Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

[vanesch]

Well since the law says you shouldn't foster hate towards or against a religion, or incite violence and that's precisely what these cartoons did tough **** I never had any sympathy for the Danish Cartoonists anyway, childish people with no consideration for religious beliefs, just like the guy who painted Jesus having gay sex, Idolotry is akin to this to a Muslim.

And, as I said, I think one should IMPOSE every adherent to an organized religion to publicly ridicule it at least once a week. And consider that this very statement brings me on the borderline of going to court for that, while I'm seriously convinced it cannot do anything but good! Laughter and ridicule are the best weapon against any form of mind control (which, I'm convinced, is the essential purpose of any ritual-imposing religion), and nevertheless it is what is borderline ILLEGAL now (while I would like to see it enforced!). This is just an illustration of the harm that do all these forbidden-to-say-what's-not-politically-correct laws.

Come on we both know if your exposed to communities and social environments were such hate is common place your more likely to be hatefull and more likely to be prompted towards violence, an 80% rise in hate crime is a consequence of this religious war.

If "such hate is common place" then it is democratically part of society, and if you think that such laws will stop people telling in their backyard during private gatherings what they REALLY think, then these laws just make you "close your eyes".

Define that?

A minority is a nuisance when a majority considers it a nuisance. That's democracy.

Yes, you are over here? What's your point? Did I npt explain earlier on that it is only in a universally agreed democratic framework of what we find socially acceptable, and terrorism and paedophilia are not acceptable. Your kind of saying people have no ability to discriminate between right and wrong, and for the idiots your probably right, but for the vast majority that simply isn't the case? I don't see your point here?

But IF the majority of people have the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, then what a few lunatics say in public will not "poison their minds" will it ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I got to love the US, bigotry and intolerance are acceptable but homosexuality is not, no wonder it took 250 years for blacks to get the vote, are you still living in the 18th century morally? Or are you still ruled by puritans or something?

 

[russ_watters]

A minority is a nuisance when a majority considers it a nuisance. That's democracy.

Heh. Well said.

 

[russ_watters]

I got to love the US, bigotry and intolerance are acceptable but homosexuality is not, no wonder it took 250 years for blacks to get the vote, are you still living in the 18th century morally? Or are you still ruled by puritans or something?

We have gay pride parades here...

Ironic though, that you keep bringing up our treatment of blacks (uh, 250 years ago, we were British too, btw...), when your ideas on government are about that far out of date.

 

[marlon]

These situations were of a similar kind: legal action (or the intention to have) against people who expressed certain ideas.

Again, these examples do NOT show the bad effect of the holocaust ban onto our society. Sorry but this is just meaningless. I am still waiting for these effects onto OUR society.

Well, the law itself is of this kind: "what may happen if we allow people to say something about the holocaust". It is all about "what if"s.

No it is not. In the law, there are no "may's" etc etc. Look at our country. Look at how it works as a society that embrases this law. This is clear proof and qualifies as a specific example.

What bothers me is the CLASS of laws it belongs to: to put legal interdiction upon expressing my opinion.

I understand that but this law does not belong to that specific class. This is what you fail to see. This law prevents people from using the holocaust denial for , let's say, political advantage. The reason to do that is very clear, ie history. This is exactly what "learing from history" means because, as we all knoa, that history book on the shelf always keeps repeating itself !

The law expresses the fact that denying historical facts (ie lying) for political gain is NOT allowed in this society. This is the way it operates and the law constitues one of the "rules of the game".

Just like on PF, you cannot say ANYTHING you want because of such guidelines. It is just the same thing. The majority of our society has decided that denying holocaust for some reason (like political ideology) is not allowed. This has nothing to do with restricting one's freedom of speach. IT IS A LAW ! If you disagree that much, i suggest you go live in Iran where there is no such law.

But I could imagine a hypothetical situation in which I got convinced, say, that the holocaust was just some kind of american/british propaganda for whatever political reason I could think of (in the same way as there are conspiration theories about the moon landing, aliens visiting us, and what other strange ideas). The idea that I could go to jail JUST FOR SAYING WHAT I THINK in that case, makes me sick, because I can also imagine VERY SIMILAR and real situations in which I could be convinced of something, and having the powers that are forbidding me to say exactly what I think. I *do* have some politically-not-correct ideas which I do think make sense (and no, they are not of the hate-speech kind), and the very idea that one day, I might go to jail for that, is repugnant.

You can tell any political non correct idea. Our society does not prohibit you from saying that. You only need to take responsibility for what you are saying and you need to respect the majority vote. Those are also rules of democracy. Your "absolute freedom of speach" is an illusion because you refuse to take responsability for what you are saying and you disregard a majority vote.

marlon

 

[whatta]

The rule of the majority is wrong? Is that what you mean?

around 493 million people seem to be fine with it?

Roll X years back, to political era of your choise. Majority of people were ALWAYS fine with the system, whatever it was.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Roll X years back, to political era of your choise. Majority of people were ALWAYS fine with the system, whatever it is.

Er no I don't think so, poll tax riots, race riots, peasants revolt, civil wars, topling of governments; the french riots that went on for over a month, race riots of the 60's in America that went on for nearly two weeks leaving many dead and millions of dollars of damage to properties? The Rodney King riots? Is that happy with the system?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/6/newsid_2902000/2902487.stm

1968: United States erupts in race violence
Dozens of major cities in the United States have been rocked by an escalation in the race riots which began two days ago.

At least 19 people have died so far in the arson, looting and shootings provoked by the assassination of black civil rights leader Martin Luther King on 4 April.

