quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The question has been answered Logan 5.

quote:

Seriously, if you dispute the general principle that power corrupts then no amount of specific examples will persuade you. You are nitpicking because you want to give yourself some more ego strokes at my expense and I see no reason to assist you in your bullying.

quote:



You still don't understand. I am not praising such people, I am criticizing them. The people in the examples I cited THINK that they are acting on high moral principles. It is easy for them because the consequences of their beliefs do not affect them personally. The same thing goes for people who favor hate speech laws when it is not their opinions that are being targeted. [quiote]

Bullshit, the thread was specifically about hate speech, not morals on issues like abortion

quote:


The people who run Collarme can't fine and/or jail you for your opinions.

A red herring, if the TOS stop me from saying how I feel about certain posters (Note I have always supported the owners rules, just not always stuck to them) Then said rules are limiting my freedom of speech.

quote:


Where did I say that it is okay to say anything whatever the outcome? I may draw the line for freedom of speech further up the freedom scale than you but I already made it clear that I am not an absolutist (I am not an absolutist on almost everything and I only say 'almost' because... well... I don't want to be absolutist). But let's be frank, the purpose of the above statement was not to advance your argument but to elevate yourself at my expense by denigrating me.

But while you are so busy being holier than me you fail to see the danger. Right now the opinions that you disagree with are the ones being targeted so you are not worried (the consequences of your beliefs do not affect you) but what happens when the political winds change? What happens when it is your opinions that are being targeted?

Hardly, either you have free speech, or you have some rules. I am all for rules when it comes to hate speech that results in discrimination, hence my stance.

quote:

And don't give me any bullshit about it being speech that incites hatred or violence because that is not always obvious. Yeah, sure, it may be obvious in some cases but it is not so obvious in others... it becomes a matter of interpretation.

Christian fundamentalists are stupid (they actually believe that there is an invisible man living in the sky and the earth is only six thousand years old and other nonsense) and worse they want to force their beliefs upon the rest of us. We must stop them.

The above is my opinion. Am I inciting hatred but calling the fundies stupid? Am I inciting violence when I say we must stop them? I know for a fact that I am not. By "stop them" I mean that we must vote against them in every election and take them to court whenever they try to foist Biblical Creationism into the science classes of the public schools. Some one else might think "he wants me to shoot them. He's inciting violence!"

Now I'm not particularly worried because fundies aren't a group protected by hate speech laws... today. But they are a large enough in numbers that they may well achieve enough political power to make themselves a protected group... and then I will have a problem. I would prefer that the precedent of unpopular speech not exist but alas... At least I can have my own holier than thou moment with the knowledge that I am not a hypocrite who cheers when the other is oppressed but whines when the tyrants and bullies come after me.

Freedom of speech must apply to everyone, most especially to people and opinions we don't like, otherwise it is meaningless.

Are you really suggesting Jihadist videos inciting violence, or homophobic and racist rhetoric used by the right is okay ?
It is really bullshit that no hate speech videos or lectures influenced the abhorent events of 9/11 or 7/7 ...... Really ?

(in reply to Marc2b)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Then why were they charged with terrorism and not a hate crime?

quote:

No it hasnt, not in any way shape or form.

quote:

Nit picking, no, picking at nits, then maybe. I asked for specifics and your answer is "power corrupts" which is true, but show me many corrupt UK Prime ministers or US Presidents who have stayed in power. Your notion that politicians are out to get us is laughable.

quote:

A red herring, if the TOS stop me from saying how I feel about certain posters (Note I have always supported the owners rules, just not always stuck to them) Then said rules are limiting my freedom of speech.

quote:

Hardly, either you have free speech, or you have some rules. I am all for rules when it comes to hate speech that results in discrimination, hence my stance.

quote:

Are you really suggesting Jihadist videos inciting violence, or homophobic and racist rhetoric used by the right is okay ?
It is really bullshit that no hate speech videos or lectures influenced the abhorent events of 9/11 or 7/7 ...... Really ?

quote:

When I hear a story like this, it doesn't strike fear in my heart. I don't sit around and think OMG that could be me.

quote:

I wasn't dissing anyone. You said you didn't want your death compounded by the murder's striking fear into the hearts of countless other LBGT folk and I was pointing out that not all LGBT folk felt fearful when they hear of a murder. That doesn't make one better than the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I said they shouldn't tack on extra years because the victim was special. I never said there should be no action. Obviously they should still be charged with murder. It's scary that you have to spell this out to some people.

It is scary that someone who is in a discussion about hate crimes has no clue as to why they exist.

Thats right, if you can't come up with a intelligent response, just go ahead and call them clueless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx.

Alert the press, I have it from an alleged gay woman who claims, there is no anti gay bias in the court system

I did not say there wasn't any bias. I said the scenario you cooked up about the women who got raped and her attackers only got 2 weekends punishment was a bullshit lie.

quote:


Lets try an analogy someone murders someone by running them down with a car. In the process they also knock down a light pole. They are charged with two crimes,murder and destruction of govt. property. They are charged with the distruction not because they hated the guy or the light pole. Two different charges two different crimes two different penalities. You may be too young to remember the days when little gay girls got strung up and butt fucked with a crowbar and those responsible got two weekends in jail for littering...now they can get 20 large...

quote:

Now I didn't spell it out for you, so I am not surprised that once again you read it wrong.

quote:

The question still hasnt been answered, you gave a "what if" and nothing more.

quote:

Lmao re absolutist definitions..... and yours are not ?

quote:

You have explained nothing.

quote:

It is a known fact that the 9/11 terrorists were inspired by hate speech, there are no ifs or buts.

quote:

I know exactly what you meant by such terms, since you were very explicit, hence my consistent replies.

quote:

I wont even touch the laughable notion that the written word cant be viewed as hate speech. Ever heard of Mein Kampf ?

quote:

You are still dodging the issue of your point about hate speech and free speech.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You are still dodging the issue of your point about hate speech and free speech.

I have not. I have been perfectly clear that speech that calls for violence against others would not be protected but that speech that insults (as contemptible as it may be) or merely criticizes should be protected. Acknowledging that people you don't like still have rights isn't really that difficult of a concept to grasp. If you believe that you may deny other people their rights simply because you don't like what they are saying then you have no basis upon which to assert your own rights (at least, not without being a hypocrite).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Then why were they charged with terrorism and not a hate crime?

Well duh....... They were charged with terrorism because it was a terrorist attack, are you still stupidly suggesting hate speech didnt inspire them ?

It aint rocket science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

When I hear a story like this, it doesn't strike fear in my heart. I don't sit around and think OMG that could be me.

quote:

I wasn't dissing anyone. You said you didn't want your death compounded by the murder's striking fear into the hearts of countless other LBGT folk and I was pointing out that not all LGBT folk felt fearful when they hear of a murder. That doesn't make one better than the other.

Perhaps an english teacher could explane the difference between these two statements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Then why were they charged with terrorism and not a hate crime?

Well duh....... They were charged with terrorism because it was a terrorist attack, are you still stupidly suggesting hate speech didnt inspire them ?

It aint rocket science.

In order to still suggest something I would first have to suggest it. But I am not a bit surprised you are now putting words in my mouth. I have pretty much come to expect it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Then why were they charged with terrorism and not a hate crime?

Well duh....... They were charged with terrorism because it was a terrorist attack, are you still stupidly suggesting hate speech didnt inspire them ?

It aint rocket science.

In order to still suggest something I would first have to suggest it. But I am not a bit surprised you are now putting words in my mouth. I have pretty much come to expect it.

Okay Ms Pedantic, are you suggesting hate speech didnt inspire the 9/11 terrorists ? Are you suggesting they are not related ?

Because thats exactly the crux of my argument. Hate speech inspires violence against others, period.

One has nothing to do with the other. << Your words.

quote:

Kirata

quote:

Kirata
Hate speech is in the eye of the beholder.

quote:

tweakabelle
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'hate speech' is.

The 'hate' in 'hate speech' is in the intentions of the speaker. When the speaker's intention is to promote hate or violence, the speech qualifies as hate speech. If it was left to the listeners to define hate speech, there would always be someone who claimed that the speech was not intended to provoke hate or violence, and therefore no offence occurred.

If some one were to assert "<insert target group of your choice here> are evil malicious people who must be wiped off the face of the earth", the clear intention of the speaker is to provoke hate. The interpretation of any given individual listener or "beholder" is irrelevant, it cannot change the intention of the speaker or rationalise the hate away.

A willingness to project one's own personal judgments into the minds of others betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits to human knowledge.

K.[/font][/size]

quote:


Oh and yea, there was probably a lot of hate speech before 9-11. But that really doesn't have anything to do with calling a murder a hate crime based on the victim and tacking more time on the sentence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Again, I never suggested that. But I was talking about a hate crime and you seem to have switched to hate speech.

Oh and yea, there was probably a lot of hate speech before 9-11. But that really doesn't have anything to do with calling a murder a hate crime based on the victim and tacking more time on the sentence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:


Oh and yea, there was probably a lot of hate speech before 9-11. But that really doesn't have anything to do with calling a murder a hate crime based on the victim and tacking more time on the sentence.

Yes, the hate speech motivates the crime, but no, "it doesn't have anything to do" with the crime???

Has any one ever encountered a more moronic claim or stupider argument?