blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2020, 07:42:50 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2254831 Posts in 66556 Topics by 16624 Members
Latest Member: maxx
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  Paris horror attack
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... 26 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Paris horror attack  (Read 33526 times)
DungBeetle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924


View Profile
« Reply #225 on: January 15, 2015, 09:42:41 AM »

"Hate(ful) speech if something someone finds offensive.

Free(dom of) speech if the idea that in a proper free society, dissent must be allowed, even if it offends you."

So all speech is free, until someone takes offense at which point it becomes hateful speech.

So the distinction is completely at the discretion of whoever gets offended, not matter how unreasonable that offense may be?
Logged
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17427


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #226 on: January 15, 2015, 01:09:46 PM »

"Hate(ful) speech if something someone finds offensive.

Free(dom of) speech if the idea that in a proper free society, dissent must be allowed, even if it offends you."

So all speech is free, until someone takes offense at which point it becomes hateful speech.

So the distinction is completely at the discretion of whoever gets offended, not matter how unreasonable that offense may be?

And who gets to decide which is which?

Many Muslims would argue the sartoon of Charlie Hebdo clearly count as hateful speech.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
kinboshi
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44298


We go again.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #227 on: January 15, 2015, 01:31:26 PM »

For me the distinction is different.  Freedom of speech is being able to say (and think) anything you want - as long is it doesn't lead to others being discriminated against or it affecting their civil liberties. Hate speech is deemed as such because it provokes direct action against a person or group of people.

Saying "Christianity is bullshit" is fine, saying "Atheism is bollocks" is fine, saying "Islam is the only true religion and the rest of you are all going to hell you infidel scum" is also fine.  That's just voicing opinion. It's when it is intended to provoke a direct response against someone (an individual or group of people), or threatens such a response that it starts to impact on other people's liberties.  As soon as it reduces someone's civil liberties, then it over-steps the line.  That's why burning flags, poppies, or 'holy' books isn't considered a crime (in this country), as it's not an attack on people or their civil liberties.  It's merely voicing an opinion (one that you might be offended by and hate, but that's tough). Drawing a picture of someone else's prophet or god and mocking them isn't 'hate' speech. 

Ridiculing a religion or people's beliefs doesn't reduce anyone's liberties.  It does the opposite in fact, and allows all to have their own faith, their own beliefs and the freedom to be part of the religion of their choosing.  Threatening to kill people who don't follow a particular belief or way of thinking is very different, and that's when the line is over-stepped.

From wikipedia: "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Of course, there are grey areas and that's when the legal system comes into play to determine which side of the line a particular action falls. 
Logged

'The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.'
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17427


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #228 on: January 15, 2015, 01:36:21 PM »

For me the distinction is different.  Freedom of speech is being able to say (and think) anything you want - as long is it doesn't lead to others being discriminated against or it affecting their civil liberties. Hate speech is deemed as such because it provokes direct action against a person or group of people.

Saying "Christianity is bullshit" is fine, saying "Atheism is bollocks" is fine, saying "Islam is the only true religion and the rest of you are all going to hell you infidel scum" is also fine.  That's just voicing opinion. It's when it is intended to provoke a direct response against someone (an individual or group of people), or threatens such a response that it starts to impact on other people's liberties.  As soon as it reduces someone's civil liberties, then it over-steps the line.  That's why burning flags, poppies, or 'holy' books isn't considered a crime (in this country), as it's not an attack on people or their civil liberties.  It's merely voicing an opinion (one that you might be offended by and hate, but that's tough). Drawing a picture of someone else's prophet or god and mocking them isn't 'hate' speech. 

Ridiculing a religion or people's beliefs doesn't reduce anyone's liberties.  It does the opposite in fact, and allows all to have their own faith, their own beliefs and the freedom to be part of the religion of their choosing.  Threatening to kill people who don't follow a particular belief or way of thinking is very different, and that's when the line is over-stepped.

From wikipedia: "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Of course, there are grey areas and that's when the legal system comes into play to determine which side of the line a particular action falls. 