Several hundred have also been injured and about 3,000 people have been arrested - most of those in Washington DC.

Curfews are in place in many areas of the country and National Guard soldiers have been mobilised to help quell the violence which is threatening to engulf the US in a race war.

Twelve thousand troops in the nation's capital were called on to help protect fire fighters tackling at least eight blazes started by rioters.

Other fires started in Chicago were accompanied by looting and sniping, and at least 20 buildings have been completely destroyed.

There have also been 38 arson attacks in Detroit, shootings reported in Pittsburgh and a four-hour gun battle at Tennessee State University.


For every Martin Luther King who falls, 10 white racists will go down with him

United Black Front chairman Lincoln Lynch
Dr King's immediate successor, Reverend Ralph Abernathy, has repeatedly appealed for calm.

The new head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Atlanta has appeared on television urging people to respect the murdered leader's commitment to non-violent protest.

But United Black Front chairman Lincoln Lynch said black Americans should adopt a new stance.

"It is imperative to abandon the unconditional non-violent concept expounded by Dr King and adopt the position that for every Martin Luther King who falls, 10 white racists will go down with him.

"There is no other way - America understands no other language," he said.

A national day of mourning in the US for Dr King will take place on 7 April.

 

[whatta]

and right now many badass terrorists and dictators all over the world fight against your beloved democracy. I'm sure their total number is quite compareable to any other "riots" in history.

edit: duh, we had whole world war just half of century ago.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

We have gay pride parades here...

Ironic though, that you keep bringing up our treatment of blacks (uh, 250 years ago, we were British too, btw...), when your ideas on government are about that far out of date.

We abolished slavery laws much sooner than you though. Let's face it many of your people morally are still living in the dark ages obviously if they condone bigotry towards minorities, and this in essence is what you are standing up for the right for, the right to persecute minorities. Very ethical. Good luck with that.

 

[russ_watters]

But wait, the problem is much bigger than that...

And how could I forget the biggest one?!? Since the vast majority of "anti-" speech in any free society is anti-government speech (and clearly, it can become violent), we're going to need to outlaw that too. A lot of that problem can be done away with by simply outlawing the Democratic party, but since a decent fraction of people who keep in the back of their minds (and in the back of their gun closets) the idea that we may need to overthrow the government some day are far right wing Republicans who'se ideas are close to Bush's, we'll need to carefully fiter the out by outlawing all ideas that go against what Bush believes. We can start with a questionaire to filter people, but you know people - they won't fill it out - so we'll need someone to go door to door questioning people about their ideology.

This is, of course, a huge job, so we'll need a new agency to work on it. We can call it the "Committee for State Security". Now, Bush is a compassionate conservative, so he believes that people who buy into such rediculous ideas as rights for homosexuals, abortion, and evolution aren't evil, they're just sick. So all we really need at first is to revamp our education system to teach "Bush's Struggle" [with alcoholism]. Adults who believe such things will need re-education, so we'll put up re-education centers around the country to send all these sick people. Clearly, not everyone will want to go, so we'll need these camps to be secure and run by the military.

To further cultivate Bushiism, we can set up youth camps and organizations, similar to the Boy Scouts. We can even use the Boy Scouts' brown uniforms and just add a red arm-band with a big letter B on it...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

And how could I forget the biggest one?!? Since the vast majority of "anti-" speech in any free society is anti-government speech (and clearly, it can become violent), we're going to need to outlaw that too. A lot of that problem can be done away with by simply outlawing the Democratic party, but since a decent fraction of people who keep in the back of their minds (and in the back of their gun closets) the idea that we may need to overthrow the government some day are far right wing Republicans, we'll need to outlaw all ideas that go against what Bush believes. We can start with a questionaire to filter people, but you know people - they won't fill it out - so we'll need someone to go door to door questioning people about their ideology.

This is, of course, a huge job, so we'll need a new agency to work on it. We can call it the "Committee for State Security". Now, Bush is a compassionate conservative, so he believes that people who buy into such rediculous ideas as homosexuality, abortion, and evolution aren't evil, they're just sick. So all we really need at first is to revamp our education system to teach "Bush's Struggle" [with alcoholism]. Adults who believe such things will need re-education, so we'll put up re-education centers around the country to send all these sick people.

To further cultivate Bushiism, we can set up youth camps and organizations, similar to the Boy Scouts. We can even use the Boy Scouts brown uniforms and just add a red arm-band with a big letter B on it.

Do you like make logical fallacies just for the sake of it, I have already said that the slippery slope fallacy doesn't play here, this is only for a very small minority of groups. I think you'll have to do better than that, especially considering our entire media was built on mocking the government, be it King or Parliament. Anything else you want to turn into a slippery slope argument? Or are you done now with logical fallacy for the day?

Right I see your argument has just about desolved into absurdity. Any more straw men you want to throw in there for good measure?

 

[russ_watters]

Let's face it many of your people morally are still living in the dark ages obviously if they condone bigotry towards minorities, and this in essence is what you are standing up for the right for, the right to persecute minorities. Very ethical. Good luck with that.

Wow. You just completely misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech/thought. As vansesch was saying, freedom of thought means that what others believe has nothing to do with what I believe. For them to have no power over my thoughts means that I can have no power over theirs.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you like make logical fallacies just for the sake of it, I have already said that the slippery slope fallacy doesn't play here, this is only for a very small minority of groups.

How small a minority does it have to be before we outlaw their beliefs? Your position here is the slope. This is your logic I'm using.

You did say that speech that can lead to violence needs to be outlawed, right?

