User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 96

  1. #21
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    Lies are not covered under free speech...
    Why not? If you talk of absolute freedom of speech, drawing the line at factual inaccuracy is mere semantics. Freedom of speech is just that. I reserve the right to say as I please.

    You clearly reject the notion of free speech on the grounds that some people tell lies. This is highly inconsistent, because the notion of truth is abstract and certain notions, although obnoxious, are not necessarily "untrue" in a factual sense.

    So when Ulster protestants in the 70s claimed the Pope to be a "Satanic Anti-Christ", it was just as true (according to their belief system) as saying he wasn't (in accord with a differing belief system).

    Maybe you can elaborate on cases where lies and truths are less obvious?

    All the very beasties.


  2. #22
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Why not? If you talk of absolute freedom of speech, drawing the line at factual inaccuracy is mere semantics. Freedom of speech is just that. I reserve the right to say as I please.

    You clearly reject the notion of free speech on the grounds that some people tell lies. This is highly inconsistent, because the notion of truth is abstract and certain notions, although obnoxious, are not necessarily "untrue" in a factual sense.

    So when Ulster protestants in the 70s claimed the Pope to be a "Satanic Anti-Christ", it was just as true (according to their belief system) as saying he wasn't (in accord with a differing belief system).

    Maybe you can elaborate on cases where lies and truths are less obvious?

    All the very beasties.

    Who said anything about my views holding onto lies as not being part of freedom of speech? I think anything yeu want to say, including sarcasm, insults, and so on, should be covered.

    However, LEGALLY, it is NOT covered, regardless of my personal views.

  3. #23
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    You'll find Turkey got their first. If you seriously think headscarfs are a barometer of Islamic fundamentalism, I'd keep it quite. It's an admission you know nothing about Europe or Islam.
    My "barometer of Islamic fundamentalism" in Europe is based more on things like riots in Malmo, murder of Theo Van Gogh, attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard, etc.

    I was just making a comment that France was taking steps which would be deemed to incite the Islamic fundamentalist contingent, while the rest of Europe tends to pussyfoot about anything related to that contingent.

    I'm not saying that banning headscarves in French public schools will solve the issue, I was just commenting on the "daring" of the European nation taking ANY steps.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  4. #24
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    However, LEGALLY, it is NOT covered, regardless of my personal views.
    Well, that's where you are wrong again. In UK law (which I assume Canadian law is based on), what is "true" is often highly debated - and it is accepted that something maybe true to one person and false to another.

    Religious beliefs, which are often at odds which other religious beliefs, for example, are regarded as "true" to the adherants - although to suggest Shintoism, Christianity, Islam and Buddism can all be simultaniously "true" really does depend on how you define truth, Katsuni?

    As this thread is about European censorship, maybe you could give us your views on that?

    All the best.

  5. #25
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    I'm not saying that banning headscarves in French public schools will solve the issue, I was just commenting on the "daring" of the European nation taking ANY steps.
    Do you see the wearing of a headscarf as freedom of speech? If not, why not.

    We'll make a European of you yet, Edgar.

  6. #26
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Alright, well the "truth" is defined as "that which persists in existing after yeu stop believing in it" more or less. As such, religion can't truly be considered "truth".

    Regardless of that, however, "truth" is a pretty vague concept in and of itself; like "good" and "evil", it's more often just one's perspective than a solid, concrete matter.

    Legally, stating something as fact or truth, which harms someone else's reputation, without solid evidence to support such, is not covered under any freedom of speech laws that I'm aware of in any country, and usually is associated with fairly steep fines.

    Religiously, one could claim that "all" religions are the 'truth'. Every one of them claims to be the one true religion worshipping the one true god and that all others are false... because obviously they're all right. >.>

    Personally I believe that all religions are wrong by default as they're all written by mortals trying to explain something they don't understand, and therefore are little more than mythology, and while there may be a glimmer of reality in them, they're moreso "based on a true story" than factual accounting.

    Which leads us to the issue of censorship... either way this will lead in censoring. Either censorship of the book, or censorship of the people arguing against it. Either way, we will loose out as a whole because everyone wants to control whot everyone else has to say.

    In terms of the trial itself, I'm actually for it, despite that it's pointless in terms of trying to harm the guy politically, nor helpful in any way for either party involved at this point.

    Moreso, I'm pleased that they're going to be stuck backing up these claims, and will have to actually be through and methodical in their evidence, which's whot's needed on a case such as this.

    Is the quoran similar to mein kampf? Probably, in alot of respects. Hitlar was a radical christian, which most people tend to forget about, and the more radically extreme forms of Christianity are surprisingly similar to the more radically extreme forms of Islam... they did, after all, both originate from the same source, so really, is this so surprising?

    I think he'll have a very good argument for it really... but I don't think the book should be banned because of it. The bible's really not all that much better; it's a bit less extremist, but it still holds many of the same tenants as the quoran as well. Especially alot of the more nasty ones when it comes to heretics, gays, and other dissonant groups.

    That's not so much the point though, I mean... if we just took the bible and quoran and considered them straight up as non-religious works? They'd be banned on the spot because of the messages they preach. There's no real argument anyone can make there. The matter's moreso at whot point do yeu get to claim yeu should ban one work that's highly offensive, and not another. Where do yeu draw the line? The bible states certain races are inferior to others, that women are less than human, and that slavery's perfectly fine, but we're not trying to ban that for some reason... but rather encourage kids to read it who can't think clearly for themselves yet and won't be able to intelligently weed out whot messages should be heard and which shouldn't. Because obviously that makes sense so we can't do that.

