Woman with opinion taken to court

[Scouse]

Some of us are not debating because there really is no true answer

What a krock of krap.

 

[Talivar]

Ofc you would say that because you dont seem to understand how the world really is, only how you think and want it to really be. You also seem to have an inability to accept you could be the one that's wrong

 

[Scouse]

Ofc you would say that because you dont seem to understand how the world really is, only how you think and want it to really be. You also seem to have an inability to accept you could be the one that's wrong

Lol!

It's clear that you are describing yourself there. Make an argument. Refute the points raised, and provide evidence for your opinion, as I have done. That's what debate is. Capiche?

I'm perfectly willing to accept I'm in the wrong but since nobody has made a single argument in rebuttal of mine, or put forward an alternative theory with supporting evidence, then why would I give up my well-considered position?

"Because" isn't a good enough reason. Prove to me that my arguments are wrong.

 

[Talivar]

1) Truth. You cannot get to the bottom of things unless you're exposed to all of the facts, arguments and opinions. Even ones that are wrong, or even outrageous. Being exposed to outrageous or incorrect arguments (like "why not just kill downs syndrome kids") forces us to clarify and test our own positions. This is hugely important - because being forced to examine our own position is one of the primary provocations of intellectual advancement. I.E. The wankers make the good guys' positions stronger - or we find out that the wankers may have a point - but if they can't express it then a hugely unpopular argument cannot gain traction even if it's right (like "black people should have equal rights in south africa")

Truth for many is subjective and based on opinion. Like for example killing Down Syndrome babies is a mercy, convince enough people that your view is the right view and then eventually it becomes the truth. There is no quantifiable way to disprove or prove it so no matter how much debate happens there wont be a moment when someone says here look killing them isn't a mercy because. Look at Hitler and how he convinced Germany the Jews where evil, and then how the rest of the world became convinced that Germans where evil. This was believed until the 70s or 80s until a psychological experiment showed it to be false, not an argument or debate.





2) Democracy. You cannot have true democracy without free speech. Everyone's ideas and opinions, no matter how unpopular, have a right to be heard. Policies that are unthinkable now, even hugely offensive to the vast majority of the population, must have the opportunity to be aired. If you shut down the free expression of opinions then you entrench injustice and bad or corrupt and dangerous governments. Without free and unfettered speech you cannot hold your government to account. A government has to win the argument to be legitimate - it is illegitimate if it prevents the argument from happening.

You are correct if we lived in a society where we could hold the Government to account. The reality has been proved recently with the tax credit cut lies. They lied to get into power and it took a mistake on their end to get it postponed (Mistake with how they tried to pass the law which allowed House of Lords the opportunity to stop it)


3) Tolerance. Our current ability to live in harmony with other people is due largely to the fact that we tolerate those who are massively different from ourselves. In looks, dress, customs, opinions. It wasn't always this way but because we've had freedom of expression over time we've become more and more tolerant of those differences. It's been a long hard slog with a lot of people taking extreme offence at differing realities. The fact that we haven't cow-towed to those who are intolerant is because there's been protection of freedom of speech and expression. But if you erode free speech then you lessen our exposure to different opinions. We become more easily offended. Over time we become less tolerant of views that are different to our own.

I do agree with this bit, we need to be tolerant to progress. It is partially the lack of tolerance that leads to young teenagers being swayed into Terroism.

 

[Talivar]

Also following on from the Tax Credit bit, Millions expressed their freedom of speech to get things changed and it didnt, as soon as a way was found with the House of Lords and that avenue is now being squashed to prevent it happening again The point is the freedom is an illusion and only allowed until it gets in the way of those in power, as soon as it does it is removed/changed/altered.

 

[Scouse]

Unfortunately I find your arguments unsupported and unconvincing. But at least you bothered with an attempt.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with your point about governments lying to get into office and lying whilst in office, and our inability to hold them to account effectively.

So why don't you get behind my freedom of speech argument if you feel that way? The ability to openly criticise government through free speech, to criticise the state of society and opine unpopular views is an essential minimum to even begin to hold governments to account.


