The EDL & SDL

[DevAdvocate]

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.

See my response Re "The Law".

 

[Admiral Pure]

Anyone can invent any human right they like.

No they can't. You don't appear to understand the difference between agreed principals decided by elected heads of hundreds of nations (ie 'human rights') and randomly made up nonsense that jumps into your brain.

They aren't naturally-occuring and they aren't self-evident. They are therefore arbitrary. Am I wrong?

As ST has suggested, it's not clear you understand what 'arbitrary' actually means. It certainly is not a word suitable for describing the universal declaration of human rights.

Ad hom. Ignore.

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

If you're equating limiting the rights of individuals to promote hatred to 'systematic use of violence', then yes, it is civilised.

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.

Does it now?

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 of hate lead to physical acts of aggression, don't they? Preventing that is not immoral, quite the opposite.

Al Qaeda wouldn't quite be the force it is if nobody had bothered speaking.

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.

It's really not that black and white though is it? You admit that words are used to the detriment of others and always will be - is that not wrong, in some cases more wrong than limiting someone from saying those words?

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?

I know you were answering Dev here but anyway...your final statement

 

[ReallyReal]

WOW, an (almost) intelligent debate on not606, whatever next?

 

[EDGE]

WOW, an (almost) intelligent debate on not606, whatever next?

It happens sometimes, but invariably ends in namecalling.

****

 

[Admiral Pure]

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.

I know I shouldn't bite, but point me in the direction of any bigoted comment I've made on any website I've used over any of the time you've 'known me'. I certainly could point you in the direction of numerous posts where I've decried (a section of) celtic supports IRA chants, poppy protests etc etc going back as far as pre-SPN days.

If you can't manage to find a specific post, any single one will do, could you please just shut the **** up, you boring twat.

 

[Girvan Loyal 1690]

Russ Provan is a boring old ****. He ruins every thread on here

 

[RAVENBLACK]

I know I shouldn't bite, but point me in the direction of any bigoted comment I've made on any website I've used over any of the time you've 'known me'. I certainly could point you in the direction of numerous posts where I've decried (a section of) celtic supports IRA chants, poppy protests etc etc going back as far as pre-SPN days.

If you can't manage to find a specific post, any single one will do, could you please just shut the **** up, you boring twat.

Typical you resort to foul mouthed language. Always the sign of someone struggling with intelligence.

You cannot accept anyone's point of view that does not fit in nicely with your ideals. What a shame. That makes you incredibly intolerant and you have been well known for your vitriolic attacks on TF.

To resort also to picking up on typos is really rather pathetic and inane. I mean perhaps it proves you are a better typist than me. So what, I have no problem with that.

Best you return to the comfort of TF where you certainly did not like being faced with a few home thruths about your stance on bigotry and now fascism on this site.

You are the boring one I'm afraid, a pompous sanctimonious windbag if truth be told.

So return to TF please, to the comfort zone which you do not like to be invaded by people with different viewpoints.

 

[Tina_old]

It's like an old folks reunion in here

 

[DevAdvocate]

Russ Provan is a boring old ****. He ruins every thread on here

You really need your hole you sad wee ****.

 

[Admiral Pure]

Typical you resort to foul mouthed language. Always the sign of someone struggling with intelligence.

You cannot accept anyone's point of view that does not fit in nicely with your ideals. What a shame. That makes you incredibly intolerant and you have been well known for your vitriolic attacks on TF.

To resort also to picking up on typos is really rather pathetic and inane. I mean perhaps it proves you are a better typist than me. So what, I have no problem with that.

Best you return to the comfort of TF where you certainly did not like being faced with a few home thruths about your stance on bigotry and now fascism on this site.

You are the boring one I'm afraid, a pompous sanctimonious windbag if truth be told.

So return to TF please, to the comfort zone which you do not like to be invaded by people with different viewpoints.

**** off.

 

[Tina_old]

 

[Jip Jaap Stam]

So where are we on the whole EDL thing?

