Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

On paper, theocracy works great, it's just we need Gods help because that supreme power has to run it, not man.  I'm just waiting for God to show up and start running the show.  The government would be perfect and flawless.  

 I'm assuming you are referring to a Christian theocracy in this case.  I'm a Christian and I am steadfastly against a Christian theocracy.  Not because I'm against Christianity, on the contrary, I accept the Bible as truth.  But because it's just another thing that government would screw up.  Government screws up just about everything it sticks its claws into.  The question I would ask is, what form of worship of God would the government make us abide by?

When I was in college, I attended a Baptist church.  It was extremely conservative.  Members were expected to attend services clean shaven, neatly groomed and wearing a jacket and tie.  Women were expeceted to wear dresses.  Listening to rock & roll was considered a sin and even listening to Christian music set to anything louder than an organ was considered wrong.

Now I go to a church where wearing shorts and sandals is commonplace, many of the members have tattoos and body piercings and the music is set to drums and electric guitars.  Despite all that, the doctrine of the church is rock solid.

There's a difference between cultural Christianity and doctrinal Christianity.  Would the government enforce one without the other or both?  Remember back in the Middle Ages, most of the countries in Europe were considered theocracies.  But the monarchy dictated how its citizens would worship God.  Well who were the ones who fled Europe first and came to America.  Christians.  They didn't like being told by the monarch how they should worship God.

But I understand completely where you are coming from.  Our culture is sinking fast morally.  It is losing its sense of right and wrong.  If we continue down this path, chaos will reign.  Corruption is already rampant in government and a return to Christian values would do wonders.  But it has to be admininstered on a personal level, not by the government.

I will go off the rails and agree with you here, to a degree ...

The First Amendment exists not just to protect government from religion, but also religion from government.

However, the "Christian values" that would prevent corruption are the same "values" as many other non-Christian societies. "Do unto others" is not an exclusively Christian ideal.

 

However, it is not a Muslim concept.

The Muslim concept is society should not be allowed to draw a cartoon of Muhammed.

It is not, well if we don't allow people to draw Muhammed, what will they stop us from drawing? Perhaps it's better if we all let each other draw whatever we wish? (Freedom of speech).

No, the concept is society is better if we decide what you can draw. It's more of a "control others" than "do unto others" belief system.

Dude, nobody mentioned Muslims until you brought them up. You really fucking hate Muslims, don't you?

You act as if every single Muslim in the world believes the exact same things, which, of course, is just as wrongheaded as saying every single Christian in the world believes the exact same things.

 

I believe your need to twist my statments to fit your own agenda is a result of your prejudice.

If I want to say I hate Muslims, I will simply post that.

The only one I see posting anyting about "hating Muslims" is you.

If that's your agenda, don't hide behind me to make those sorts of statements.

 

Deflection failed.

Your actions speak louder than your deflections.

 

The truth is not deflection.

If you post a quote proving your statment, then do so.

If you can't, then obviously you're the one doing the deflection.

 

False.  So many falsehoods in your statements.  But, that's a typical MO for you.

Blue = Deflection

Your post history = your actions.  Your actions speak louder than this deflection.

case = closed.

 

And, your edit will not be recognized as it is nothing more than gibberish used to obfuscate the facts.

 

Translation:

 I found statements from myself twisting uyour words and sayng you hate Muslims, but I didn't actually find anything from you I could quote about "hating Muslims".

I found statements from baff claiming you hate Muslims, but I didn't actually find any statements from you I could quote to show you hate Muslims.

I want to claim you "hate Muslims" but I can only do it by twisting your statements to misinterpret them.

I can't actually find a quote of you stating you hate Muslims.

But I can find LOTS of quotes of myself CLAIMING you hate Muslims..

Wow... you suck at translations.  Because that is WAY different than what my actual message was (which was plain as day).  You need to stop before you make yourself look even more foolish with your inability to translate.

 

 

If you want to talk about "hating Muslims" then that's your agenda, not mine.  Deflection failed.

Dont hide behind me to make  statements about "hating Muslims".  Your post history proves kobie right.

If you want to prove I "hate Muslims" then by all means, post some quotes.  Yet, I get ridiculed for posting historical quotes from powder.

Look at my post count.  I know... you spam a lot.