 

[russ_watters]

Let's get right down to it, then - if you think my argument is a slippery-slope fallacy, then define, precisely for us the criteria by which your idea would be implimented. A good place to start would be:

How would you re-write the US's 1st Amendment to include this power/responsibility of the government?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Wow. You just completely misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech/thought. As vansesch was saying, freedom of thought means that what others believe has nothing to do with what I believe. For them to have no power over my thoughts means that I can have no power over theirs.

What are you talking about, you just made perhaps the weakest argument in history for whatever it was your talking about at the moment? And now your saying it's clearly what, yeah you lost me ages ago? I obviously haven't been able to keep up with all the a leads to b nonsense?

Let's get right down to it, then - if you think my argument is a slippery-slope fallacy, then define, precisely for us the criteria by which your idea would be implimented. A good place to start would be:

How would you re-write the US's 1st Amendment to include this power/responsibility of the government?

I pointed out the problems with written constitutions ages ago, but obviously you never read it. That's why your one of the few countries that has one, because they're stupid, when written sensible, now your hog tied by it.

How small a minority does it have to be before we outlaw their beliefs? Your position here is the slope. This is your logic I'm using.

You did say that speech that can lead to violence needs to be outlawed, right?

Ah this is the Russ that likes to rewrite what people meant and said into his own reality, I forgot, right you carry on rewritting what I said all you like but I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

 

[whatta]

this in essence is what you are standing up for the right for, the right to persecute minorities.

I was under impression you were doing just that when you suggested to send f** haters (emmm "minority") to jail or out of the country.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I was under impression you were doing just that when you suggested to send f** haters (emmm "minority") to jail or out of the country.

You all just don't get it do you? Your just so brainwashed into believing the right of free speech somehow entails bigotry in any form?

Here I'll explain it simply so that even Russ can't pervert it into straw men.

Right ok if a government decides for the good of the nation that a particular minority in this case it is widely accepted that a particular discrimination is wrong, after consulting a few think tanks y law.

This becomes the norm in many countries, a Euro MP puts up the idea, in Europe you do a few polls find out the vox populi, have a few think tanks mull over the ramifications, this gets passed into EU law, now it not only takes the views of the people into account, thus is democratic but it covers and extremely small group and one that is likely not going to be added to in the near future

1)sexuality
2)race
3)creed
4)sex
5)age

That's it. So no it doesn't lead to intolerance of farmers or x and that's it ok, no persecution of people who hate mushrooms, or Kylie Minogue, or clowns, or the government, or anything else not now not likely to be, and only by majority will. Which of course some nations can veto anyway, and not have them applied. This is how it works, it's not just the government passing any laws it sees fit willy nilly, it's careful considered and ethical based judgements on what to the vast majority of people is considered unnaccepetable to them, in other words it's for grown ups.

 

[vanesch]

Again, these examples do NOT show the bad effect of the holocaust ban onto our society.

But you didn't get my arguments then. The specific contents of the holocaust ban are of course of almost no consequence (positive or negative) as it is a law that forbids you to deny a fact. The law that forbids you to say that the number pi is anything else but 3.1415... would be of the same kind and would have no positive or negative effect BY ITSELF.

What I'm objecting to, is that for such a non-sense law to have been put in place, we've BROKEN THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAD.

I can of course not give you any example of a bad consequence of the contents of the law, as it is essentially content-less. I gave examples of other situations where the SIMILAR BREAKING OF OUR PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION by law WAS harmful (at least in my opinion).

No it is not. In the law, there are no "may's" etc etc. Look at our country. Look at how it works as a society that embrases this law. This is clear proof and qualifies as a specific example.

Well I look at the country I live in (France - which is historically a source of ideals of freedom), and I'm horrified by certain things that happen here.

I understand that but this law does not belong to that specific class. This is what you fail to see. This law prevents people from using the holocaust denial for , let's say, political advantage.

No, the holocaust law forbids you to deny the scale on which things happened. THIS is what the holocaust denial law says. It is because at a certain moment in time, people had difficulties believing the scale of the massacre, and conspiracy theories were abound, and indeed, linked with the general anti-semitic feeling which was pan-European at that time.

Again, I'm not talking about laws that forbid to call for racial/ethnic hate. As I said, calls for illegal and violent action are not an expression of opinion, but an organization of a crime. I have nothing against laws that forbid you to explicitly call for violent action. I have something against laws that forbid you to state your opinion, no matter how lowly and disgusting it might be.

The law expresses the fact that denying historical facts (ie lying) for political gain is NOT allowed in this society. This is the way it operates and the law constitues one of the "rules of the game".

If LYING for political gain is not allowed, 80% of all politicians should go to jail!
And, BTW, that would mean that I can deny the holocaust numbers as long as I'm not running for political office, which is not true.

Just like on PF, you cannot say ANYTHING you want because of such guidelines. It is just the same thing.

There is a HUGE difference. PF is a privately owned discussion board, and the owners have the right to decide what can and what cannot be discussed. You don't go to jail for a crackpot post on PF.

The majority of our society has decided that denying holocaust for some reason (like political ideology) is not allowed. This has nothing to do with restricting one's freedom of speach. IT IS A LAW ! If you disagree that much, i suggest you go live in Iran where there is no such law.

I'm only pointing out that this is a stupid law. It is not because it is a law, that I cannot find it stupid (as for now... for as long as I still can).

You can tell any political non correct idea. Our society does not prohibit you from saying that. You only need to take responsibility for what you are saying and you need to respect the majority vote. Those are also rules of democracy. Your "absolute freedom of speach" is an illusion because you refuse to take responsability for what you are saying and you disregard a majority vote.