Goodies or Baddies?

They look hard so i reckon they're cool

 

[EDGE]

 

[Jerel Ifil]

No they can't. You don't appear to understand the difference between agreed principals decided by elected heads of hundreds of nations (ie 'human rights') and randomly made up nonsense that jumps into your brain.

That's my point really. The 'human rights' of these 'nations' are just as legitimate (indeed illegitimate) as the ones Jeff from down the pub could devise. No government has the consent of every person residing there, so they have no right to make human rights on 'their' people's behalf.

As ST has suggested, it's not clear you understand what 'arbitrary' actually means. It certainly is not a word suitable for describing the universal declaration of human rights.

Arbitrary (adj.): Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Which is exactly what I'm equating the human rights declarations to.

If you're equating limiting the rights of individuals to promote hatred to 'systematic use of violence', then yes, it is civilised.

Weak means-to-an-end utilitarian argument. If the means is immoral, it doesn't matter what the end is.

Words of hate lead to physical acts of aggression, don't they? Preventing that is not immoral, quite the opposite.

Preventing that includes violence which is immoral. Words are empty anyway. If someone's written out a legal contract with someone else which binds them to kill someone else, fair enough self-defensive action should be taken against them. I've nothing agaisnt self-defense but empty words should be treated as just that.

It's really not that black and white though is it? You admit that words are used to the detriment of others and always will be - is that not wrong, in some cases more wrong than limiting someone from saying those words?

Like I said above, I really couldn't give a toss if the end is idyllic and amazing, the means have to be morally justifiable in order for me to want to support it, and here, the means contain non-consensual violence.

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?

See my response above about self-defense. And yes, I have heard of 'the law', I don't have to like it, I just have to lump it in the current oppressive system which is based on violence and slavery. Violence is not telling someone you're going to attack them, violence is attacking them. Actions speak louder than hollow words. I'm a proponent of free speech, but not of 'free action', if you see what I mean; 'free action' including violent attacks on other people because of a disrespect for human autonomy.

 

[Admiral Pure]

That's my point really. The 'human rights' of these 'nations' are just as legitimate (indeed illegitimate) as the ones Jeff from down the pub could devise. No government has the consent of every person residing there, so they have no right to make human rights on 'their' people's behalf.

You do realise that one of 'human rights' framed in international law by the UDHR is 'freedom of speech'?

Arbitrary (adj.): Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Which is exactly what I'm equating the human rights declarations to.

Ok, then you're talking pish. The UDHR clearly was not based on 'random choice' nor on a 'personal whim' and was entirely built on a 'system' - the system being that of the right of elected representatives of hundreds of countries (ie the UN) to define them. It's as far from 'arbitrary' as you can get.

Weak means-to-an-end utilitarian argument. If the means is immoral, it doesn't matter what the end is.

A better argument than any you've put forward I thought <erm>. Besides, whether the means are 'immoral' is entirely a matter of opinion. Mine is that sometimes the ends do justify the means, the lesser of two evils and other such cliches etc etc. It's all very easy having impeccable 'morality' when you don't have to ever put it to the test.

Preventing that includes violence which is immoral. Words are empty anyway. If someone's written out a legal contract with someone else which binds them to kill someone else, fair enough self-defensive action should be taken against them. I've nothing agaisnt self-defense but empty words should be treated as just that.

Well, I'm realistic enough to realise that occasionally someone's 'human rights' or 'natural law of autonomy' (if you prefer) may have to take precedence over someone else's. So apparently do you, you think the right to free speech takes precedence regardless of the impact on other individuals. I certainly defend the right to free speech (and said so in my first post I think) but I don't believe it is the single most important 'right' in every single situation.

Like I said above, I really couldn't give a toss if the end is idyllic and amazing, the means have to be morally justifiable in order for me to want to support it, and here, the means contain non-consensual violence.

