No they're not arbitrary. Far from it. Otherwise there would be no point in having them. If you don't believe in basic human rights, you're (at best) a fool. What a load of crap. Any civilised society absolutely requires limits to autonomy. Wow, this is truly enlightening. Nonsense. You and I and everybody are subject to law. It's what creates civilisation and society. And 'aggressed against' - what about the subject of the EDL's hate - are they not 'aggressed against', or have agreed to 'enslave themselves'? It's not moral idealism, it's a ridiculous cop-out, an unwillingness to see both sides. Free speech (and indeed any express of autonomy) can not and should not be limitless, because when it is, it can be and is abused to the detriment of others. THAT is reality, and no pseudo-philosophical nonsense about 'laws of autonomy' changes that.
Actually he is Dev. Give it up. Whenever you get to the "ignore him etc...etc, he's at it, flim flam etc, etc.." means that you have lost the argument. Just like Admiral Piss Poor. Seen it so often that it has become tedious.
In all too many long years, you have revealed your true leanings towards tedious repetition as 'humour'. Boring, boring, boring.
“All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger and Muslims. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it. We, with God's help, call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. “ “[Muslims should] attack the interests of the Jews and the Americans. Select your targets, collect the appropriate funds, assemble your equipment, plan accurately and then charge towards your targets. There is no place today for those who claim that the battlefield with the Jews is limited to Palestine. Let us hit their interests everywhere”. Ayman al-Zawahiri Is this Free speech too?
Anyone can invent any human right they like. They aren't naturally-occuring and they aren't self-evident. They are therefore arbitrary. Am I wrong? Ad hom. Ignore. Is systematic use of violence really civilized? And if it is, why is that a good thing? Exactly, it surprises me how many people fail to realize this and think that it's acceptable for one man/group of men to illegitimately claim ownership of other people. They aren't physically aggressed against, no. Words are not a forceful physical exertion of ownership. The fact that law governs the lives of some who don't want to be governed by it shows to me that it's immoral in its current form. Words are used all the time to the detriment of others and they always will be. To forcefully repress someone from saying whatever the hell they want is violence which is wrong. If you see that as a cop-out, too bad, but please explain to me why non-consensual violence is morally justifiable and I'll shut up. Yes it is. It's a person speaking freely therefore it's free speech. However if people actually do those things, it's violence which is wrong. There's a huge gap between saying something and doing something. I'm arguing that everyone is naturally equipped to say whatever they like but not naturally equipped to attack other people without consent. Is that not totally self-evident?
The harm caused to society as a whole by the effects of hate speech, things such as the incitement to violence, employment prospects, and casual racism, can be argued to be greater than the harm caused to society by curtailing some aspects of freedom of speech. If someone runs around the place making hoax bomb threats, they are held responsible for the effect their actions have. If someone is saying things that are causing discrimination against the Muslim community, or the Jews, or Ulster Unionists, or whoever, why should they be treated any differently?
In this instance. This instance being the invention of human rights which are totally arbitrary, that is to say without reasoned substance. Anyone can invent one, it doesn't mean it should be violently enforced. If we have a 'right to universal healthcare' and healthcare providers don't want to serve neo-Nazis for instance, the only way to enforce a 'human right to universal healthcare' is to violently force the healthcare provider to serve those people. It includes violence, therefore it is wrong. The same's true of any other made up 'human right', they're all bullshit.
OK: no 'human right' has any more legitimacy than any other. Terry from the greasy spoon cafe could make a human right to bacon sandwiches, a bunch of suits in Geneva could make a human right to universal state education. Neither of them is more legitimate than the other because neither of them actually exist in nature. When I speak of human autonomy, that's an obvious thing that exists in nature. We all control ourselves. We aren't, however, born with some bodily extension that guarantees us bacon sarnies, free education or any other arbitrary, invented human right.
I have told you before it is not humpur. You revealed yourself as a bigot on TF when you would not entertain that there were problems on both sides of the Irish initiated religious divide. Bigot through and through - maybe you find that humorous but I certainly don't.
If you crave free speech then yes by definition it ios Dev. Quite patently obvious in fact. We in Britain allowed The Claw the free speech. But any other so called racist/bigoted/whatever creed are not allowed their voice. Hmmmmm, interesting thoughts there.
So people are free to tell others to commit crimes or attack and kill other people because thatâs âfree speechâ? Have you ever heard of âThe lawâ? Honestly? If I say to someone that I am going to attack them (and I am capable of doing so) that is âassaultâ , it matters not a jot whether I actually physically assault them because a âCrimeâ has been committed whether or not physical force is used, see if you can figure out where I am going with this?