One is NOT allowed to say publicly politically-not-correct ideas. I'm NOT allowed publicly, to say: "I really don't like to live in the neighbourhood of <insert favorite minority here>. I would like to send my kids to a school where no <insert favorite minority here> are present, and I'm willing to pay quite a lot of money for that" for instance. Nevertheless, I know quite some people who think exactly that, who act accordingly and all that. It is not "hate speech", it doesn't call for any violence, and it is a pure expression of opinion.

As I said, I think people are responsible for what they say. But *a priori* they should have the right to say it. If somebody is convinced that he/she suffers harm because of it, that person can still go to court. Like any other "freedom": you are free to drive your car on the road, but if you hurt someone, then that is your responsibility.
You CAN drive over the crossing. Only, you have to make sure that you don't hurt anyone in doing so, and bear the responsibility. But you don't go *a priori* to jail for driving over the crossing.

 

[russ_watters]

I pointed out the problems with written constitutions ages ago, but obviously you never read it. That's why your one of the few countries that has one, because they're stupid, when written sensible, now your hog tied by it.

So you would simply repeal it? Interesting.

BTW, looking into Britain's stance on the issue some, I found this:

In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33103/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...s#Article_10_-_right_to_freedom_of_expression

Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas.

edit: Soon you may have a Constitution too!: http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN

And I found this gem in there too:

Article 12 provides a right for men and women of marriageable age to marry and establish a family.

Despite a number of invitations, the Court has so far refused to apply the protections of this article to same-sex marriage. The Court has defended this on the grounds that the article was intended to apply only to traditional marriage, and that a wide margin of appreciation must be granted to parties in this area.

But hey - they know best, right?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So you would simply repeal it? Interesting.

BTW, looking into Britain's stance on the issue some, I found this: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33103/

So now you have a Constitution too.

Not a written one I'm afraid, but of course things can be written on paper, it would be pretty silly to not? Are you honestly saying that our system has a written constitution because your sorely mistaken if you believe that, the government can change pretty much any law it wants and provided it passes a vote it will.

Every country has a constitution: the difference is ours isn't cast in stone or in writing, and therefore doesn't suffer from the inevitable obselence of outmoded laws.

The European laws are no more a written constitution than any other of the myriad of European countries are, they can be changed at the whim of the majority without much fuss.

So you would simply repeal it? Interesting.

BTW, looking into Britain's stance on the issue some, I found this: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/33103/

No but I might ammend it. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[vanesch]

now it not only takes the views of the people into account, thus is democratic but it covers and extremely small group and one that is likely not going to be added to in the near future

1)sexuality
5) age

Uh !
So pedophily IS, after all, protected now

 

[russ_watters]

Are you honestly saying that our system has a written constitution because your sorely mistaken if you believe that...

Sorry, I misread that one link. The only thing it appears they have is the convention on human rights. That is not a constitution, but they are working on one. So you may get one.

Every country has a constitution: the difference is ours isn't cast in stone or in writing, and therefore doesn't suffer from the inevitable obselence of outmoded laws.

Oh, ok, you don't like writing. Well how about one written in pencil so it can be changed? Ya know - like ours!

No but I might ammend it. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

If you don't say what you mean, I have to interpret. I asked a direct question on how you would amend it and you responded that we shouldn't have a written Constitution. You didn't say you would amend it - now you have. So how about answering the question?

 

[whatta]

Right ok if a government decides for the good of the nation...

errr, back then in 193x, the nazi government has decided that reparation payments and other imposed limitations were not for the good of the nation, and I think you know where does this story ends. important bit is that all nazi actions were government decisions supported and implemented by majority.

for another example, I was born in ussr where millions of people were "fine" with the system which is now condemned with various henocides and crimes. again, it was not stalin, not beria, not a hundred of military police officers, but majority people, who supported and implemented decisions of government.

This becomes the norm in many countries

This was ALWAYS a norm, in all countries: one rules as long as he keeps majority happy.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm interested in more on this:

I pointed out the problems with written constitutions ages ago, but obviously you never read it. That's why your one of the few countries that has one, because they're stupid, when written sensible, now your hog tied by it.

Would you say that "few" countries in europe have them? Can you give some examples?

 

[vanesch]

1)sexuality
2)race
3)creed
4)sex
5)age

Well, concerning discrimination, I'm almost with it. I would prefer to limit the list to those things that are naturally unalterable, which are race, sex and age. After all, your sexual practices are a choice, and your religion is your choice. I'm explicitly NOT willing to accept complete non-discrimination on the basis of those choices. These are personal choices, like growing a beard, washing one-self or not, putting on clothes or not, having sex with (consenting) animals or not etc... Depending on the matter, I could imagine it makes a difference in certain cases.

Moreover, for *some* aspects of life, it will be hard not to make distinctions based upon age and sex. I could go to the women's rest room for that matter, and if some ladies protest, I could say that I'm executing my right of sex-non-discrimination
Also, I don't see how for certain things, one cannot make any distinction on the basis of age (such as adulthood!).

This leaves us with the one single aspect, which is genetic origin. I can live with that. I don't think one should discriminate between people because of their genetic material.

 

[marlon]

But you didn't get my arguments then. The specific contents of the holocaust ban are of course of almost no consequence (positive or negative) as it is a law that forbids you to deny a fact. The law that forbids you to say that the number pi is anything else but 3.1415... would be of the same kind and would have no positive or negative effect BY ITSELF.