That's a pretty messed up idea of morality - not giving a toss about the outcome of your 'moral dilemma'. Anyway, the 'means' can be morally justifiable - ie when the 'pain' caused by limiting someone's freedom of speech is less than the 'pain' that would be caused by allowing it. If 'pain' is unavoidable, I'd say it is a moral imperative to take the option that minimises it. You might not like it, but in some circumstances that might be limiting the rights of organisations or individuals to say what they want.

 

[Whole-lot-of-Holt_HtH]

boring

 

[Jerel Ifil]

You do realise that one of 'human rights' framed in international law by the UDHR is 'freedom of speech'?

Yep. My basis for free speech derives from human autonomy, not some bullshit from politics men in Switzerland.

Ok, then you're talking pish. The UDHR clearly was not based on 'random choice' nor on a 'personal whim' and was entirely built on a 'system' - the system being that of the right of elected representatives of hundreds of countries (ie the UN) to define them. It's as far from 'arbitrary' as you can get.

Elected representation is coercive and means nothing to me. Just because a bunch of people who sucked dick in politics all determined something doesn't make it valid. Validity in philosophical morality comes from axioms and natural law.

A better argument than any you've put forward I thought <erm>. Besides, whether the means are 'immoral' is entirely a matter of opinion. Mine is that sometimes the ends do justify the means, the lesser of two evils and other such cliches etc etc. It's all very easy having impeccable 'morality' when you don't have to ever put it to the test.

OK: let's break this down because the argument's tiresome. Forget means, forget ends. Is violence wrong: yes or no?

Well, I'm realistic enough to realise that occasionally someone's 'human rights' or 'natural law of autonomy' (if you prefer) may have to take precedence over someone else's. So apparently do you, you think the right to free speech takes precedence regardless of the impact on other individuals. I certainly defend the right to free speech (and said so in my first post I think) but I don't believe it is the single most important 'right' in every single situation.

It can't take precedence over someone else's, that's an illegitimate exertion of ownership, i.e. slavery. Is involuntary slavery a morally justifiable thing? No. It was allegedly abolished ages ago (bullshit).

That's a pretty messed up idea of morality - not giving a toss about the outcome of your 'moral dilemma'. Anyway, the 'means' can be morally justifiable - ie when the 'pain' caused by limiting someone's freedom of speech is less than the 'pain' that would be caused by allowing it. If 'pain' is unavoidable, I'd say it is a moral imperative to take the option that minimises it. You might not like it, but in some circumstances that might be limiting the rights of organisations or individuals to say what they want.

Pure utilitarianism. It has no place in a moral discussion, it's just a pedestrian way of thinking. I'll refer back to my question above: is violence wrong or is it acceptable?

 

[Admiral Pure]

Oh jesus. It has every place in a moral discussion - my morality encompasses a slightly more complicated reality than some 'universal laws' where a=wrong, b=right. If you can't understand a situation where you have to make a moral decision over two outcomes neither of which is the ideal, theres no point is continuing a discussion. Morality is never absolute.

So as a general principle:
freedom of speech = good
violence = bad.

But to deny there are never any circumstances in which the reverse of these might be the better, the more 'moral', choice is self-deluding.

 

[Bollocks]

Oh jesus. It has every place in a moral discussion - my morality encompasses a slightly more complicated reality than some 'universal laws' where a=wrong, b=right. If you can't understand a situation where you have to make a moral decision over two outcomes neither of which is the ideal, theres no point is continuing a discussion. Morality is never absolute.

So as a general principle:
freedom of speech = good
violence = bad.

But to deny there are never any circumstances in which the reverse of these might be the better, the more 'moral', choice is self-deluding.

Indeed. You have proven this to be the case; I think it would be better if you shut up now and got a smack round the head.

 

[Admiral Pure]

Indeed. You have proven this to be the case; I think it would be better if you shut up now and got a smack round the head.

I expect Donald now to rush to my defence.