In all those posts, you can't find ONE quote that backs up yoru statement that I hate Muslims?  The culmulative of your post history is good enough.  We know what you post.  We know how you post.  We know the message that you shove at us on an almost daily basis.  I actually have a life.  A life that I need to live rather than search through over 12,000 posts (in almost 3 years... rough avg of 4k posts a year... that's more than my total and I've been here over 2 years longer than you.  Spam master Ihmotepp.)

NOT ONE QUOTE?

Not one quote to back up your libel that I hate Muslims?

NOT ONE?

I think we both know exactly what happened.

You went and looked for a quote.

And this is what you found.

me saying, Al Qaeda blowing up civilians is wrong.

And you posting, "why do you hate ALL MUSLIMS?"

And what you remembered is Ihmotepp hates Muslims, I remember that thread!

But then you found out the only one stating anything about hating Muslims,  was YOU.

That I didn't say anything about hating Muslims at all, and you just remember your own claims that I hate Muslims.

But when you go read the actual threads, there isn't anything inthere about me hating Muslims.

I will write Hamas is harming Palestinians.

And you reply "Why do you hate ALL MUSLIMS?"

And you remember the part about "hating Muslims" but you forgot YOU are the one that wrote it, NOT ME.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

On paper, theocracy works great, it's just we need Gods help because that supreme power has to run it, not man.  I'm just waiting for God to show up and start running the show.  The government would be perfect and flawless.  

 I'm assuming you are referring to a Christian theocracy in this case.  I'm a Christian and I am steadfastly against a Christian theocracy.  Not because I'm against Christianity, on the contrary, I accept the Bible as truth.  But because it's just another thing that government would screw up.  Government screws up just about everything it sticks its claws into.  The question I would ask is, what form of worship of God would the government make us abide by?

When I was in college, I attended a Baptist church.  It was extremely conservative.  Members were expected to attend services clean shaven, neatly groomed and wearing a jacket and tie.  Women were expeceted to wear dresses.  Listening to rock & roll was considered a sin and even listening to Christian music set to anything louder than an organ was considered wrong.

Now I go to a church where wearing shorts and sandals is commonplace, many of the members have tattoos and body piercings and the music is set to drums and electric guitars.  Despite all that, the doctrine of the church is rock solid.

There's a difference between cultural Christianity and doctrinal Christianity.  Would the government enforce one without the other or both?  Remember back in the Middle Ages, most of the countries in Europe were considered theocracies.  But the monarchy dictated how its citizens would worship God.  Well who were the ones who fled Europe first and came to America.  Christians.  They didn't like being told by the monarch how they should worship God.

But I understand completely where you are coming from.  Our culture is sinking fast morally.  It is losing its sense of right and wrong.  If we continue down this path, chaos will reign.  Corruption is already rampant in government and a return to Christian values would do wonders.  But it has to be admininstered on a personal level, not by the government.

I will go off the rails and agree with you here, to a degree ...

The First Amendment exists not just to protect government from religion, but also religion from government.

However, the "Christian values" that would prevent corruption are the same "values" as many other non-Christian societies. "Do unto others" is not an exclusively Christian ideal.

 

However, it is not a Muslim concept.

The Muslim concept is society should not be allowed to draw a cartoon of Muhammed.

It is not, well if we don't allow people to draw Muhammed, what will they stop us from drawing? Perhaps it's better if we all let each other draw whatever we wish? (Freedom of speech).

No, the concept is society is better if we decide what you can draw. It's more of a "control others" than "do unto others" belief system.

Dude, nobody mentioned Muslims until you brought them up. You really fucking hate Muslims, don't you?

You act as if every single Muslim in the world believes the exact same things, which, of course, is just as wrongheaded as saying every single Christian in the world believes the exact same things.

 

I believe your need to twist my statments to fit your own agenda is a result of your prejudice.

If I want to say I hate Muslims, I will simply post that.

The only one I see posting anyting about "hating Muslims" is you.

If that's your agenda, don't hide behind me to make those sorts of statements.

 

Deflection failed.

Your actions speak louder than your deflections.

 

The truth is not deflection.

If you post a quote proving your statment, then do so.

If you can't, then obviously you're the one doing the deflection.

 

False.  So many falsehoods in your statements.  But, that's a typical MO for you.

Blue = Deflection

Your post history = your actions.  Your actions speak louder than this deflection.

case = closed.

 

And, your edit will not be recognized as it is nothing more than gibberish used to obfuscate the facts.

 

Translation:

 I found statements from myself twisting uyour words and sayng you hate Muslims, but I didn't actually find anything from you I could quote about "hating Muslims".

