SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

And I absolutely agree.

Don't you draw a line though? Monkey noises/racism is acceptable under freedom of speech (I suppose)?

My line is that this is political.

Christ Gwad - "You cannot, repeat, cannot police speech without this sort of shit happening"...

..the line is "don't police speech, police actions".

 

[Scouse]

Don't feel bad for sharing @BloodOmen. It's a horrid situation.

I can only echo what @Raven says - if you "have" to drink at any time you've still got something there to work on. 3 litrs of vodka would kill 6'2"+ me. I'm sure you know that, but I mean it in a positive way - you're cogniscant of having things you can do to help yourself (what with the CBT etc).

But although I accept that you don't feel like it I'd say you're definitely doing more than just existing m8. You have a wife and two kids. That's no small feat right there.

I don't know what the solution is to your anxiety m8. Or any suggestions to give from a point of actual knowledge. But I start to get anxious (I've had just one what I'd call 'anxiety' attack in my whole life) if I don't get a regular, proper, sweat on.

A lot of MTBers say the sport saved their lives. I realise that's out of the question - but could you decrease your gaming time and take up callesthenics maybe?

I also find too much gaming is bad for me - dopamine is too easy come by with gaming. So maybe give it six months of that? Worst comes to the worst you decide at the end of six months that you really do hate it but you've given something different your best shot, experienced something different and can try something else?

 

[Gwadien]

Christ Gwad - "You cannot, repeat, cannot police speech without this sort of shit happening"...

..the line is "don't police speech, police actions".

Nice dodge.

I mean I'd consider making monkey noises closer to 'speech' than flying a big banner but yano.

 

[Scouse]

Nice dodge.

I mean I'd consider making monkey noises closer to 'speech' than flying a big banner but yano.

There's no dodge here. I've made this point many many times - and you are well aware of this. But one more time. Just to be completely clear. Yes. Monkey noises, calling someone a coon (or a cracker) should not be illegal.

Now, on your dodge. I'd like you to address the point you've never addressed. Never even attempted to. You just blank it:

"You cannot, repeat, cannot police speech without this sort of shit happening"...

Police actions, not speech. Speech *has* to be free for social progress and a basic freedom from oppression to exist.

You don't have a model for social progress. You're a prohibitionist. And you're in charge of young people's minds. The very concept of this, coupled with the fact that you're in theUK and not in Saudi Arabia, and have studied holocausts and genocides across the globe and still don't get it, fills me with more terror, more dispair for the future of humanity, than arseholes like the manchester bomber ever could.

 

[Embattle]

I don't have a problem with the sign, I also don't have a problem with the police investigating it since it is part of the process. I would have an issue if they tried to do anything about it.

 

[Gwadien]

Yes. Monkey noises, calling someone a coon (or a cracker) should not be illegal.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know

 

[Scouse]

I don't have a problem with the sign, I also don't have a problem with the police investigating it since it is part of the process. I would have an issue if they tried to do anything about it.

Investigation is doing something about it. It will have a chilling effect.

Nobody wants to think that they could potentially get in trouble with the po-po. And even if you are squeaky clean the police turning up always carries that risk because of the imperfect nature of their actions. Lastly - and most importantly - we are supposed to live in a society free of police interference and free of the prospect of it.

The fact that they now routinely investigate political posters on the subtext of racism is clearly a chilling form of expression on political thought and an unacceptable interference in our lives.

 

[Scouse]

Thanks, that's all I needed to know

I'd said it before. You already knew that. Gwad the oppressor.

Address the facts? Or continue to dodge in your continuing spectacular show of intellectual cowardice.

 

[Raven]

Investigation is doing something about it. It will have a chilling effect.

Nobody wants to think that they could potentially get in trouble with the po-po. And even if you are squeaky clean the police turning up always carries that risk because of the imperfect nature of their actions. Lastly - and most importantly - we are supposed to live in a society free of police interference and free of the prospect of it.

The fact that they now routinely investigate political posters on the subtext of racism is clearly a chilling form of expression on political thought and an unacceptable interference in our lives.

