advertisement


Dieudonné and the new fascists (part II)

Gerald said:
Fair enough , I am perturbed as to how someone with a vociferous world view is prepared to ditch it for their own selfish interests so readily . Each to their own , but I try to live by what I believe otherwise what's the point in believing it in the first place .
Click to expand...

Were someone to murder my daughter, I'd want to have them executed in the most distressing way possible. I'd do the job myself.

But the state would not allow that. And rightly so.

Another example of my "do as I say, not as I do" moral turpitude, I suppose.

My stance on freedom of speech & capital punishment are the same.

Chris
 
Sumo - That be true , but preaching unfettered freedom to offend on one post and simulatnously reporting a pfmer for calling you a **** or some one else a ****er on a different thread takes todays biscuit .
 
Gerald said:
Sumo - That be true , but preaching unfettered freedom to offend on one post and simulatnously reporting a pfmer for calling you a **** or some one else a ****er on a different thread takes todays biscuit .
Click to expand...
:D

It was meant with regard to the main line of argument. (Freedom of speech is not simple at all.)
 
Gerald said:
Sumo - That be true , but preaching unfettered freedom to offend on one post and simulatnously reporting a pfmer for calling you a **** or some one else a ****er on a different thread takes todays biscuit .
Click to expand...

You forget, Gerald. I am a Tory, & by definition, I will always attempt to further the wellbeing of me & mine over the overiding general welfare. I make no apologies for that.

Someone insults me, I'll go for them.

Chris
 
Sumo said:
Circular as ever. You can't think of anything that would approach your preconceived but undefined limits and challenge them?
(In case you didn't notice, this is the kind of thing that extremists tend to do a lot.)
Click to expand...

I take the view that sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. I am also intellectually able to read or see things that I fundamentally disagree with, without getting upset and offended and without requiring the state to decide for me whether I need protection from such views. Surely that's part of being a grown-up?

As usual, HL Mencken hits the nail on the head:

'The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.'
 
Joe Hutch said:
I take the view that sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. I am also intellectually able to read or see things that I fundamentally disagree with, without getting upset and offended and without requiring the state to decide for me whether I need protection from such views. Surely that's part of being a grown-up?
Click to expand...
Come on, you seem smart enough to give it a bit more thought than Forrest Gump.
It's not like you have clarified anything yourself here. Mencken is fine, but armchair talk.
 
Sumo said:
Come on, you seem smart enough to give it a bit more thought than Forrest Gump.
It's not like you have clarified anything yourself here. Mencken is trivial armchair talk here.
Click to expand...

That is the most breathtaking piece of intellectual hubris I think I have ever read.

"Mencken is trivial armchair talk here"

I bow before your mighty intellect, Oh Sumo.

Chris
 
Mescalito said:
That is the most breathtaking piece of intellectual hubris I think I have ever read.

"Mencken is trivial armchair talk here"

I bow before your mighty intellect, Oh Sumo.

Chris
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand me. The "here" refers to the present context. He summarizes the problem perfectly in theory (hardly a new observation btw) but this defence he mentions is precisely something that is not always easily decided in practice (that is, out of the armchair). I hope that clarifies.
 
Gerald said:
I have to say comparing Joe to Forest Gump made me laugh .
Click to expand...

It's certainly an original one. I'll add to my collection of things I've been labelled as on the Internet over the years:

A Nazi

A Fascist

A Communist

A Socialist

Gay

A typical product of the comprehensive system

A dumb Yank

A woman

Sexist

A Yorkshireman
 
They've been very nice to you, Joe :)

In case you forgot, I asked you this question and imo you didn't answer it:
You can't think of anything that would approach your preconceived but undefined limits and challenge them?
 
Sumo said:
Come on, you seem smart enough to give it a bit more thought than Forrest Gump.
It's not like you have clarified anything yourself here. Mencken is fine, but armchair talk.
Click to expand...

I have clarified my thoughts as much as I can without drawing pictures for you. I am reminded of the anecdote about Dr Johnson:

Johnson having argued for some time with a pertinacious gentleman; his opponent, who had talked in a very puzzling manner, happened to say, "I don't understand you, Sir;" upon which Johnson observed, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

One more time. My view is that the state should limit free speech as little as possible, and the limits should not be dictated in any way by people being upset or offended by the views expressed. The USA's exceptions to free speech are fairly clear and mostly unarguable; from memory they include such things as child pornography, 'clear and present danger' (the 'fire in a crowded theatre' exception) and 'fighting talk' where words are a direct incitement to violence.
 
I think Europe and the US are not that far apart in principles. They differ more in practice, which is the difficult part.
Hence my argument. I am surprised that you find that so puzzling.

Do note that even in the US the application of the principle is often subject of legal discussion.
 
it appears that anelka's arms have been cut off by the authorities to prevent further "offending":

_72487638_anelka2.jpg




vuk.
 
Sumo said:
I think Europe and the US are not that far apart in principles. They differ more in practice, which is the difficult part.
Hence my argument. I am surprised that you find that so puzzling.

Do note that even in the US the application of the principle is often subject of legal discussion.
Click to expand...

The difference is that freedom of speech is an integral part of the Constitution, and attempts to impose limits on it are always fiercely resisted. In the UK and most European countries, it is taken for granted that rights can be bestowed and taken away on the whim of the government, and the populace barely notices, because such changes are usually based on 'hard cases' which as we know, make bad laws.

Moving away from free speech; until very recently there was legal protection against 'double jeopardy', ie being tried twice for the same offence if found not guilty first time around. This protection was removed, almost without opposition, in the light of the Steven Lawrence case. But the double jeopardy protection was introduced for a very good reason; to prevent the authorities putting someone on trial over and over again until they got the 'right' verdict. Similarly, the unqualified right to remain silent if arrested and charged with an offence was removed a few years ago, on the usual specious 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' lines. But again, it was a protection introduced in the first place to prevent abuses. It's hard to imagine a US government making similar moves without facing very strong opposition from both the populace and the judiciary.
 
Joe Hutch said:
The difference is that freedom of speech is an integral part of the Constitution, and attempts to impose limits on it are always fiercely resisted. In the UK and most European countries, it is taken for granted that rights can be bestowed and taken away <snip>
Click to expand...
You're mistaken there. In Europe most countries have that freedom in the constitution too. Only the UK has no constitution, at least not in the usual sense. I think you also oversimplify in the give&take part, but I do understand you ;)

Btw, re the views of Mencken, in 1930 he wrote: "The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of." And that was only the start of his rant. (A great mind, right? - Imho not!) He seems to have loosened up about this later, but he was not positive about democracy either. It is ironic that you quoted him, though the quote was unobjectionable of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top