I found statements from baff claiming you hate Muslims, but I didn't actually find any statements from you I could quote to show you hate Muslims.

I want to claim you "hate Muslims" but I can only do it by twisting your statements to misinterpret them.

I can't actually find a quote of you stating you hate Muslims.

But I can find LOTS of quotes of myself CLAIMING you hate Muslims..

Wow... you suck at translations.  Because that is WAY different than what my actual message was (which was plain as day).  You need to stop before you make yourself look even more foolish with your inability to translate.

 

 

If you want to talk about "hating Muslims" then that's your agenda, not mine.  Deflection failed.

Dont hide behind me to make  statements about "hating Muslims".  Your post history proves kobie right.

If you want to prove I "hate Muslims" then by all means, post some quotes.  Yet, I get ridiculed for posting historical quotes from powder.

Look at my post count.  I know... you spam a lot.

In all those posts, you can't find ONE quote that backs up yoru statement that I hate Muslims?  The culmulative of your post history is good enough.  We know what you post.  We know how you post.  We know the message that you shove at us on an almost daily basis.  I actually have a life.  A life that I need to live rather than search through over 12,000 posts (in almost 3 years... rough avg of 4k posts a year... that's more than my total and I've been here over 2 years longer than you.  Spam master Ihmotepp.)

NOT ONE QUOTE?

 

Not one quote to back up your libel that I hate Muslims?

NOT ONE?

I think we both know exactly what happened.

You went and looked for a quote.

And this is what you found.

me saying, Al Qaeda blowing up civilians is wrong.

And you posting, "why do you hate ALL MUSLIMS?"

And what you remembered is Ihmotepp hates Muslims, I remember that thread!

But then you found out the only one stating anything about hating Muslims,  was YOU.

That I didn't say anything about hating Muslims at all, and you just remember your own claims that I hate Muslims.

But when you go read the actual threads, there isn't anything inthere about me hating Muslims.

I will write Hamas is harming Palestinians.

And you reply "Why do you hate ALL MUSLIMS?"

And you remember the part about "hating Muslims" but you forgot YOU are the one that wrote it, NOT ME.

Too many libel and ASSUmptions in your statements.  Especially considering what I said I was not going to do.  Typical Ihmotepp.

Originally posted by melmoth1

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

 

I remember reciting the pledge of allegiance everymorning in elementary school, then one day, it just stopped.... why?

Hopefully because you teacher realised that political indoctrination of very young children is an evil act of epic proportion. Actions most commonly synominous with Hitler and Stalin. The pint of education being to equip a young mind with the tools to make his own decisions, not to indoctrinate him into being a mirror of your own political ideals.

 Well, one purpose of education is purely functional: to socialise young people in order to cope in the society and in the world in which they must survive. We have to be careful with words like indoctrinaion as if we use it too loosely then the word loses the power it needs to deal with genuine cases of indoctrination.

For example, one of the subtle but overt aims of Western education (and I am basing this from Michel Foucault's excellent book Discipline and Punish) are things like (a) following timetabled activities and routines (i.e. getting up, doing some kind of work at office type hours with breaks etc); (b) following instructions by authority figures in a hierarchy (all our workplaces are hierachical, too); (c) operating within a bureaucratic - bureacratic in the sociological and not the negative sense - system of standardised rules; (d) learning a system of rewards and sanctions, of responsibiltiies and rights; and (e) being able to function in social groups.

All the above is necessary to survive in any modern Western culture. I wouldn't call this indoctrination as there is nothing really sinister about it; education can never be totally divorced from society and this is what society and people who want to live in it need. I would call it socialisation.

Now there is another more cultural-political function. To teach and train our young people in the culture and history and tradtions in which they live because we need this national culture to be passed from one generation to the next for the nation to cohere. I don't see this as indoctrination either. I read once that there are many MANY more languages and ethnicities and cultures than there are nations in the world and that nations don't just cohere naturally; they cohere by a constant act of collective will so if you want your nation to survive then you have to, to some extent, teach and preserve its culture and history and traditions in your schools. I wouldn't call this indoctrination either.

Now here is the key distinction: I think within the above a non-indoctrinating system will teach kids to also be critical and analytical and will empower them with the freedom to question and debate the curricular content of their lessons and their culture and their history, and also change it whenever it is necessary for them to do so. It will also offer them genuine choices in order to exercise that freedom.