    In any case, in terms of censorship, regardless of European or not... this'll be a global scale precedent that'll be looked at by other countries all over the world. He may or may not be the first, but he most definitely wont' be the last... it's a matter of whether yeu have any right to ban "anything", to be honest. If yeu can ban a religious work, without banning another nearly equally bad one, then it sets a double standard in play, and really DOES mean "we don't like yeur religion" and probably will be one of the first steps towards an actual religious war.

    To be honest, we don't have any right to censor anything. People are, or should be, at least, to read whotever they want. It's their decision whether to take it seriously or not, and noone else's decision to tell them whot to think. Because the only reason for banning anything is to try to tell others they're not allowed to think a certain way.

    I don't appreciate the gesture at all, regardless of whot's being 'banned'. Restricted to an older, more mature audience that can intelligently interpret the information? Yeah I can understand that. Flat out banning it from being sold at all? That's discriminatory and if yeur whole argument is that the book is discriminatory... aren't yeu being hypocritical at that point?

    The whole thing's dumb, but at least they're going to have to actually bring proof and reasoning this time instead of just "I think it's evil!" "Nuh uh!" "Ya huh!" back and forth all day long.

  7. #27
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    Do you see the wearing of a headscarf as freedom of speech?
    I do (freedom of religion, as well); banning the burqa can be justified as a reasonable security measure, but banning headscarves serves no compelling state interests other than to suppress overt displays of religious belief that the government (in this case representing the majority of its citizens) views as undesirable. The Islamist belief system that highly correlates with the wearing of headscarves must be vigorously challenged and opposed (which most of Europe is not doing), but not in a way that defeats the very purpose of doing so.

    In any event, this thread IS about free speech more than any other issue.

  8. #28
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I do (freedom of religion, as well); banning the burqa can be justified as a reasonable security measure...
    Any more than a hoodie - or big sunglasses and a straw hat?

    In France and Turkey the issue has absolutely nothing to do with security - it's about secularism.

    ...but banning headscarves serves no compelling state interests other than to suppress overt displays of religious belief that the government (in this case representing the majority of its citizens) views as undesirable.
    No. If we're still talking about France, banning headscarves does not entail that the French government view Islam in any shape or form as "undesirable", as you put it. In fact, Crucefix, Star of Davids or Sikh daggers are not welcome either. The French education system is one of the most secular in Europe. Religion has no place in their state education system - the same applies in Turkey.

    Trust an American to jump in with "security". Nice try.

    In the UK, however, such measures are only taken when the rights of one person are superseded by the rights of others. In the case of Shabina_Begum the rights of one person or group were not deemed sacrosanct.

    The decision to reject Ms Begum's freedom of religious belief in a state school was balanced against the freedom of female students not to be pressured into an arms race of piety played out with burqas in state-funded schools.

    In other words, her freedom was curtailed by drawing a line at what was and what was not acceptable dress in a state-funded school. It's interesting to note that the uniform at the school she attended included a headscarf (optional) and the governors that removed Ms Begum were mostly Muslim.

    The Islamist belief system that highly correlates with the wearing of headscarves must be vigorously challenged and opposed (which most of Europe is not doing), but not in a way that defeats the very purpose of doing so.
    As I understand the Koran (although admittedly I'm neither a practitioner nor an expert) "modesty" is required of the ladies. The precise dress code that provides the requisite level of modesty is hotly debated, but - alas - the Koran does not specify exactly what women should wear. Which of course gives Muslims yet another reason to squabble amongst themselves.

    I assume your noble assertions about vigorously challenging headscarf-wearing religious loonies would not go down well at the Roman Catholic church just around the corner from Trombones' Towers... All the old dears wear headscarves for Sunday Mass. Bless 'em.

    But of course we know what you mean. Nudge, nudge.

    In any event, this thread IS about free speech more than any other issue.
    You may like to read the link about positive and negative liberty I posted a few days ago.

    Notions of freedom are highly nebulous. Even in your US, Land of the Free, you'll find certain freedoms carry a very heavy jail sentence.

    All the best.

  9. #29
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Mein Kampf actually pretty sucked, I got bored on page 5 and sold it on ebay
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  10. #30

    Default

    OK, my thoughts overall about this topic:-

    - It's hardly a war.
    - There's no single policy on censorship and free speech throughout Europe, even the EU convention on human rights is interpreted differently in each country, for instance the UK regularly breech the right to privacy and family life because they treat child welfare as paramount.
    - There is a greater threat presently of domestic fascist groups taking off and becoming popular with useful idiots like religious fanatics as their "other" of choice than there is of a caliphat (or whatever) being established in Europe.
    - Its an attempt to prevent further escalation and manage conflict, there's been a lot of unwise immigration and other policies but who knew? The whole world dropped the ball badly at the end of the cold war.

Similar Threads

  1. Ideologists, Free Speech, and Cartoonists
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 06:35 PM
  2. Free Speech and Poetry
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 04:34 AM
  3. Forget Big Brother: Facebook, Corporations, and the End of Free Speech
    By speculative in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:40 AM
  4. Fi and its affect on others
    By Thursday in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 10:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO