If someone made a film about the Holocaust, questoning the number of people that died, would be banned. SO why should this come under free speech aswell?
Exactly, every Government has its own specifications, some are even personal, its best to say f*uck religion!
Actually it would be banned in most of Europe, this is my point, you can't claim freedom of speech on one thing and not on the other.
Frankly I don't mind even if you insult my religion, I believe in what I believe, and also the rights of others not to believe. Issue at this point of time is Muslim sentiments are extremely high, especially after the Danes and their cartoons. Such sentiments are easily exploited by undesirable characters to further their own sinister aims. Also it defeats the efforts of the various governments to try to integrate their Muslim population into the mainstream.
Religion is one of the biggest cause of war. Yes, it would. That is the reality of this world. DIRTY POLITICS EVERYWHERE...
Try wikipedia, everyone knows islam doesn't mean peace. The word IslÄm, from the triliteral root s-l-m, is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit."
Islam comes from the root word "Salam" which means Peace. It also means submitting your will to Almighty God.
I guess those that were rioting against the Danish cartoonists do not know how to translate it yet. Perhaps the film maker can show some trailers about the meaning of Islam before the actual film starts for educational purposes. Then hopefully lesser people will call for a ban and when the film starts its box office there wouldnt be any riots from the followers of "The Religion of Peace"
The fact that you love your child or mother with all innocent feelings, does not change the fact that you might lose your temper and punch those in the face whoever swears at him/her. Being critical of something/one and insulting/humiliating something/one is two different things. The reason why those who want to classify these under "freedom" fail to understand is that they belong to a culture with other priorities and issues, racism is more of a fundemental issue in the EU, and US, or say West, than religion, and they won't be tolerating anything that is critical, let alone humiliative, of any certain race, on the other hand, being critical of religion, especially the one majority don't belong, shall be all free. Yet at the end, it may well be free, in a world which noone meddles others business, it's just as much annoying, that those friggin!@%& people who come from so far aways, appear on your streets with violance and argue your freedoms, isn't it?
I don't see how i lost anything. You made statements and when you were asked to explain how it would work in reality you failed to do so. So as far as losing an argument, I done quite the opposite. In reality i kicked the absolute shit out of your imaginary utopia and left if dying in the curb by making you incapable of offering even the simplest explanations of how it would work in reality. What you wanted is to make a claim and people accept it plausibility by the fact that you were capable of imagining it, And that isn't how grown-ups do things. The thread was closed because, Like i already said, You were not engaging in dialogue and as such made it impossible for the thread to get back on topic. Grandstand and rant if you must, But in future, Don't do it in my threads. You can do that if you want (if you can find time between being an anti-establishment cliche and fawning over RP), But i never claimed i didn't attempt to enter in to dialogue with you. I never claimed i didn't reply to your nonsense. In fact, I have repeatedly said the exact opposite. The point i am making is that there is a difference between not wanting someone to voice their opinions in a certain place (ie in my thread after failing to answer questions) and not wanting them to voice their opinions period (ie in a video that people chose to watch). I actually think you can see the difference, but your intellectual cowardice and your need to have a cry about your rant being shut down is preventing you from acknowledging it. If you had had the capacity to give answers to my questions i may have allowed you a platform, But as you offered nothing in the way of explanation (after being specifically asked countless times) i decided that there was no hope of dialogue and no hope of getting the thread back on topic, So decided the thread should be closed down.
In other words, you lost the argument, and couldn't stand to see me continue on the discussion with someone else, so in a fit of insecurity and jealous frustration, requested the thread closed. And now you claim that you don't support censorship when what you really meant is that you don't support censorship of you, you're totally fine with censoring others when you can't agree with them. The hypocrisy is almost strong enough to cause a global financial crisis.
The only thing i lost was my attempts to get a straight forward answer out of you. If you think by evading questions and offering no explanations after being repeatedly asked to do so quantifies a victory then have your victory, And ill keep my integrity and capacity to tie you up in your own argument. We can all stick our fingers in our ears guirilla and pretend we haven't heard difficult questions. But most of us call that intellectual cowardice, Not an intellectual victory. I actually never said i don't support censorship, But i guess it's a lot easier if you simply invent something i said rather than actually look at what i said.. I support the censorship of obscene material and inappropriate material in inappropriate mediums. ie porn in school books and your infantile ranting in my threads. What i don't support is other people dictating what I should be allowed to watch. Still having trouble grasping the difference?
On the contrary, you lost the argument in that thread when you started fabricating information about Botswana, showing your lack to capacity to make a sound argument. I'd be happy to start a new thread and we can carry on where we left off. That is if you feel you are up to it. Precisely. You support censorship as long as you are doing the censoring and your interests are represented. You have no problem silencing someone else's right to speak, but the same rules should not be applied to you. This is definitely what is called "hypocrisy".
Again (i am really getting tired of repeating myself), I never said i was against censorship. I said people shouldn't be allowed to dictate what i chose to watch. Like i previously said (i am repeating myself again) censorship is fine if it's preventing inappropriate material appearing in inappropriate places. I wonder if i will have to repeat myself again in the next post to accommodate your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.
Fixed that for you. Read on... Actually, you are just repeating what I have written. You think censorship is fine if someone determines the material inappropriate. But you also don't want anyone dictating what you chose to watch. It's not only hypocrisy, it's totally confused. Your POV are incompatible, unless you are placing yourself above everyone else. To summarize, you support curbing free speech, unless it is something you want to talk about. A double standard at the least.
Let me say the same thing again and this time i will try an infantile analogy, You seem to have trouble with grown up words. lets imagine that a man goes in to a school and starts shouting "fuck" over and over again. In your mind, As it is, Is preventing him from doing that the same as preventing someone from going on an equal rights demonstration? If someone prevents that man from saying "fuck" over and over in a school are they a hypocrite for not opposing an equal rights demonstrations?
Ad Hominem attacks are a sign of a weak argument. You might want to avoid leading your posts with them. Depends if one is taking place on private or public property if I am understanding your analogy correctly. For an englishman, you don't write very clearly. Lemme guess, public education? I think you're attempting to impose subjective standards on what speech is acceptable. Either speech is free or it is not. If you have conditions and clauses on what is acceptable and what is not, then it's not really free speech. It's managed speech. It's sanctioned speech. Big difference. That's the problem with majority rules where rights are granted by government, not by our natural human condition. If 20% of the population is a minority, the other 80% can vote to suppress their rights, which we recognize today as racism or sexism or some other form of discrimination. The same thing with free speech. 51% should never be able to dictate what 49% can say.