Quake3World

[xeno]Julios wrote: so I guess we should ban the bible, the qur'an, and any other text that has contributed to the justification of harm to someone else eh?

Perhaps if we did we could have avoided 2 millennia of dumb wars? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[xeno]Julios wrote: watch the 20 min vid I linked to, may change your mind.

*watches vid*



Oh and BibleThumper please fuck off. You're pathetic and boring.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote: so I guess we should ban the bible, the qur'an, and any other text that has contributed to the justification of harm to someone else eh?

Perhaps if we did we could have avoided 2 millennia of dumb wars? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[xeno]Julios wrote: watch the 20 min vid I linked to, may change your mind.

*watches vid*



Oh and BibleThumper please fuck off. You're pathetic and boring.

you love my style

[xeno]Julios wrote:I found this awesome speech to be quite a convincing presentation in favour of free speech:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... uQ-wHq440I

Wow, I'm halfway through and already it's incredible. I share his opinions already, but the way he put them, so eloquently, it's a real relief hearing it.

Yea, Hitchens is a great speaker

GONNAFISTYA wrote:WTF are you talking about?

Anti-americanism? I'm simply stating that there are still many words that can't be published or broadcast in the "only country in the world where free speech really exists".

what are these words and when did someone last go to jail for publishing or broadcasting them?

And as for the "i love free speech, except when i don't" comment you're correct. I don't think people have the right to incite hatred and make people do violent and stupid things.

MAKE people do violent things? does someone hold a gun to their heads? control them telepathically? or perhaps they're robots programmed to act in certain way in response to particular verbal stimuli? everyone is accountable for their own actions. blaming an imam or a bouffant-haired dutch prat doesn't change that. also, "incite hatred"? are you sure you're against this? because i seem to recall anti-war protesters comparing bush with hitler. you may not agree with the comparison (i don't, anyway), but isn't that "inciting hatred"? and yet is seen as acceptable protest?

I guess nobody heard about the recent murders by a right-wing nut who owned copies of O'Reilly's, Hannity's, etc books? He claimed that Liberals where the anti-christ and that EVERYONE should kill them. He even said that if someone was considering suicide they should take some Liberals with them in a blaze of glory. And his hatred was codified with the hate-speech from those authors.

lol, o'reilly and hannity, those devious puppetmasters. i'd better keep my tinfoil hat close in case they use their awesome mental powers to make me stab michael moore

I understand that we're supposed to treat free speech like adults but some people are simply off their fucking rocker and it's like pouring gasoline on a fire.

yea, great, let's legislate for the retards, so we can all be treated like retards. no thanks

Plan B wrote:Really a subjective thing what incites hatred, don't you think, GKY?
Some wankers get all worked up about stuff you and me wouldn't give a second thought.

By definition, I think 'free speech' is just that; say anything you like: deny the holocaust, say *all* muslims are terrorists and aids is god's punishment for homos.
People in their right mind will draw their own conclusions.

Well...free market regulation was created to protect us from the minority of people who are dishonest. It's fine and dandy to believe that people will control themselves but history just doesn't bare that out.

I agree that something that incites hatred CAN be subjective but alot of times it's quite obvious. The anti-muslim/anti-Arab tone that permeated the media after 9/11 was - IMHO - quite shocking. As was the fact that you could get kicked off an airplane for openly wondering which is the safest seat....if you were brown enough and had a beard. And if you had a four-worded name that contained "Abul" in any part of it you might have been mistaken for being on a no-fly list.

The broadcast and proliferation of hate speech does indeed have consequences and it's fucking lame to sit here and pretend we don't know what those consequences might be.

Jesus fuck semencan

lost for words?

The very essence of dutch naming protocol disarms the common muslim of worry. Annoyance is apt.

seremtan wrote:lost for words?

Of course. I couldn't help but shake my head while reading each paragraph.

If someone were inclined you could take the arguments you presented to ridiculous extremes but that's all entirely besides the point. Can it be claimed that The Daily Show and Jon Stewart are perpetuating hate speech against Dick Cheney? Of course not.

You completely ignored my point that hate speech is quite distinct and - usually - not stretched by benign statements. The people who take those benign statements and turn them into hate are indeed propagating hate speech. There is a real difference and "freedom of speech" doesn't change that.

Does anyone really believe the KKK are legitimate?

GONNAFISTYA wrote: He claimed that Liberals where the anti-christ and that EVERYONE should kill them.

were

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

seremtan wrote:lost for words?

Of course. I couldn't help but shake my head while reading each paragraph.

If someone were inclined you could take the arguments you presented to ridiculous extremes but that's all entirely besides the point. Can it be claimed that The Daily Show and Jon Stewart are perpetuating hate speech against Dick Cheney? Of course not.