If that were true then you should NOT have started your first post by saying "this law does more harm than good to our society". Bad formulation, so it seems.

What I'm objecting to, is that for such a non-sense law to have been put in place, we've BROKEN THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAD.

Untrue, freedom of speach is not broken because this law does not just say "you cannot say this or that". Again, you always talk about freedom of speach but NEVER about the associated responsability that automatically comes with it.

I can of course not give you any example of a bad consequence of the contents of the law, as it is essentially content-less.

Yeah, the law is contentless, yeah...

I gave examples of other situations where the SIMILAR BREAKING OF OUR PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION by law WAS harmful (at least in my opinion).

Harmful in what way ? GIVE ME EXAMPLES ! The only thing you say is "freedom of speach is broken and that is harmful". This is nothing but hollow mumbo jumbo.

Well I look at the country I live in (France - which is historically a source of ideals of freedom), and I'm horrified by certain things that happen here.

Nono, you can excercise freedom of speach in France, Belgium, etc etc...You really cannot complain about that. You say you are horrified by certain things that happen in France ? If you are talking about the colonisation stuff, i would say : what is the problem. It was discussed and rejected. So what ? But that is a luxury problem, what other horrible things are there happening in France except the fact that Royal could become president.

No, the holocaust law forbids you to deny the scale on which things happened. THIS is what the holocaust denial law says. It is because at a certain moment in time, people had difficulties believing the scale of the massacre, and conspiracy theories were abound, and indeed, linked with the general anti-semitic feeling which was pan-European at that time.

No not only that. It forbids you to publically deny whatever holocaust-aspect that is historically proven.

Again, I'm not talking about laws that forbid to call for racial/ethnic hate. As I said, calls for illegal and violent action are not an expression of opinion, but an organization of a crime. I have nothing against laws that forbid you to explicitly call for violent action. I have something against laws that forbid you to state your opinion, no matter how lowly and disgusting it might be.

And what if someone says "we should kill these people for this reason". If this person has that opinion, what are you going to do. You cannot decide what is an opinion and what is NOT and that is exactly what you are doing.

Holocaust denial IS an opinion but it is not banned just because it is violating a fact, you know...

If LYING for political gain is not allowed, 80% of all politicians should go to jail!

That is not what is was saying. I was talking about the connection between political gain and holocaust denial.

And, BTW, that would mean that I can deny the holocaust numbers as long as I'm not running for political office, which is not true.

No, i just gave one example, AS I CLEARLY STATED !

There is a HUGE difference. PF is a privately owned discussion board, and the owners have the right to decide what can and what cannot be discussed. You don't go to jail for a crackpot post on PF.

You are missing the point. Do you really think i did not know the difference between a privately owned forum and an entire society. C'mon, cut me some slack here. I am not a retard. What i meant to say is this : in a society there are rules. You cannot just say anything at anytime anywhere. Rules, as approved by the majority, need to be respected at all time (such as the holocaust denial ban).

I'm only pointing out that this is a stupid law. It is not because it is a law, that I cannot find it stupid (as for now... for as long as I still can).

And i am pointing out to you that you have no arguments as to why you find this law stupid.

And YES you can find it stupid, thanks to our precious freedom of speach WHICH STILL EXISTS eventhough we have broke it

One is NOT allowed to say publicly politically-not-correct ideas. I'm NOT allowed publicly, to say: "I really don't like to live in the neighbourhood of <insert favorite minority here>. I would like to send my kids to a school where no <insert favorite minority here> are present, and I'm willing to pay quite a lot of money for that" for instance. Nevertheless, I know quite some people who think exactly that, who act accordingly and all that. It is not "hate speech", it doesn't call for any violence, and it is a pure expression of opinion.

As I said, I think people are responsible for what they say. But *a priori* they should have the right to say it. If somebody is convinced that he/she suffers harm because of it, that person can still go to court. Like any other "freedom": you are free to drive your car on the road, but if you hurt someone, then that is your responsibility.
You CAN drive over the crossing. Only, you have to make sure that you don't hurt anyone in doing so, and bear the responsibility. But you don't go *a priori* to jail for driving over the crossing.

Yes, many people think like that (INCLUDING ME). They have every right to do so. I know that it is not popular to say stuff like that. With that point i also agree very much. Far to easily, one is considered to be a "right wing *******". This is indeed a manifestation of this stupid "i want to be politically correct"-attitude of left wing people. But, this has NOTHING to do with the ban on holocaust denial.

marlon

 

[whatta]

GIVE ME EXAMPLES ! The only thing you say is "freedom of speach is broken and that is harmful". This is nothing but hollow mumbo jumbo.

are you serious? how about examples of killing people being harmful? all they say "the man is killed and that is harmful", you know. define "harmful", may be? I say, whenever somebody creates an obstacle for me to meet my goal, he is causing harm. then, forbidding me to speak when I am willing to is harful by definition.

 

[marlon]

are you serious? how about examples of killing people being harmful? all they say "the man is killed and that is harmful", you know. define "harmful", may be? I say, whenever somebody creates an obstacle for me to meet my goal, he is causing harm. then, forbidding me to speak when I am willing to is harful by definition.

Well, it is not me who used this terminology and it is me who is asking for clarification.

marlon

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, concerning discrimination, I'm almost with it. I would prefer to limit the list to those things that are naturally unalterable, which are race, sex and age. After all, your sexual practices are a choice, and your religion is your choice. I'm explicitly NOT willing to accept complete non-discrimination on the basis of those choices. These are personal choices, like growing a beard, washing one-self or not, putting on clothes or not, having sex with (consenting) animals or not etc... Depending on the matter, I could imagine it makes a difference in certain cases.

