The EDL & SDL

[DevAdvocate]

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)'?

Ignore him AP, you will get no sesne from him, just more flim flam and evasion.

 

[DevAdvocate]

Donald is kicking Dev's ass here

I'm sure he is.

 

[Admiral Pure]

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'.

No they're not arbitrary. Far from it. Otherwise there would be no point in having them.

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

If you don't believe in basic human rights, you're (at best) a fool.

No, it's my belief in the self-evident natural law of human autonomy.

What a load of crap. Any civilised society absolutely requires limits to 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

Wow, this is truly enlightening.

which means that unless they agree to enslave themselves, they are self-determined beings who should not legitimately be aggressed against.

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'?

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.

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.

 

[RAVENBLACK]

I'm sure he is.

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.

 

[Admiral Pure]

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

You are doing well sonny

Everyone in a free society is allowed a voice even one as banal and insipid and idealistic as yours.

In all too many long years, you have revealed your true leanings towards tedious repetition as 'humour'.

Boring, boring, boring.

 

[DevAdvocate]

“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?

 

[Jerel Ifil]

No they're not arbitrary. Far from it. Otherwise there would be no point in having them.

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?

If you don't believe in basic human rights, you're (at best) a fool.

Ad hom. Ignore.

What a load of crap. Any civilised society absolutely requires limits to autonomy.

Is systematic use of violence really civilized? And if it is, why is that a good thing?

Wow, this is truly enlightening.

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.

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'?

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.

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.

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.

“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?

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 Raging Oxter]

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?

Of course you're wrong. Are you sure you know what arbitrary means?

 

[Jerel Ifil]

Of course you're wrong. Are you sure you know what arbitrary means?

Without reasoned substance, in this instance.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

Without reasoned substance, in this instance.

in what instance?

 

[peadar1987]

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?

 

[Girvan Loyal 1690]

So where are we on the whole EDL thing?

Goodies or Baddies?

 

[Jerel Ifil]

in what instance?

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.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

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.

You need to explain this further.

 

[Jerel Ifil]

You need to explain this further.

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.

 

[The Raging Oxter]

Okay.

But we have a Human Rights Act.

 

[Jerel Ifil]

A Human Rights Act which is plagued with the same bullshit I've been describing.

 

[RAVENBLACK]

In all too many long years, you have revealed your true leanings towards tedious repetition as 'humour'.

Boring, boring, boring.

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.

 

[RAVENBLACK]

“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?

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.

 

[DevAdvocate]

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?

So people are free to tell others to commit crimes or attack and kill other people because that’s “free speech”?
Have you ever heard of “The law”? Honestly?
If I say to someone that I am going to attack them (and I am capable of doing so) that is “assault” , it matters not a jot whether I actually physically assault them because a “Crime” has been committed whether or not physical force is used, see if you can figure out where I am going with this?