, free speech does not discriminate against opinions. That's for other people to do with their free speech. The fact you forcefully want to repress that shows you do not think free speech is "fine and dandy" at all, it's only fine and dandy when it suits you for it to be.
Click to expand...

Don't be a dick duck. You are talking a right load of old ****e now and even if I believed you were serious I would not entertain you with a debate. Suffice to say that you seem somewhat confused or just ****ing downright dense.
 
<doh>

I should have known, you are/were that ****ing idiot Loiner who thinks he's prfound. Newsflash, you are a ****ing tool so **** off with you nonsense and stop trying to be clever.
 
Not really, you talk in riddles and evade when necessary (which is often), your comments on this thread alone show you for what you are and are typical of the sort of nonsensical drivel which is posted just to cause an argument.

Go and pester someone who has time to waste arguing with your gibberish, but if they have any sense they will see through you and ignore you too.
 
Donald F*ck said:
Children, the mentally ill and animals aren't able to reasonably give consent in my opinion. Which means that sex with them is tantamount to rape.
Click to expand...

Absolute cop-out.

Are you trying to tell me a 13 year old girl isn't able to give consent to having sex? That's bullshit mate and you know it. But to admit it you would have to admit your claim that "I believe everything should be consensual in life" is wrong and you aren't man enough to do that, are you?
 
StereoTypist said:
Absolute cop-out.

Are you trying to tell me a 13 year old girl isn't able to give consent to having sex? That's bullshit mate and you know it. But to admit it you would have to admit your claim that "I believe everything should be consensual in life" is wrong and you aren't man enough to do that, are you?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I failed to qualify that with a clause about those I feel are inable to reasonably give consent. I'll admit that, it was an oversight. I stated the rule without stating the exceptions.

Deciding when a child is able to give consent is a toughie. It can't be determined with an arbitrary age threshold which decides when every child becomes an adult; I guess it's just one of those arbitrary things in life where if kids are consensually having sex, they're consensually having sex. I still think it's gravely wrong if an adult uses forces of compulsion or airs of authority to make them do that.
 
1980EasterRoad said:
In precisely what way is having a different viewpoint an "intimidation". If you state that free speech has to be tempered by what one strata of society (rightly or wrongly) adheres to then you are precluding people from free speech just because it does not "sit well with your viewpoint". A dangerous road to go down no matter what your viewpoint. Verging on Facism and no say for anyone that does not "toe the majority's (or minorities) point of view.
Click to expand...

What the **** are you talking about? I'm simply stating the blindingly obvious that a person's right to be a racist bigot has to be balanced (legally and morally) against the rights of the individuals of that race/religion not to be subjected to racism. How is that even vaguely controversial far less 'verging on facism (sic)'? <laugh>
 
Admiral Pure said:
What the **** are you talking about? I'm simply stating the blindingly obvious that a person's right to be a racist bigot has to be balanced (legally and morally) against the rights of the individuals of that race/religion not to be subjected to racism. How is that even vaguely controversial far less 'verging on facism (sic)'? <laugh>
Click to expand...

In a few short months you have revealed your true leanings towards both bigotry and fascism.

You are doing well sonny <ok>

Everyone in a free society is allowed a voice even one as banal and insipid and idealistic as yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back