| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| kathryn |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 16:56:06
What do you think of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/international/europe/21austria.html
I got some heaven in my head
|
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| darwin |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:30:43
Perhaps I'm missing the point of the exercise. I'm not suggesting the punishment; I'm commenting on what the punishment might be in our society.
|
| broken part |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:24:12
ironic name then |
| darwin |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:21:40
evolution does occur (God is a human constructed concept formed to repress human behavior) = Pat Robertson holds a telethon and broadcasts you being chained to a pair of pickups and pulled into pieces |
| broken part |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:09:08
Nazis never harmed jews = 3 years jail
Therefore:
evolution does not exist (God created man from his rib and clay 6000 years ago) = electric chair
(A little background on this one. Africa has an AIDS epidemic. Many Africans are convinced that using condoms will give you HIV. The view is that condoms are purpousely contaminated as plot by the developed world against Africa. How come? In many poor areas most sources of information about greater, world issues come from missionaries. As good Christians as they are they do not accept use of contraception and do their best to persuade locals about the evils of condoms. Wonderful service to humanity)
Safe sex deniers = death by asphixiation through airways blockage by severed penis
Any more ideas? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 16:01:15
I was kidding. You deleted your message? I thought it was funny as hell, and not ill-intentioned at all, given the topic. |
| floop |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 15:51:11
you're probably right. carry on... |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 15:44:59
bad posture floop, bad posture |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 12:43:03
darwin, I think you're right to question my contention. I have no evidence, that's for sure. Hopefully I'll be thinking about it more. But it does occur to me that a beneficial side effect of "letting every flower bloom" is that many now-accepted and even cherished forms, once loathed and shunned, have managed take root in our culture because their early, controversial endorsement was not driven underground, at least not completely. For example, tolerance of the rights of minorities, women, and gays. Of course these are counter-examples, in that the hatred was directed against these groups and ideas (although according to the then-prevailing mindset, such things were seen as hateful of or dangerous to proper posture toward god or the well-ordered society). Now, I don't expect hatreds to have the same success, but perhaps some things many currently think of as demonstrating hatred may eventually be seen as wisdom. I guess the point here is that we cant always be sure just what the future will show to have been right to repress. And I guess Im showing faith that given the chance to make up our own minds, people will (usually) get it right, if only eventually. In the cases of racism, Nazi-ism, communism, and, yes, even Islamism, I think the prudent path is to allow expression while countering it to the best of our ability. But, as CoF has said, it is a matter of limits, such as those the Nazis crossed at some point in their beerhalls, and perhaps even devout Moslems cross when Mosques become arsenals and terrorism training cells. |
| darwin |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 12:03:49
I think you're confusing hate speech with crazy talk. |
| Fartbone |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 11:52:04
the twin towers never fell..........now take me to jail
Horale Cabrones |
| darwin |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 10:29:52
I don't think anecdotal evidence means much. Take a look at the reduction in German imperialism as facist talk has been suppressed since World War II. Of course, there are many other factors (such as economic development, NATO/Warsaw Pact) just as there are many reasons for sexual abuse by priests. I don't think any of this is good evidence that driving hateful thoughts underground is a good or bad thing. What I want (and probably doesn't exist) is data or well constructed studies. |
| Newo |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 10:20:50
Take a look at what happened when the Catholic Church drove sex and talk of sex underground for their staff, they started taking it out on altar boys en masse (didnīt mean that pun).
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| darwin |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 10:06:48
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
You might reduce the act of speech but you donīt reduce the thought that it stems from.
True, but you "drive it underground" and perhaps make it less socially acceptable. The question is whether the first one a positive or negative effect. I'm just saying I don't think "driving it underground" is necessarily a negative. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 10:05:09
No prob, thanks!
 "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:43:15
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
PixieSteve, I'm afraid that using that as your signature has to go unless you can keep its height at or below 75 pixels.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
sorry, sorted. (not sure if i want it any more... i mean it's usually on random so the top three'll eventually be the artists i have most tracks by... beatles, pixies and frank!)
 |
| Newo |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:38:31
You might reduce the act of speech but you donīt reduce the thought that it stems from.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| darwin |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:35:30
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
Same with "hate speech", legislation does not reduce it one bit, only hides it.
I don't know if that's true. I suspect it is not. |
| Newo |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:23:43
Lenny Bruce said about the word "nigger" that it was the suppression of the word gave it its power and viciousness. Same with "hate speech", legislation does not reduce it one bit, only hides it.
Hereīs the Lenny bit:
"Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? "Are there any niggers here tonight?" I know there's one nigger, because I see him back there working. Let's see, there's two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there's another kike that's two kikes and three niggers. And there's a spic. Right? Hmm? There's another spic. Ooh, there's a wop; there's a pollock; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there's three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there's one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kikes here, do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop. Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" to every nigger he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" 'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school."
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| darwin |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 09:06:48
I'm not certain that driving hate underground is necessarily worse than allowing open hate that might embolden groups and allow them to solidify their membership. Is it worse to have many people with racist thoughts that they largely keep quiet in public (in the US today) or people that openly spout racist thoughts and form public racists groups like the Klan (in the US before the 70s)?
