| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| a minority can easily bully a majority or browbeat others into silence or at the very least set the agenda |
From the news I read, that's exactly what seems to be happening in some countries in Europe. It's a damn shame, and difficult to watch unfold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Defamation occurs with regard to persons, not ideologies or religions.
Note also that actions imputed to the person must be false; its impossible to resolve for sure whether 'Islam' did something or a person following Islam did something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Defamation occurs with regard to persons, not ideologies or religions.
|
It seems many Muslims aren't too clued in to Western legal standards.
And I came across this from C. Hitchens which deals with the topic at hand:
http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| a minority can easily bully a majority or browbeat others into silence or at the very least set the agenda |
Especially on issues that can be construed as ethical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I thought Canadians were supposed to be excessively polite, nonassertive, embarrassed to complain or protest this or that?
Yet here comes another one, in love with his own overly harsh atheism, to ridicule and dismiss the Islamic faith in a style about as insensitive as it gets... |
Some of us come from politically incorrect Canada. Perhaps there's a good reason why we get on better in Korea than Canada, lol. BTW, I'm kind of an agnostic / theist, not an atheist, and I'm actually quite sceptical of some aspects of evolution. And Islam isn't the only faith I'd consider worthy of ridicule and dismissal. Muslims just seem to be the most touchy believers of any major religion, and likely because they have the most to hide and cover up, and are most fearful of exploring the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axl Rose
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A bunch of medieval theocracies wanting to ban criticism in democracies of their gross religion is no surprise these days, but we should be as scared of our own politicians, who would take us living under Islamic law in a heartbeat if it meant them staying in power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Defamation occurs with regard to persons, not ideologies or religions |
Then you are going to have to apply that, to those on this board that fear a holocaust or massive violence against muslims in Europe.
Last edited by postfundie on Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HughCl
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bigverne
| Quote: |
| But we, in the West, or other countries where criticising or mocking a historical figure, religious or otherwise, is not a criminal offence, do not have to abide by your values, so stop trying to force them on us. |
The problem with your argument is that "We in the West... above is that in fact we do do that. And Many Muslims are confused why is it ok for a Western newspaper to sanction negative cartoons from the public about their religion yet--When a University scholar writes a text questioning Judaism, he is put in prison in Europe. [ David Irving, himself a Jew ] Disagree with his work or not, I don't believe in putting authors in prison for free speach. Particularly when it is selective against those who question Judaism while those that impugne Islam are encouraged with cartoon contests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HughCl wrote: |
| And Many Muslims are confused why is it ok for a Western newspaper to sanction negative cartoons from the public about their religion yet--When a University scholar writes a text questioning Judaism, he is put in prison in Europe. |
I think you're correct about this being an issue. These European laws against glorifying the Nazis, questioning the holocaust, and so forth, are in principle despicable. Are the Germans really such a pathetic people as a whole that they need to outlaw glorifying the Nazis and questioning the holocaust to avoid becoming a fascist regime again? Maybe, but I don't think so.
People should be able to express their thoughts, even if those thoughts are things like "Mohammed had sex with camels," or "Hitler is a-okay." I might not agree with them, but they shouldn't be criminalized until they actually go out and start doing harm.
That said, he was probably thinking about America more than Europe when he said "the West." In America, it's legal to attack the Jews as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tjames426
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are the Germans really such a pathetic people as a whole that they need to outlaw glorifying the Nazis and questioning the holocaust to avoid becoming a fascist regime again? Maybe, but I don't think so.
***
Maybe because the Holocaust is an HISTORICAL fact? Denying the holocaust is like saying that Julius Caesar never lived, or the British never controlled the Indian Peninsula.
I |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I think they all are full of shit...with exception of Bhuddism and Taoism.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tjames426 wrote: |
| Maybe because the Holocaust is an HISTORICAL fact? Denying the holocaust is like saying that Julius Caesar never lived, or the British never controlled the Indian Peninsula. |
Denying that Julius Caesar lived isn't illegal. Neither is denying that the British controlled the Indian Peninsula. Nor should they be. Nor should disputing any historical fact be.
The Holocaust obviously happened. None the less, if someone wants to assert it did not happen, they should be able to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the musllims turn "human rights" on us we will turn it on them. The koran is one of the most hateful book that has ever been written.
They need to be very, very careful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberGuy
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Location: Daejeon, Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
.
.
If you think questioning the death toll, i.e. the number of people killed in Holocaust is same as denying Holocaust then you are full of crap.
If you think that questioning about someone's characters is same as throwing pile of filth on his character and it should be equally allowed in the name of freedom? then you are full of crap again.
I see many people on this forum are extremely narrow-minded low lives who are color-blinded to an extent of looking at everything in extremely objective sense. They either see black or white. They think anybody can come to their mom and tell her she is a wh**re and can get away with a basket of of flowers. Why? cuz freedom of speech is sacred under ANY circumstances. Throw as much filth as you want and rejoice along with your gang.
They think calling black people "Ni**as" is cool under the "freedom of speech", and if upon that a group of black people beats the crap out of them then its terrorism utterly condemnable by the mob of "free-speech wankers" like them.
How many of you retards actually have EVER read the complete definition of "freedom of speech" and its implications under UN's charter? If you have then you are hypocrite enough to maliciously hide the conditions and subjective nature of it.
CG. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2009 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CyberGuy wrote: |
If you think questioning the death toll, i.e. the number of people killed in Holocaust is same as denying Holocaust then you are full of crap.
|
Of course they are different. Both should be legal.
| CyberGuy wrote: |
If you think that questioning about someone's characters is same as throwing pile of filth on his character and it should be equally allowed in the name of freedom? then you are full of crap again.
|
This can be an entirely different case. Individual humans and ONLY individual humans should be protected from potential defamation, even at the cost of freedom of expression. However, if the "pile of filth" you are throwing on his character is a true and accurate pile of filth, yes, you should be allowed to do that in the name of freedom.
| CyberGuy wrote: |
cuz freedom of speech is sacred under ANY circumstances.
|
In any circumstance where it does not directly injure an individual human through demonstratably false, damaging information, yes, it should be.
| CyberGuy wrote: |
They think calling black people "Ni**as" is cool under the "freedom of speech", and if upon that a group of black people beats the crap out of them then its terrorism utterly condemnable by the mob of "free-speech wankers" like them.
|
Using examples designed to inspire emotional responses is silly. Yes, if a group of black men beat the crap out of someone who called them that, they are in the wrong and guilty of assault. Assaulting someone for saying something is pathetic, animalistic, and illegal, regardless of what it said. And that's how it should be.
The sheer fact that you endorse mob violence as an acceptable means of justice to avenge a verbal insult is just reinforcing the image of Muslims you've been working so hard at arguing against: violent and lacking self-restraint.
| CyberGuy wrote: |
How many of you retards actually have EVER read the complete definition of "freedom of speech" and its implications under UN's charter? If you have then you are hypocrite enough to maliciously hide the conditions and subjective nature of it.
|
There's nothing hypocritical about thinking the United Nations is a worthless organization and disagreeing with information in it's charter. The UN charter could include "murdering puppies for fun is a-okay" and I'd disagree with that as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