Moreover, for *some* aspects of life, it will be hard not to make distinctions based upon age and sex. I could go to the women's rest room for that matter, and if some ladies protest, I could say that I'm executing my right of sex-non-discrimination
Also, I don't see how for certain things, one cannot make any distinction on the basis of age (such as adulthood!).

This leaves us with the one single aspect, which is genetic origin. I can live with that. I don't think one should discriminate between people because of their genetic material.

Well obviously you already have sexual discrimination laws you can't discriminate against a woman on the basis of sex nor persecute nor encourage hatred towards women, and laws against discrimination against race, sexuality is very European and I wouldn't expect the US to be tolerant enough to accept that, too many fundies running round spouting their vaccuous nonsense. I'm sure it'd never get through congress.

Creed is basically IMO a given by your constitution anyway, kind of your allowed freedom of religion or indeed from it, so this wouldn't take much, I don't personally have a problem with saying you can't bar someone from a job because they were Mormon, because their beliefs have absolutely no bearing on whether they can do the job, discrimination against religion is fine, provided it's not hateful. or liable to inspire hate you can say what you like, Jesus is gay, the Popes a x etc, it's just when you start saying things like Catholics are bad people, Muslims are human garbage etc, that you cross a line, and since most people in america are religious anyway, it's probably tacitly this way without the need for a law, although I supose there is discrimination between religious groups in particular, fundies don't seem to like Mormons much and Catholics are sort of mistrusted by protestants and so on and so forth.

As for age this is a new one, and it's probably impossible to enforce unless someone is blatantly discriminatory and tells you to your face who you are going to hire based on his age or something like that, which is pretty unlikely, but it does ensure that employers are accountable and that you can't walk into the town square and start saying euthanise the old, etc. Strange one this.

If you don't say what you mean, I have to interpret. I asked a direct question on how you would amend it and you responded that we shouldn't have a written Constitution. You didn't say you would amend it - now you have. So how about answering the question?

I already did, since you have a written constituion I would ammend it.

 

[vanesch]

If that were true then you should NOT have started your first post by saying "this law does more harm than good to our society". Bad formulation, so it seems.

Untrue, freedom of speach is not broken because this law does not just say "you cannot say this or that".

This is nevertheless exactly what the law states. If tomorrow I write a book (hypothetical! Really! I'm just giving an example in an argument, your Honor! Please don't put me in jail for that!) in which I try to explain that I'm convinced that the holocaust actually concerns the execution of 50000 Jews, and that all the rest is propaganda invented by the Americans and British at the end of WWII to vilify Adolf Hitler a bit more and to justify their military intervention in continental Europe with all the losses it entailed towards their public opinion (a bit like the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq), then *I go to court for just that*. Even if my book is NOT about Nazism, NOT about anything anti-semitic, but just about a conspiracy theory concerning the allied forces in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Negationism_Law

Again, you always talk about freedom of speach but NEVER about the associated responsability that automatically comes with it.

I don't stop repeating that...

Harmful in what way ? GIVE ME EXAMPLES ! The only thing you say is "freedom of speach is broken and that is harmful". This is nothing but hollow mumbo jumbo.

Now, THAT's a great argument. You won
OF COURSE it is a limitation of the free expression of one's opinion. EVEN without any hate speech.

Nono, you can excercise freedom of speach in France, Belgium, etc etc...You really cannot complain about that. You say you are horrified by certain things that happen in France ?

The fact that a satiric journal goes to court for a few drawings I think should be compulsory in middle school !

except the fact that Royal could become president.

God beware

No not only that. It forbids you to publically deny whatever holocaust-aspect that is historically proven.

It is difficult to *prove* historic facts, if you are a believer in a conspiracy. There is no difference between the fact of the holocaust, and other facts, such as biological evolution, the age of the Earth etc, which are ALSO disputed for ideologic/political reasons... nevertheless, this single fact has been singled out to be *enforced by law*. The Bible should be forbidden because it is full of factual errors, and because it has been the basis for a lot of violence, then, too. And other erroneous bases for organized religions.

And what if someone says "we should kill these people for this reason". If this person has that opinion, what are you going to do. You cannot decide what is an opinion and what is NOT and that is exactly what you are doing.

I don't think this expression of opinion should be forbidden, but it is borderline, and if someone thinks he suffers potential damage for it, he can go to court.

I'm of the opinion that for ecological reasons, we should exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (I belong to the 10% survivors of course). Now there. Maybe this is the ONLY WAY to save humankind, and the idea has been banned by law. So humankind is doomed because of a stupid law

You cannot just say anything at anytime anywhere. Rules, as approved by the majority, need to be respected at all time (such as the holocaust denial ban).

In the "good ol' days", the rules, as approved by the majority, required the Jews to have a big yellow star on their coat.

And YES you can find it stupid, thanks to our precious freedom of speach WHICH STILL EXISTS eventhough we have broke it

For how long ?

Yes, many people think like that (INCLUDING ME). They have every right to do so. I know that it is not popular to say stuff like that. With that point i also agree very much.

Just try to put up a note in the local newspaper: "looking for a nice apartment near town center, not more than 250.000 Euro, no <insert favorite minority here> in the building and nearby, near school where almost no <insert favorite minority here> go, contact marlon by private message on PF".

I don't know in Belgium, but in France, you go to court for that (probably the newspaper wouldn't even accept).

