NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-27-UN-religion_N.htm



Do you seriously live under a rock, or something?

The Resolution is just that, a Resolution, and hardly makes the UN evil or some-such. Whilst that committee is dominated by certain nations, it does have a point about defamation and people like you making comments.

EDIT: How quaint. Perhaps you'll call me a rapist again and it'll be like old times!

The Resolution is just that, a Resolution, and hardly makes the UN evil or some-such. Whilst that committee is dominated by certain nations, it does have a point about defamation and people like you making comments.

So you ARE anti-free speech, then?

Yes, I do. Because those consequences, and let's be honest, we're talking about Muslims murdering and destroying, are ILLEGAL.

And where does it say that this has suddenly become ok? Anywhere?
Pointless provocation is a bad idea, but if you feel like it, go right ahead. You've got every right.
And nobody has any right to murder or illegally destroy. Nowhere is there a law that just because you feel like insulting others, those people have the right to murder you.
You just like pretending there would be, and then complain about.


I'm not laughing.

Good. Realising that you're not funny is the first step.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-27-UN-religion_N.htm



Do you seriously live under a rock, or something?

While we're at it, it's probably worth informing you about the World Wars, the Pyramids and the genesis of life. You gonna need evidence for that?

Reading comprehension isn't really coming along, is it?

It says that the UN voiced concern about defamation. That's all. It doesn't propose any changes to existing legistation, it doesn't say you shouldn't say what you think, it just asks you to think before opening your mouth.
Does that infringe on your rights in any way?

So you ARE anti-free speech, then?

You do realise that libel and defamation are not covered by free speech anywhere, right?

So you ARE anti-free speech, then?

No,I'm saying that free speech doesn't include the right to be a moron. The example about shouting 'FIRE' in a theatre springs to mind.

You do realise that libel and defamation are not covered by free speech anywhere, right?

You can't defame a religion. Especially not one that's doing such a great job of defaming itself.

You can't defame a religion. Especially not one that's doing such a great job of defaming itself.

Yes, yes I actually believe you can defame a religion, but don't let facts or reality get in your way...

No,I'm saying that free speech doesn't include the right to be a moron. The example about shouting 'FIRE' in a theatre springs to mind.

Well, actually, the "shouting fire in a theatre" case was OVERTURNED. So, TECHNICALLY...

You can't defame a religion. Especially not one that's doing such a great job of defaming itself.

You can.
Publicly claiming that all priests rape little boys, and that the Vatican actively seeks out paedophiles to do youth work will get you into deep water indeed with the Catholic church. And it'll probably cost you a shitload of money, too.

Yes, yes I actually believe you can defame a religion, but don't let facts or reality get in your way...

No, you can't defame a religion. A religion's position doesn't suffer because of defamation. Especially a non-centralised religion.

You can.
Publicly claiming that all priests rape little boys, and that the Vatican actively seeks out paedophiles to do youth work will get you into deep water indeed with the Catholic church. And it'll probably cost you a shitload of money, too.

This is a perfect reply to you, K-P.

You can.
Publicly claiming that all priests rape little boys, and that the Vatican actively seeks out paedophiles to do youth work will get you into deep water indeed with the Catholic church. And it'll probably cost you a shitload of money, too.

First, I HAVE publicly claimed it, and second, it's pretty much true.

First, I HAVE publicly claimed it, and second, it's pretty much true.

Try claiming it in public, on paper and not on some anonymous internet forum. THEN see where it gets you.

Lawsuit city is where.

Try claiming it in public, on paper and not on some anonymous internet forum. THEN see where it gets you.

Lawsuit city is where.

Well, apparently, you don't even need to do it in public. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E2DF1738F934A15752C1A9649C8B63) That's the US for you.

Well, apparently, you don't even need to do it in public. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E2DF1738F934A15752C1A9649C8B63) That's the US for you.

...You just disproved your point that you can't defame a religion

You do realize that, right?

...You just disproved your point that you can't defame a religion

You do realize that, right?

The difference between this and shooting fish in a barrel is that the fish don't shoot themselves :D

The difference between this and shooting fish in a barrel is that the fish don't shoot themselves :D

I don't usually bother with K-P after he got himself deleted a few times, but I have intense earache and can't concentrate on anything else.

I'm not laughing.

Of course you're not. You've been proven to be a self serving hypocrite who only cares about freedom for himself and would oppress others from having the same freedoms. It puts a mighty big hole in your platform.

Few narcissists would be laughing at that either.

I don't usually bother with K-P after he got himself deleted a few times, but I have intense earache and can't concentrate on anything else.

Who's K-P anyway? I need to update my puppet list.

Who's K-P anyway? I need to update my puppet list.

Used to be Kievian-Prussia and later on The Potatoe Factory....

Which is the same reason I'm not allowed to draw pictures of a certain "prophet", or criticise a religion?

You are. Go ahead. I mean, you might get ridiculed, but that's because everyone is entitled to free speech and not just you.