Edit: And your argument above is an argument to fight harder to preserve it. You sound like a quitter who wants to bend over and take it.

 

[Talivar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment,
That is the psychological experiment i meant and i spend a lot of my day trying to convince people to hold the Government to account. As i have said i agree with what you say i just believe people like the Government stop it being a reality. They corrupt the system and abuse it when needed and ignore it when it suits them.

 

[Scouse]

I don't think the rest of the world became convinced germans were evil. Only idiots really think there's any real difference between the humans on the planet. And again, that's another argument for free speech.

 

[soze]

Edit: And your argument above is an argument to fight harder to preserve it. You sound like a quitter who wants to bend over and take it.

But you are bending over and taking it. Sitting on your moral high horse on a forum giving all the worst case scenarios changes nothing. So you are actually worse than the gullible masses as you can see this police state coming but choose to do nothing to stop it.

 

[Raven]

@Scouse. Lets assume everyone agrees with you. Now what?

 

[Talivar]

You would think so but for a long time the Germans where regarded as weak and evil and it took that experiment to prove that almost anyone under similar conditions would have carried out those types of orders and killed people.

 

[Scouse]

So, the Russian government has denounced the most recent Charlie Hebdo cartoons as "blasphemy".

 

[Scouse]

But you are bending over and taking it. Sitting on your moral high horse on a forum giving all the worst case scenarios changes nothing. So you are actually worse than the gullible masses as you can see this police state coming but choose to do nothing to stop it.

Playing the man, not the ball there @soze?

I've already covered this argument off. Now, do you want to rebuff any of my arguments or are you just going to whine irrelevancies?

@Scouse. Lets assume everyone agrees with you. Now what?

Welcome back Toht...

 

[soze]

Playing the man, not the ball there @soze?

I've already covered this argument off. Now, do you want to rebuff any of my arguments or are you just going to whine irrelevancies?

Sorry you ignored my posts agreeing with you to quote the bits that suited you so I am just going to do the same. Whenever you say that everyone else is bending over and taking it I think I will need to point out that you can see it coming and are bending over a taking it. I do not think you should be able to preach your views unless you are doing something to change it.

 

[Scouse]

Sorry you ignored my posts agreeing with you to quote the bits that suited you so I am just going to do the same.

In a debate you talk about the points you disagree on? Other than an acknowledgement of the points that you agree on you then continue to debate on the points of contention. I've not ignored any points you've made.

However, I think you're just copping out. You either can't or won't provide a reasoned, evidenced rebuff to my points. My bet is on can't - because it's a topic I live, not just think about - and I have a well-tested, well-reasoned stance, where it's clear you don't.

In answer to your questions about "what else" I do - yes, I've written to MP's and yes I've attended demonstrations. So yah-boo sucks. But I'm (rightly) disgusted with you that you can't keep to the intellectual topic at hand - playing the man not the ball. It doesn't matter what people do - it has no effect on the rightness or the wrongness of the topic being discussed and that sort of argument is the preserve of a well-beaten man.

I've shown good faith with my long and detailed evidenced arguments. Either respond to those points or don't bother...

I do not think you should be able to preach your views unless you are doing something to change it.

There's a lot of things you don't think people should be able to talk about aren't there

 

[Fweddy]

I love that the anti-free speech argument has gone from "Hate preachers shouldn't be allowed to speak because they influence people!" to "There's no point just speaking, it doesn't change anything!"

 

[old.Osy]

Actually, if she'd said it someone's face she'd probably have been OK. She was arrested under Malicious Communications because words only count if you say them on Twitter apparently. She might still have been arrested for a non-specific "public order offence" (the British authorities do love their catch-all regulations that can be used for anything they like), but unlike that woman on the bus ranting at Muslims a few weeks back, she didn't actually threaten anyone.

Hence why i originally said "In this particular case though, she's only guilty of extreme stupidity, police should not be involved."

 

[Talivar]

There is a difference between thinking something should be and thinking something is. I personally think many people here are all arguing the same point just from different angles

 

[Raven]

Playing the man, not the ball there @soze?