 

[vanesch]

As for age this is a new one, and it's probably impossible to enforce unless someone is blatantly discriminatory and tells you to your face who you are going to hire based on his age or something like that, which is pretty unlikely, but it does ensure that employers are accountable and that you can't walk into the town square and start saying euthanise the old, etc. Strange one this.

Well, for most state functions in several European countries, there is already an *age discrimination*. For most state jobs, you have to apply before you reach the age of 48 or 35 years old, in France. For several schools, there's an upper age limit (25 for Polytechnic, if I remember well). For certain bank accounts, you have to be below 25 year old.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm interested in more on this: Would you say that "few" countries in europe have them? Can you give some examples?

France, Germany, Belgium there's a few more than I thought actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Belgium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany

Looking at them briefly most of them seem to be pretty basic.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am asking you to clarify your point and i am explaining why i disagree. I would say that is a pretty basic approach, no ?

Yes, it is a pretty basic approach. You should consider using it.

Your argument is that the holocaust denial ban makes for a smoother functioning of society. That is the same argument used by Turkey in their Armenian massacre acknowledgment ban!

 

[marlon]

Yes, it is a pretty basic approach. You should consider using it.

No, YOU should consider using it since YOU are the one who refuses to explain his point. Regurgitating general remarks is not very convincing, you know.

Your argument is that the holocaust denial ban makes for a smoother functioning of society. That is the same argument used by Turkey in their Armenian massacre acknowledgment ban!

But the ban you quote contradicts with history. I would say that is a pretty big difference !

marlon

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, concerning discrimination, I'm almost with it. I would prefer to limit the list to those things that are naturally unalterable, which are race, sex and age. After all, your sexual practices are a choice, and your religion is your choice. I'm explicitly NOT willing to accept complete non-discrimination on the basis of those choices. These are personal choices, like growing a beard, washing one-self or not, putting on clothes or not, having sex with (consenting) animals or not etc... Depending on the matter, I could imagine it makes a difference in certain cases.

Moreover, for *some* aspects of life, it will be hard not to make distinctions based upon age and sex. I could go to the women's rest room for that matter, and if some ladies protest, I could say that I'm executing my right of sex-non-discrimination
Also, I don't see how for certain things, one cannot make any distinction on the basis of age (such as adulthood!).

This leaves us with the one single aspect, which is genetic origin. I can live with that. I don't think one should discriminate between people because of their genetic material.

Sexuality is at least by science coming to be more considered to be a trait more like left handedness than a choice although the court is still out, but there is no proof that it is pure choice and the more boys you have the more chance one will be gay regardless of whether they grew up in the same environment or not, tends to suggest against evolutionary reason that it's a trait, although that said a tentative study in Italy has shown that women with gay siblings tend to have more children, so there's at least some tentative evidence that it may in fact be of benefit to the gene pool in some unkown ways, and why it is so prevalent amongst higher order mammals and flies? I'll provide links by request if you like.Did you know one in ten rams are gay so much for their macho image.

This is why it's no longer illegal in Europe, and why it's no longer classified as a mental illness or disorder by both the BMA and AMA. So technically speaking at least for homosexuality you'd have to include sexuality too, did you know that bisexuality in women is far more common than in men, any explanations as to why? I can think of one, women just look a lot better than men, but I'm biased

 

[whatta]

Did you know one in ten rams are gay

One can speculate that's a side-effect of long-term cultivation without natural selection. We were always only interested in their wool and meat, so nothing was done to prosecute irrelevant genes. Nature is not so merciful. Or, do you have any examples of gay animals that actually rised own/relative offspring?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

One can speculate that's a side-effect of long-term cultivation without natural selection. We were always only interested in their wool and meat, so nothing was done to prosecute irrelevant genes. Nature is not so merciful. Or, do you have any examples of gay animals that actually rised own/relative offspring?

I think you'll find it existed long before humans started herding animals, the fact is logically speaking homosexuality should not survive in the gene pool of any animal, after all what benefit is their in limitting your offspring to 0? So why does it exist?

 

[whatta]

because other genes, irrelevant to sexuality, but relevant to survival, are bearing that garbage on their back.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

because other genes, irrelevant to sexuality, but relevant to survival, are bearing that garbage on their back.

No evidence of that? In fact I can show evidence of positive benefits to birth numbers of homosexuality in the gene pool, any more suggestions? Apart from the usual it's like sickle cell one, which doesn't pan out. What about the fact that when rats are over populated they resort to two types of behaviour, 1 is canabalism the other homosexuality, how would this benefit do you think? Define garbage?

 

[whatta]

that's because gay males leave females to better ones.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

that's because gay males leave females to better ones.

Nope, it's because female with gay siblings have more young, so the represented xx chromosomal benficial nature may well be what makes the difference as this in xy may mean homosexuality but in xx may mean incresed fertility, thus I ask again define garbage? This is only tentative research at the moment based on one study, but it's clear their is some sort of pattern in male offspring, as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically? Why? Why would this benefit the gene pool? Remember any trait that inhibits the birth of young, dies out quickly so you have an enigma here?

 

[whatta]

nope it's just shows how broken our genetic system is. more people is born, more failures it produces.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

nope it's just shows how broken our genetic system is. more people is born, more failures it produces.

No evidence of this, I suppose I'll have to put the links up.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn9413-male-sexuality-may-be-decided-in-the-womb.html

If you are male, having more older brothers makes it more likely you will be gay - and a new study suggests the basis of this is biological rather than environmental. The crucial factor influencing the likelihood of male homosexuality may be how many brothers were born before you to the same mother, not how many brothers you were brought up with.