However, now you're going to argue "but zomg, I'll get murdered" and so what? Murder is illegal. That's not permitted and the police will try to stop it. In other words, it's not an argument.

If you try to murder someone for saying "Ferrous Oxide should die" You'd rightly be thrown in jail too. As would the person making the death threat, because there are consequences to your words and actions.

But then, I'm apparently perfectly within my rights (according to you) to call you a murderer, a pedophile, a thief, an idiot, a fool, etc... Really, you don't think there's any consequences to that?

No. Rights are fundamental and unmoveable. No responsibilities. Just freedom.

^^

This is wrong. There are consequences to actions. Expressing yourself is an action. You are free to express yourself and no one is allowed to silence you, however, they are fully within their rights to protect themselves against libel and death threats.

Used to be Kievian-Prussia and later on The Potatoe Factory....

He's TPF? I thought the style was similar.

Aww, I missed your silliness!

Human rights? Do you really believe that the right to free speech is an inalieable right granted upon birth, regardless of birthplace?

Yes. A country may not choose to acknowledge your rights but all humans have them.

Zomg! People Saying Stupid Things Are Being Condemned! We Gotz No Free Speech!!!111!11!



Free speech does not mean the right to say idiotic things without being called on said idiotic things. It just means the government isnt going to throw you in jail for saying stupid things. Which sometimes I wish they did. :p

If you critisize black people and say they are genetically inferior and have achieved no advancements in history (yes OP, my example is intentional) people are going to tell you that youre a moron.

The "age of freedom" if there ever was such a thing is not over.

Oh really? And how did the right to free speech come about? Or the right to freedom of the press? Or free (in more than one way) religion?

Weren't these "inaliable rights" created under the construct of a new government?

No. This was the first government to RECOGNIZE them.

I'll say it again. The only free speech Rust supports is his own.

When he says something, it's free speech, if it's someone else, it's discrimination.

The Irish should harden the fuck up.

:rolleyes:
Its difficult to come up with a reply to explain the sheer patheticness of that statement. Maybe you should wait till you've had a gang of people sing that song before chasing you and attempting to beat you unconcious before you tell the N.Irish people to harden up. And maybe until then you should realise that that is song is not intended as "friendly banter" and is in a very real sense an incitement to violence.

Oh shut up you pansy. You clearly have no idea how much freer we are now than 30 years ago. Freedom of speech =/= the freedom to insult and spread bigotry.

Hmm,
Can I build onto my own home without first asking permission from the government? No
Can I open a business without asking permission from the government? No.
Can I open a bank account without giving them government id? No.
Can I purchase a PRE-PAID cell phone without giving government identification? No.
Can I make a cash purchase online with no identification? No.
Can I get cable TV, telephone or utilities without government identification? No.
Can I exercise my second amendment right without government id and permission? No.
Can I drive my care without government permission? No - on two counts; drivers license and auto license plates.
Can I purchase a car without government ID? No.
Can I build my own car and drive it on public roads without government permission? No.
Can I Stay at a hotel without government id? No.

the list can go on quite a while...

Hmm,
Can I build onto my own home without first asking permission from the government? No
Can I open a business without asking permission from the government? No.
Can I open a bank account without giving them government id? No.
Can I purchase a PRE-PAID cell phone without giving government identification? No.
Can I make a cash purchase online with no identification? No.
Can I get cable TV, telephone or utilities without government identification? No.
Can I exercise my second amendment right without government id and permission? No.
Can I drive my care without government permission? No - on two counts; drivers license and auto license plates.
Can I purchase a car without government ID? No.
Can I build my own car and drive it on public roads without government permission? No.
Can I Stay at a hotel without government id? No.

the list can go on quite a while...

Um. And which of these things you allegedly can't do now were you able to do thirty years ago?

Um. And which of these things you allegedly can't do now were you able to do thirty years ago?


Can I purchase a PRE-PAID cell phone without giving government identification? No.
Can I make a cash purchase online with no identification? No.

These, but primarily because neither existed 30 years ago. The rest are 30 magic fantasy land years. :p

America hasn't been free for decades now.

America hasn't been free for decades now.

:rolleyes:

I'll have to ask the governm...*is dragged away*

I think we're starting to enter the Age of Aquarius, so maybe. I can only hope the new sky pattern is as good to us as the last one was.

Voted yes. Of course it is. If Boy George were around today and entered American Idol, he would get lynched by the mob and probably sodomized too.

Voted yes. Of course it is. If Boy George were around today and entered American Idol, he would get lynched by the mob and probably sodomized too.

Well, that's just throwin' Brer Rabbit into the briar patch, now ain't it?

Take a few deep breaths, and go sign an internet petition saying that you don't want your rights infringed upon. Or become a senator, whatever floats your boat.

Not support what they say, but their right to say it.

If they have the right to free speech then there would be no reason for the E.U to make a public speech supporting that right (yes I know that I am posting reply from early in the topic).