I've already covered this argument off. Now, do you want to rebuff any of my arguments or are you just going to whine irrelevancies?





Welcome back Toht...

Well, what is the point in just going on and on about something?

What are you doing about any perceived lack of freedom of speech?

Why get so upset about something that you will never try to change.

You can't even get the definition right...

Anyway,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34764663

Another example of someone being punished for a (shitty) opinion.

 

[Scouse]

Why don't you read the bleeding thread if you're going to bother posting @Raven? I'm talking to other people and have already answered your questions.

 

[Ormorof]

So the general feeling is"

Im not going to do anything because i dont think that other guy is doing anything other than talking, i also want him to stop talking

This is a great way to make progress in society

 

[Talivar]

How do we know what each of us actually does tho?, For me i spend a lot of time trying to help people around me to see the bigger picture and how actions and inaction's can lead to consequences down the line. I argued a lot in the politics section about the danger of keeping the conservatives for example.

 

[Raven]

So the general feeling is"

Im not going to do anything because i dont think that other guy is doing anything other than talking, i also want him to stop talking

This is a great way to make progress in society

No, I am just not happy to be talked at and told I must have an opinion one way or the other by someone who is unwilling to do anything to back up his own opinion (and not only this subject) Scouse has all sorts of opinions on how other people should think and live and is always quick to criticise people who do not fit his shallow template, but rarely backs up his convictions with actions, he would be great in politics.

I know I am free to express my opinions (at the moment) the moment I think I am being unfairly silenced then I will do something about it. I am happy that political parties, no matter how retarded they are, are allowed a voice. I am happy that I can call an MP a despicable cunt. The case in the original post was some stupid waste of skin going to court for saying something stupid. The thread soon got derailed as Scouse argued with everyone about the definition of free speech and widely missed the mark...there is no point discussing it though because regardless of whether Scouse is incorrect he will just wall of text people into giving up, then wonders why people just can't be arsed discussing things with him...life is far too short for that.

 

[Scouse]

Get fucked @Raven. Read the post further up the page which spells out exactly what I do - which I've already asked you to do. Then feel free to go back to reading the sun, being angry at other people's discussions whilst not actually taking part in them and being the low IQ knuckledragger thotalike you sometimes really like to be.

 

[Ormorof]

If you dont react until you are being unfairly silenced then its already too late

 

[Embattle]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chelsea-fan-who-branded-liverpool-6797603

 

[Scouse]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chelsea-fan-who-branded-liverpool-6797603

Shame he lost his job, but if you talk like that then there'l be consequences. It's good to see that they're not legal consequences.

If I called a black man a nigger and it was posted all over the internet I'm pretty sure my employers would take a dim view of it. But that's totally separate from the state.

 

[Raven]

If you dont react until you are being unfairly silenced then its already too late

React against what though? And even so, what is getting angry on the internet going to achieve? The only actions are real actions.

It also depends if you think people should be allowed to be overtly racist, sexist or discriminatory towards disabled people and voice said opinions.

If you want total freedom of speech then you must also allow people to be free to voice their opinions on the above. If you think racism and sexism should be silenced then you cannot allow total freedom of speech.

Its really as simple as that, getting angry one way or another isn't going to change that.

 

[Scouse]

It's not a shame he lost his job @Embattle?

I mean, he was a tit, but he was caught up in the heat of the moment. And, you know, football fans can be absolute fanboi retards...

 

[Trem]

I read the first page a bit and read the initial link then came here, HI EVERYBODY!

Oh, that bird, on the thing, she should be put down for being ugly and Welsh or something. No offence to any ugly Welsh birds on here, that's just my opinion. We have a friend with a downsey kid (pretty sure that isn't the correct term ) and she is amazing.

I hate (see how I used the word hate) how the hate preachers seem (read that word there *seem*) to get a lot of protection where other speakers do not receive any. That includes the media which I don't even know why I look at anymore.

Seriously I can't string any words together to make anything sensible, sorry.


When you read all of the above you either know me or you don't if you don't then it makes no difference if I explain because you won't believe me and if you know me then I don't have to explain what I mean because it's freedom of my speech isn't it?