I think burning a bible/koran etc is a violent act and purely intended to provoke a violent and angry response.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
kinboshi
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44298


We go again.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #229 on: January 15, 2015, 02:20:09 PM »

For me the distinction is different.  Freedom of speech is being able to say (and think) anything you want - as long is it doesn't lead to others being discriminated against or it affecting their civil liberties. Hate speech is deemed as such because it provokes direct action against a person or group of people.

Saying "Christianity is bullshit" is fine, saying "Atheism is bollocks" is fine, saying "Islam is the only true religion and the rest of you are all going to hell you infidel scum" is also fine.  That's just voicing opinion. It's when it is intended to provoke a direct response against someone (an individual or group of people), or threatens such a response that it starts to impact on other people's liberties.  As soon as it reduces someone's civil liberties, then it over-steps the line.  That's why burning flags, poppies, or 'holy' books isn't considered a crime (in this country), as it's not an attack on people or their civil liberties.  It's merely voicing an opinion (one that you might be offended by and hate, but that's tough). Drawing a picture of someone else's prophet or god and mocking them isn't 'hate' speech. 

Ridiculing a religion or people's beliefs doesn't reduce anyone's liberties.  It does the opposite in fact, and allows all to have their own faith, their own beliefs and the freedom to be part of the religion of their choosing.  Threatening to kill people who don't follow a particular belief or way of thinking is very different, and that's when the line is over-stepped.

From wikipedia: "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Of course, there are grey areas and that's when the legal system comes into play to determine which side of the line a particular action falls. 


I think burning a bible/koran etc is a violent act and purely intended to provoke a violent and angry response.

Why?  You might consider it offensive, but it's not violent or necessarily provoking a violent response.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 02:25:34 PM by kinboshi » Logged

'The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.'
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17427


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #230 on: January 15, 2015, 02:35:30 PM »

For me the distinction is different.  Freedom of speech is being able to say (and think) anything you want - as long is it doesn't lead to others being discriminated against or it affecting their civil liberties. Hate speech is deemed as such because it provokes direct action against a person or group of people.

Saying "Christianity is bullshit" is fine, saying "Atheism is bollocks" is fine, saying "Islam is the only true religion and the rest of you are all going to hell you infidel scum" is also fine.  That's just voicing opinion. It's when it is intended to provoke a direct response against someone (an individual or group of people), or threatens such a response that it starts to impact on other people's liberties.  As soon as it reduces someone's civil liberties, then it over-steps the line.  That's why burning flags, poppies, or 'holy' books isn't considered a crime (in this country), as it's not an attack on people or their civil liberties.  It's merely voicing an opinion (one that you might be offended by and hate, but that's tough). Drawing a picture of someone else's prophet or god and mocking them isn't 'hate' speech. 

Ridiculing a religion or people's beliefs doesn't reduce anyone's liberties.  It does the opposite in fact, and allows all to have their own faith, their own beliefs and the freedom to be part of the religion of their choosing.  Threatening to kill people who don't follow a particular belief or way of thinking is very different, and that's when the line is over-stepped.

From wikipedia: "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group."

Of course, there are grey areas and that's when the legal system comes into play to determine which side of the line a particular action falls. 


I think burning a bible/koran etc is a violent act and purely intended to provoke a violent and angry response.

Why?  You might consider it offensive, but it's not violent or necessarily provoking a violent response.

What is the logic behind buying a book you have no belief in and no intention of reading purely to burn it?
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44811



View Profile WWW
« Reply #231 on: January 15, 2015, 02:36:51 PM »

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.
Logged

Youth fades but immaturity can last forever.
The Camel
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17427


Under my tree, being a troll.


View Profile
« Reply #232 on: January 15, 2015, 02:41:54 PM »

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.

Exactly.

I don't think actions like these should be criminalised.