We sing songs about inbred South Australians every week and there's no violence. Also, didn't UEFA ban standing?

Are you sure that you don't mean Tasmanians? I've never heard someone calling SA's inbred, though I've heard the insult applied to Tas people...

I dunno, state rivalries can be pretty heated. The fact that Australia's intact is a miracle; when it comes down to it, we all really, truly hate each other.

Not really. There is a lot of competition but not a lot of hatred. You'd find more dislike between members of two Victorian AFL teams than you'd find between Melbourne and Sydney.

The only statoid that wanted to secede was Western Australia and even then it only gained mass support in the early 1930's.

I'll say it again. The only free speech Rust supports is his own.

When he says something, it's free speech, if it's someone else, it's discrimination.

When did I EVER say that?

Also, ferrous oxide isn't rust, it's wüstite, genius.

Are you sure that you don't mean Tasmanians? I've never heard someone calling SA's inbred, though I've heard the insult applied to Tas people...

We use it on Adelaide now. "South Australians are proof that Tasmanians can swim".

Not really. There is a lot of competition but not a lot of hatred. You'd find more dislike between members of two Victorian AFL teams than you'd find between Melbourne and Sydney.

The only statoid that wanted to secede was Western Australia and even then it only gained mass support in the early 1930's.

The A-League helps. Friendly competition is turning into loathing.

Would me and 100 other people unleashing air-horns whenever Ferrous Oxide speaks be interfering with his/her freedom of speech?

Would me and 100 other people unleashing air-horns whenever Ferrous Oxide speaks be interfering with his/her freedom of speech?

In his world view? Probably. Remember, he only likes free speech when it's for himself.

In his world view? Probably. Remember, he only likes free speech when it's for himself.

When did I EVER say that? You're just making shit up now.

When did I EVER say that? You're just making shit up now.

Well, you oppose the rights of muslims to condemn Geert Wilders film.

That's free speech right there. Condemnation doesn't really have any effect other than the words behind it.

Also, ferrous oxide is FeO, not necessarily wüstite because wüstite is a mineral. Whilst wüstite is FeO, FeO is not necessarily wüstite due to the geological definition of what a mineral is.

Well, you oppose the rights of muslims to condemn Geert Wilders film.

That's free speech right there. Condemnation doesn't really have any effect other than the words behind it.

Muslims don't condemn. They just go "Behead those who insult Islam!". If all they did was condemn, we wouldn't be having these problems.

Also, ferrous oxide is FeO, not necessarily wüstite because wüstite is a mineral. Whilst wüstite is FeO, FeO is not necessarily wüstite due to the geological definition of what a mineral is.

Ferrous oxide can be wuestite; ferrous oxide is not rust.

Muslims don't condemn. They just go "Behead those who insult Islam!". If all they did was condemn, we wouldn't be having these problems.

You are wrong, however. For example, a muslim organization in the Netherlands offered to show the film for Geert Wilders, on the condition that they got to review it first.

Stupid as he was, he refused. Silly him.

See, your problem is EXACTLY the same as Geert Wilders. You are unable to differentiate between radical, moderates, seculars and those who don't care. A vast majority of muslims in western nations are pretty much like the christians of those nations - they never go to church/mosque, they barely ever pray and their belief is lip service.

Ferrous oxide can be wuestite; ferrous oxide is not rust.

Can be, but isn't necessarily. It is not rust, that is true.

Muslims don't condemn. They just go "Behead those who insult Islam!". If all they did was condemn, we wouldn't be having these problems.

You know what, I'm not even going to bother arguing. You've made up your mind, and you've clearly proved yourself immune to logic-based attacks, so have fun in your little world. Just remember that sometimes, speech has consequences, so if someone comes up to you in a bar while you're spouting this racist bullshit and punches you in the nose, I'll just have to point and laugh.

See, your problem is EXACTLY the same as Geert Wilders. You are unable to differentiate between radical, moderates, seculars and those who don't care.

Unable or unwilling...


SPIEGEL: Your tirades are a challenge to all moderate Muslims and those pushing for Islamic reform.

Wilders: Moderate Islam? That's a contradiction. It's going to be a long time before we see a new Koran, an equivalent to the New Testament. Attacks don't happen in the name of Buddhism or Christianity; nor do homosexuals get beaten up, as happens daily in Amsterdam.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544347,00.html

Unable or unwilling...



http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544347,00.html

Unwilling might be a better word indeed. Certainly homosexuals do get beaten up in the Faroe islands, a devoutly Christian collection of islands. Not to mention certain bombings in the US (abortion clinics come to mind) and certain acts of terrorism in Asia.

And Gandhi, whilst non-violent, wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue either...

It's a classical case of someone failing both history and geography simultaneously.

Unable or unwilling...



http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,544347,00.html

This made me laugh. What world does he live in where only Muslims beat up gays and commit act of violence in the name of their God?

I voted no because I believe that the age of freedom is only over if people allow it to be. People must continue to fight for their freedom.