No it won't, something has been reported, now they have investigate it.

 

[Scouse]

No it won't, something has been reported, now they have investigate it.

The fact that a political poster has been reported for racism means that they have to investigate yes.

It's clearly a political message. People will now have to think what they're allowed to depict when making political messages. This is the very definition of a "chilling" effect.

If we had free speech, this would never have happened (hence why I brought it up).

 

[Gwadien]

I'd said it before. You already knew that. Gwad the oppressor.

Address the facts? Or continue to dodge in your continuing spectacular show of intellectual cowardice.

Come on, think harder for some new words to insult me because I don't agree with you.

 

[Scouse]

Come on, think harder for some new words to insult me because I don't agree with you.

I don't give a fuck whether you agree with me or not and I'm not intending to insult you to hurt your fragile little feelings - I'm directly accusing you of intellectual cowardice - because you've never made any sort of defence or justification of your position and never made an attempt to cogently argue why my position is incorrect.

So intellectual cowardice is, dispassionately, what I'm accusing you of. Not to upset you - although I freely admit that's clearly a side-effect. But it's because it's what you're exhibiting.

If you cannot come up with a clear and logical defence of your position, and a clear and logical refutation of mine then it's intellectual cowardice to not amend your thinking.

Just like some human scientists actually die before accepting the evidence that other people put before them. That's intellectual cowardice on their part.

It's not meant as an insult Gwadien. It just a statement of fact.

 

[Gwadien]

I don't give a fuck whether you agree with me or not and I'm not intending to insult you to hurt your fragile little feelings - I'm directly accusing you of intellectual cowardice - because you've never made any sort of defence or justification of your position and never made an attempt to cogently argue why my position is incorrect.

So intellectual cowardice is, dispassionately, what I'm accusing you of. Not to upset you - although I freely admit that's clearly a side-effect. But it's because it's what you're exhibiting.

If you cannot come up with a clear and logical defence of your position, and a clear and logical refutation of mine then it's intellectual cowardice to not amend your thinking.

Just like some human scientists actually die before accepting the evidence that other people put before them. That's intellectual cowardice on their part.

It's not meant as an insult Gwadien. It just a statement of fact.

I've explained myself lots of times on this subject, and it's getting a bit boring, no?

It always ends in the same shit - I explain myself, you write a paragraph explaining why I am dumb, because I disagree with you.

I'm practically the only one that engages you in certain subjects - you ever wondered why?

 

[Scouse]

I've explained myself lots of times on this subject, and it's getting a bit boring, no?

I disagree @Gwadien.

All you have ever done is restate your position and ignore the arguments put forward. You haven't ever actually tried to put together a logical argument that refutes my position. You've just found different ways to restate your own, like that changes anything.

I've gone to great lengths to explain why your position doesn't work. I've evidenced it, repeatedly.

You have decided your position is correct and look to defend it. You refuse to look in the dark place that perhaps you're not. To challenge your own opinions and to take on my position intellectually. To prove it and evidence it.

The reason why I'm a dog with a bone is that it's such a fundamental pillar of creating a just and fair society, defending the ability of being able to speak truth to power, defending oppressed minorities from orthodoxy and much much more that people who don't get it, don't understand it, must be challenged.

In the same way you'd spend all day challenging a racist (and I fully admire anyone for that) I'm continually challenging someone who holds an ideology that's vastly more dangerous than racism.

 

[Ormorof]

Just take a pick fellas https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

 

[Scouse]

Maybe I can put it another way.

I never advocated banning @Job for overt racism. I thought it was important to argue with him but not ostracise him - because all that achieved was him saying his shit elasewhere whereas he got challenged here.

He did have something to offer us aside from his racism, homophobia and irrational hatred of tattoos.

As do you @Gwadien. But whilst racism is (rightly) vilified the worse thing - the undermining of free speech - isn't. That's because it's more esoteric and less overtly emotive on a human level. But make no mistake - your position is worse than Job's was.