You completely ignored my point that hate speech is quite distinct and - usually - not stretched by benign statements. The people who take those benign statements and turn them into hate are indeed propagating hate speech. There is a real difference and "freedom of speech" doesn't change that.

you are aware that his movie is available on youtube, right? the spineless gimps that make up the british government barred wilders from entering the UK because they were afraid his mere presence (he's been here before btw) would activate the "spaz out in manufactured rage" subroutine in the minds of some muslims (whom the government clearly see as dumb automatons or lab rats in a skinner box). this whole story is really all about the mindset of the british government, though i doubt you can appreciate that all the way from canada

as far as "hate speech" is concerned, i'd say three things: firstly that proscribing "hate speech" collapses in to proscribing hate itself, i.e. an emotion. this seems to me to be a very strange thing for any government to be doing, and in any case, why shouldn't people be entitled to hate so long as they don't cross the line and go vigilante on their neighbours? secondly, the best way of combating moronic opinions is challenging them in the open, not driving them off the radar then pretending they don't exist. lastly, there's the obvious selectivity in designating something "hate speech", which is driven entirely by the social and cultural assumptions, as well the fleeting transient obsessions, of those making such designations, and *not* by reference to any stable principle. again, you'd actually have to live in the UK to appreciate this point as regards the geert wilders affair

Does anyone really believe the KKK are legitimate?

i've no idea what you're trying to say here ("legitimate"?), but afaik the KKK/Stormfront/etc's witless dribblings have 1st amendment protection, and it isn't obvious that introducing hate speech laws directed at them would actually serve any useful purpose other than promoting a passing sensation of righteousness in those who passed or supported such laws

So the UN wants to make blasphemy illegal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb2OKPBswM

Interview w/ Hitchens starts @ ~5 min.

religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Fender wrote:So the UN wants to make blasphemy illegal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb2OKPBswM

Interview w/ Hitchens starts @ ~5 min.

ironically the UK govt finally got around to removing the 400+ y.o. law against blasphemy from the statute books (hadn't been enforced since forever but mussulman types kind crying about how it favoured christianity), but i wouldn't bet against them reintroducing a version of it and blaming it on the UN

So this seems to be Hitchens' new pet project.
http://www.slate.com/id/2212662

I kinda feel the same way about Islam being totalitarian, ever since i had a lengthy (and supremely irritating) conversation about religion with a spoiled brat from Dubai. Last time i try to talk to religious people like they're mentally healthy individuals who should be engaged with logic and reason, seriously. To convey the fact that i was an atheist took about half an hour of explaining since he simply didn't understand the concept, but finally he exclaimed with a pained expression: "Ah! You are like Russian people!" and then the conversation turned brutish & ugly.

More sense in talking to a brick wall, fuck.

lol
All this controversy surrounding Wilders has greatly benefitted him;
If elections were held in the netherlands now, his PVV ('party for freedom') would get the most votes.

and they would all get revoked, much like Fortuyn's sympathy votes.

revoked in the NAEM UV FREEDUMB!!!11

in the name of common sense, morelike

yeah, fuck democracy

well, to be technical, dutcheeland isnt a democracy but a reformed monarchy

but my point was this. When Fortuyn was alive, he had a just-below average following. People didnt quite like what he said and did. Then, when he got killed for it, people were saying "he was a douche but he didnt deserve to die!" and decided to vote for his party. Therefore, they werent sincere votes.
This gets confirmed by the re-elections held a few months later; things cooled down and his party didnt even get half of the votes it got before.

If he did get all those votes 'the normal way' they wouldnt have gotten revoked. But in this case, every moron could tell these were kneejerk votes and weren't worth the paper they were cast on.

It's almost the equivalent of marriages not being valid when the groom is stonedrunk when he says "I do'

ps fuck off nergin

MKJ wrote:well, to be technical, dutcheeland isnt a democracy but a reformed monarchy

but my point was this. When Fortuyn was alive, he had a just-below average following. People didnt quite like what he said and did. Then, when he got killed for it, people were saying "he was a douche but he didnt deserve to die!" and decided to vote for his party. Therefore, they werent sincere votes.
This gets confirmed by the re-elections held a few months later; things cooled down and his party didnt even get half of the votes it got before.

If he did get all those votes 'the normal way' they wouldnt have gotten revoked. But in this case, every moron could tell these were kneejerk votes and weren't worth the paper they were cast on.

It's almost the equivalent of marriages not being valid when the groom is stonedrunk when he says "I do'

please tell me you're kidding. you vote and then a Responsible Adult decides whether your vote is worth anything or not?

...every moron could tell...

you might want to rephrase this