I'm not addressing the costs of lost civil liberties caused by hate talk legislation, but rather whether erebus's claim that hate speech legislation is counterproductive is correct. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 08:50:45
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
A fair argument and I agree with you Erebus, so long as we're still saying that there need to be limits somewhere.
Yes, there have to be some limits, and that's where it gets murky when not outright opaque. If only glib principle could suffice everywhere. The real world sucks. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 06:46:08
PixieSteve, I'm afraid that using that as your signature has to go unless you can keep its height at or below 75 pixels.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| zub_the_goat |
Posted - 02/22/2006 : 05:17:38
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
The Nazi salute is banned in Germany, as is the swastika and other things associated with Hitler and the Third Reich.
I got some heaven in my head
I guess they don't show THAT episode of Fawlty Towers in Germany then.
 I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
When my dad was in germany they'd just showed it, and all the people who knew he was english kept shouting 'dont mention the War!' everytime he walked into a room.
But i think its a stupid decision, obviously it was callous, misguided, stupid to deny the holocaust ever happend-but really, how many people actually beleived him? If we are going to have free speach then lets have free speech, rather than locking up people who express an opinion that is not agreed with, different opinions is how society progresses, and your going to get a few bad eggs along the way. |
| Newo |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 13:22:29
What Erebus said too. So if this is a predictable outcome of pushing hate underground, what does it say about the legislators?
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 08:49:22
yup, good argument. I am converted.
-But maybe its due to all the Sigur Ros i've been listening to today. |
| BLT |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 08:27:57
What Erebus said. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 07:43:32
quote:
Originally posted by lonely persuader
> "Hate speech" should be allowed so long as it does not call for violence
surely, you can't allow people to go around lecturing teenagers, student groups, etc about hating black people for example. If they end up hating them they will discrimate against them. "Hate speech" leads to violence. What else is it for?
I have a problem with lecturing captive groups like students about much of anything that involves moral or political content, though that can never be completely avoided. That said, I think it's better to have hate out in the open rather then driving it underground. Let hate be highly visible, and combat it with rational argument. When hatred is made criminal it hides and mutates into truly dangerous forms, but if allowed it shows itself for what it is and is rejected by the vast majority. |
| Newo |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 05:56:17
It is used to manipulate people to accept a society where what is inside your head is subject to law.
--
Buy your best friend flowers. Buy your lover a beer. Covet thy father. Covet thy neighbour's father. Honour thy lover's beer. Covet thy neighbour's father's wife's sister. Take her to bingo night. |
| lonely persuader |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 05:49:07
> "Hate speech" should be allowed so long as it does not call for violence
surely, you can't allow people to go around lecturing teenagers, student groups, etc about hating black people for example. If they end up hating them they will discrimate against them. "Hate speech" leads to violence. What else is it for? |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 05:39:24
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
The Nazi salute is banned in Germany, as is the swastika and other things associated with Hitler and the Third Reich.
I got some heaven in my head
I guess they don't show THAT episode of Fawlty Towers in Germany then.
I'd walk her everyday, into a shady place
|
| billgoodman |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 04:57:44
this is stupid
however saying the holocaust didn't happen
is saying that 1+1=3
and yes I read David Irving
I deny that he exists
---------------------------
God save the Noisies |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 02:27:32
I find this story utterly ridiculous. To jail someone for 3 years for expressing an historical opinion (however misguided) is pitiful. Where does it stop? Should we jail creationists for being idiots as well?
I understand what you're saying Monsieur, law and morality aren't one and the same. I think the law should generally reflect the morality of the country (or wider). Having thought about it briefly, I guess the law usually follows moral trends of the country, especially if there is enough moral outrage within the population, which may explain the laws at work in this case. But moral outrage should always be tempered by common sense.
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
|
| Monsieur |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 01:21:27
quote:
Originally posted by kathryn
The Nazi salute is banned in Germany, as is the swastika and other things associated with Hitler and the Third Reich.
I got some heaven in my head
In France too.
I think that you people tend to have a conception of law that identifies it to the rule of morality.
50 years ago the law said you had to send Jews to death camps. Now it says that denying that is a crime.
I don't agree with either, but we're better off today.
I will show you fear in a handful of dust |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 19:19:22
A fair argument and I agree with you Erebus, so long as we're still saying that there need to be limits somewhere. It's at the point here sometimes that if you suggest, for example, changing the way we deal with the native population and our history, the racist card is played. Which is garbage.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 17:49:35
not allowed to cause a revolution? :'(
 |
| Erebus |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 17:43:55
I think any speech short of inciting violence or revolution should be permitted. "Hate speech" should be allowed so long as it does not call for violence, with provision for civil penalties for libel and slander. Hatred prohibitions seem too open to interpretation to be fairly administered. For example, it's not difficult to imagine a society in which simply calling for an end to publicly sponsored "social welfare" programs would be prosecuted as racist and hateful. |