@Ormorof - yep. But only one of us is incorrect.

 

[Gwadien]

'It isn't because you disagree with me, but also.'

The reason why I'm a dog with a bone is that it's such a fundamental pillar of creating a just and fair society, defending the ability of being able to speak truth to power, defending oppressed minorities from orthodoxy and much much more that people who don't get it, don't understand it, must be challenged.

and also

That's because it's more esoteric and less overtly emotive on a human level. But make no mistake - your position is worse than Job's was.

 

[Raven]

The fact that a political poster has been reported for racism means that they have to investigate yes.

It's clearly a political message. People will now have to think what they're allowed to depict when making political messages. This is the very definition of a "chilling" effect.

If we had free speech, this would never have happened (hence why I brought it up).

They have a legal obligation to see if a crime has been committed, as there clearly hasn't been, then no charges will be brought. Nobody will be worried about making political statements because of this.

 

[Hawkwind]

There was nothing on that poster that has not been the subject of an article by BBC and other media outlets. It was quite factual given allegations already widely circulated. The Police investigation should take 10 minutes followed by CPS saying nothing to answer. If that happens, no issue.

 

[Scouse]

They have a legal obligation to see if a crime has been committed, as there clearly hasn't been, then no charges will be brought.

Yep. Hopefully the rozzers won't take the picture of a murderous arab with a sword as a racial slur. Though no doubt someone is making that argument.

But yep. Bevause the law is how it is, they have to investigate. But I don't have the same faith in your 'clearly' statement. Especially given clear problems that we've evidenced here - including a judge saying context doesn't matter.

Likely your outcome is correct. Hope so. Not *definite* though. And if Saudi wasn't the target then much less clear...

Nobody will be worried about making political statements because of this.

Disagree.

For a start, I'm peturbed - and I'm not unique.

 

[Scouse]

There was nothing on that poster that has not been the subject of an article by BBC and other media outlets. It was quite factual given allegations already widely circulated. The Police investigation should take 10 minutes followed by CPS saying nothing to answer. If that happens, no issue.

Agree. As there is a legal obligation to investigate.

But we shouldn't be investigating in the first place.

 

[Scouse]

@Gwadien. :sigh:

Address the argument, quit expressing your butthurt.

It's a bit like Job whining "you keep having a go at me because I'm racist" rather than addressing his racism.


Edit: But worse.

 

[Ormorof]

This site is my new favourite way to interpret FH, i believe Gwadien believes you are wrong for presenting the problem like this https://www.logicalfallacies.org/false-dilemma.html

While you are arguing he is wrong because you believe he is following this https://www.logicalfallacies.org/middle-ground.html

All in all too many fallacies not enough fellatio

 

[Embattle]

The fact that a political poster has been reported for racism means that they have to investigate yes.

It's clearly a political message. People will now have to think what they're allowed to depict when making political messages. This is the very definition of a "chilling" effect.

If we had free speech, this would never have happened (hence why I brought it up).

America has a free speech law, it doesn't stop the assorted court cases and attempted prosecutions.

 

[Scouse]

This site is my new favourite way to interpret FH, i believe Gwadien believes you are wrong for presenting the problem like this https://www.logicalfallacies.org/false-dilemma.html

The problem here is that although it looks like my position fits this fallacy it's not the case because the very definition of "free" brooks no 'middle ground'.

The fallcy with presenting the free speech argument like this is that free speech "with rules" isn't free.

Most things brook a middle ground. Not this. It's either free or not. It IS a black-or-white proposition.

 

[Wij]

All in all too many fallacies not enough fellatio

*ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip*

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[Ormorof]

The problem here is that although it looks like my position fits this fallacy it's not the case because the very definition of "free" brooks no 'middle ground'.

The fallcy with presenting the free speech argument like this is that free speech "with rules" isn't free.

Most things brook a middle ground. Not this. It's either free or not. It IS a black-or-white proposition.

Which is exactly what i said

 

[old.Osy]

View: https://youtu.be/2OHFgjuy3DI