I just think in a mature society we should respect other people's beliefs and opinions as long as they don't harm anyone else.
Logged

Congratulations to the 2012 League Champion - Stapleton Atheists

"Keith The Camel, a true champion!" - Brent Horner 30th December 2012

"I dont think you're a wanker Keith" David Nicholson 4th March 2013
kinboshi
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44298


We go again.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #233 on: January 15, 2015, 02:45:26 PM »

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.

Of course, exercising your freedom of speech can provoke people to violence (as in the Paris murders), but it's the response that's unacceptable rather than the provocation being 'unlawful'.  You would be very careful to criticise Islam in Saudi Arabia - heaven forbid (pun intended) you denounce Islam as your religion (where the penalty is death). We have (should have) the freedom to voice our opinions as we live in a free society, even if some might be offended by them, as long as it's not 'hate' speech.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/saudi-blogger-lashes-amnesty-international-raif-badawi

Not sure what the punishment is for making a snowman though:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/12/saudi-arabia-snowmen-winter-fatwa
Logged

'The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.'
kinboshi
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44298


We go again.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #234 on: January 15, 2015, 02:47:46 PM »

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.

Exactly.

I don't think actions like these should be criminalised.

I just think in a mature society we should respect other people's beliefs and opinions as long as they don't harm anyone else.

If someone wants to burn the bible, koran, Bobby Moore's biography, etc., how does it harm you?  As for respecting beliefs, why?  I respect everyone's right to have beliefs and be free to believe what they want and to practice their faith in their own home and in a way that doesn't impact on anyone else or infringe their civil liberties.

But why should people's religious beliefs be exempt from mockery or criticism?  What next, their political views, the football team they support...
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 02:49:40 PM by kinboshi » Logged

'The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.'
doubleup
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6858


View Profile
« Reply #235 on: January 15, 2015, 03:15:16 PM »


There are fundamentalist Christians who find the theory of evolution offensive.

The moral debates in a civilised society should be based on considering the effects of behaviour on various stakeholders starting from a position of freedom and moving to restrictions after considering the effects of those restrictions. 

Someone who wants to base society's rules on a book written by a lunatic hundreds of years ago and on top of this believes that anyone who disagrees with their point of view should be flogged or executed is a threat to liberty and should be confronted in the media and made to feel "offended"

Re Saudi Arabia - our tolerance of their appalling human rights abuses just because they pump out oil and buy our weapons is an utter disgrace.

Logged
FUN4FRASER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2249



View Profile
« Reply #236 on: January 15, 2015, 03:19:55 PM »

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.

Tom  ,   wasn't this programme where " The Christians " loathed "Dirty Homosexuals "  ?

Funny Old World   Smiley
Logged
FUN4FRASER
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2249



View Profile
« Reply #237 on: January 15, 2015, 03:20:57 PM »

"Hate(ful) speech if something someone finds offensive.

Free(dom of) speech if the idea that in a proper free society, dissent must be allowed, even if it offends you."

So all speech is free, until someone takes offense at which point it becomes hateful speech.

So the distinction is completely at the discretion of whoever gets offended, not matter how unreasonable that offense may be?

And who gets to decide which is which?

Many Muslims would argue the sartoon of Charlie Hebdo clearly count as hateful speech.

Very much this !

One mans meat   .....
Logged
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 44811



View Profile WWW
« Reply #238 on: January 15, 2015, 03:27:13 PM »

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.

Tom  ,   wasn't this programme where " The Christians " loathed "Dirty Homosexuals "  ?

Funny Old World   Smiley


Yes. I think it was.
Logged

Youth fades but immaturity can last forever.
david3103
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6104



View Profile
« Reply #239 on: January 15, 2015, 03:38:11 PM »

I saw an episode of Top Gear where they drove through the bible belt in the USA with slogans that mocked Christianity painted on the sides of their cars. They almost got lynched and no one was surprised.

You do know that Top Gear is very comprehensively scripted?
Logged

It's more about the winning than the winnings

5 November 2012 - Kinboshi says "Best post ever on blonde thumbs up"
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... 26 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.291 seconds with 20 queries.