The “fraternal birth order effect” - the finding that each additional older brother increases your chances of being homosexual by about 30% - has long been dogged by the suggestion that social factors rather than biological ones underpin it (see The big brother effect).

Some proposed that perhaps rough-and-tumble play between brothers, or even sexual abuse, may have led the impressionable younger boys to become gay.

Now Anthony Bogaert at Brock University in St Catharines, Canada, has largely ruled that out. He examined four population samples of homosexual and heterosexual men - 944 men in total.

The fourth sample included gay men who had grown up with non-biological male siblings. Bogaert reasoned that if simply being raised around a lot of older brothers had produced the effect, it should not matter whether they were born to the same mother or not.

In fact, it did matter: only the number of biological older brothers predicted sexual orientation in men, Bogaert found. This was true even when the biological older brothers lived separately. “It’s pretty strong in suggesting a prenatal origin,” he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...omplexity-of-sex.html;jsessionid=EOLMIBEEBBAB

BACK in 1993, when Dean Hamer discovered what appeared to be a gene that predisposed men to homosexuality, he created a paradox. According to Darwinian thinking, if homosexual men have fewer children than straight men the "gay gene" should quickly disappear from the population. Yet we know that homosexuality persists.

So what is the mechanism that keeps the gene in circulation? Perhaps gay men are good at looking after their straight brothers, who share a proportion of their genes. That way, the gay gene may be passed on by the brothers of gay men, even if they themselves have no children. Unfortunately for this idea, studies so far have found that gay men do not help out their brothers financially or emotionally any more than straight men do.

Another idea espoused by Hamer and others is that a gene which predisposes men to homosexuality might also increase a woman's chances of having more children. In this way, the reduced likelihood of gay men passing on the gene would be more than compensated for by women carrying the same gene. This is precisely what a group of researchers from Italy have found. The mothers and maternal aunts of gay men had more children than those of straight men (see "Gay genetics"). And this difference does not appear in the father's family.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”
Relative differences

Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

“This is a novel finding," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and commentator on sexuality at Stanford University in California. “We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.”

Camperio-Ciani stresses that whatever the genetic factors are, there is no single gene accounting for his observations. And the tendency of the trait to be passed through the female line backs previous research suggesting that some of the factors involved are on the male “X” chromosome, the only sex chromosome passed down by women. “It’s a combination of something on the X chromosome with other genetic factors on the non-sex chromosomes,” he says.
Immune system

Helen Wallace, of the UK lobby group GeneWatch, welcomes the new research that moves away from the controversial single-gene theory for homosexuality. “But it’s worth noting that the data on the sexuality of family members may be unreliable, so more studies are likely to be needed to confirm these findings,” she says.

Even if the maternal factors identified by Camperio-Ciani’s team are linked with male homosexuality, the research team’s calculations suggest they account for only about 14% of the incidence.

Their findings also support earlier findings that when mothers have several sons, the younger ones are progressively more likely to be gay. This might be due to effects changes to the mother’s immune system with each son they carry.

But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.

This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”

 

[whatta]

No evidence of this

what you mean no evidence, it's in your post: "as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

what you mean no evidence, it's in your post: "as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically"

But this means if you have more gay boys than straight boys the gene pool suffers, if that is the only reason, what on Earth is the benefit of having gay siblings at all? It's a genetic dead end, more gay boys, less offspring? There must by Darwinian law be some benefit,or like ginger haried people no disadvantage and perhaps some small advantage in cooler climates. What is the mechanism that keeps something so detrimental in the gene pool? And don't say it's broken because it would die out if that was the only reason? You're going round in circles here. What do you mean by garbage?

 

[whatta]

so I said: mere failures of our genetic system. since it apparently was not created by god, it's not perfect.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

so I said: mere failures of our genetic system. since it apparently was not created by god, it's not perfect.

I'm thinking you don't understand evolution to well so here's a basic tennant, any characteristic that is detremental to the gene pool will by natural selection be removed, especially terminal ones or ones that lead to fewer offspring. Thus only traits that benefit a system should be introduced into further generations, with detrimental factors only remaining existent if they have some unkown benefit that mitigate the disadvantage, usually this is localised, but not always.

So placing the research above into the context of this what can you surmise about your views of homosexulaity meaning the gene pool is carrying garbage? Define garbage?

 

[whatta]

Define garbage?

Under system you are advocating in this thread, I would be probably shot for doing so :)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Under system you are advocating in this thread, I would be probably shot for doing so :)

No not at all, you have a right to say anything you like about homosexuals, I take the piss and I have bisexual and homosexual friends, I've been known to say yeah but your gay so your opinion doesn't count or I remember saying when I was a teenager to a friend it's not fair x is gay and he's gotten more action with the ladies than I have, or that gays are just wrong in jest or whatever, just as long as it's not liable to lead to hate crimes or violence against them, although you do need to understand that it's not a choice any more than what hand you favour to write with, if you believe that you might as well believe the BS Fred Phelps spouts out his hate filled mouth, and go live in a cave with all his fundie friends. God put homosexuality in the gene pool to test fundies in the smae way as he did dinosaurs in teh ground, no your just a sanctimonious hypocrite now shut up your making yourself look more and more stupid.

It's probably a complex mix of genes birth conditions and nurture, but to lable it as a choice is not only naive, it's kind of nonsensicle. Especially considering how prevalent it is in animal and human gene pools, bisexuality now maybe that is a choice? Who knows? But then it's relatively rare in men, and relatively more common in women? Why do you think that is, genetic or social reasons?

 

[radou]

I remember saying when I was a teenager to a friend it's not fair x is gay and he's gotten more action with the ladies than I have