I reserve indoctrination for any system that violently shuts down genuine critical reasoning, questioning and analysis. As such I would reserve that term for something a bit more extreme than the pledge of allegiance to be honest.  

 

Regards

 

Melmoth

Description of Theocracy. Oh, and religion in general.

Originally posted by Windssoul

Originally posted by melmoth1

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

 

I remember reciting the pledge of allegiance everymorning in elementary school, then one day, it just stopped.... why?

Hopefully because you teacher realised that political indoctrination of very young children is an evil act of epic proportion. Actions most commonly synominous with Hitler and Stalin. The pint of education being to equip a young mind with the tools to make his own decisions, not to indoctrinate him into being a mirror of your own political ideals.

 Well, one purpose of education is purely functional: to socialise young people in order to cope in the society and in the world in which they must survive. We have to be careful with words like indoctrinaion as if we use it too loosely then the word loses the power it needs to deal with genuine cases of indoctrination.

For example, one of the subtle but overt aims of Western education (and I am basing this from Michel Foucault's excellent book Discipline and Punish) are things like (a) following timetabled activities and routines (i.e. getting up, doing some kind of work at office type hours with breaks etc); (b) following instructions by authority figures in a hierarchy (all our workplaces are hierachical, too); (c) operating within a bureaucratic - bureacratic in the sociological and not the negative sense - system of standardised rules; (d) learning a system of rewards and sanctions, of responsibiltiies and rights; and (e) being able to function in social groups.

All the above is necessary to survive in any modern Western culture. I wouldn't call this indoctrination as there is nothing really sinister about it; education can never be totally divorced from society and this is what society and people who want to live in it need. I would call it socialisation.

Now there is another more cultural-political function. To teach and train our young people in the culture and history and tradtions in which they live because we need this national culture to be passed from one generation to the next for the nation to cohere. I don't see this as indoctrination either. I read once that there are many MANY more languages and ethnicities and cultures than there are nations in the world and that nations don't just cohere naturally; they cohere by a constant act of collective will so if you want your nation to survive then you have to, to some extent, teach and preserve its culture and history and traditions in your schools. I wouldn't call this indoctrination either.

Now here is the key distinction: I think within the above a non-indoctrinating system will teach kids to also be critical and analytical and will empower them with the freedom to question and debate the curricular content of their lessons and their culture and their history, and also change it whenever it is necessary for them to do so. It will also offer them genuine choices in order to exercise that freedom.

I reserve indoctrination for any system that violently shuts down genuine critical reasoning, questioning and analysis. As such I would reserve that term for something a bit more extreme than the pledge of allegiance to be honest.  

 

Regards

 

Melmoth

Description of Theocracy. Oh, and religion in general.

I disagree with "religion in general" statement.  Yes, that statement certainly applies to the major three:  Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  However, I would not say its the same for Taoists, Buddhists, Hinduists, and all the other non-Christian, Islam and Judaist religions.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Windssoul

Originally posted by melmoth1

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

 

I remember reciting the pledge of allegiance everymorning in elementary school, then one day, it just stopped.... why?

Hopefully because you teacher realised that political indoctrination of very young children is an evil act of epic proportion. Actions most commonly synominous with Hitler and Stalin. The pint of education being to equip a young mind with the tools to make his own decisions, not to indoctrinate him into being a mirror of your own political ideals.

 Well, one purpose of education is purely functional: to socialise young people in order to cope in the society and in the world in which they must survive. We have to be careful with words like indoctrinaion as if we use it too loosely then the word loses the power it needs to deal with genuine cases of indoctrination.

For example, one of the subtle but overt aims of Western education (and I am basing this from Michel Foucault's excellent book Discipline and Punish) are things like (a) following timetabled activities and routines (i.e. getting up, doing some kind of work at office type hours with breaks etc); (b) following instructions by authority figures in a hierarchy (all our workplaces are hierachical, too); (c) operating within a bureaucratic - bureacratic in the sociological and not the negative sense - system of standardised rules; (d) learning a system of rewards and sanctions, of responsibiltiies and rights; and (e) being able to function in social groups.

All the above is necessary to survive in any modern Western culture. I wouldn't call this indoctrination as there is nothing really sinister about it; education can never be totally divorced from society and this is what society and people who want to live in it need. I would call it socialisation.

Now there is another more cultural-political function. To teach and train our young people in the culture and history and tradtions in which they live because we need this national culture to be passed from one generation to the next for the nation to cohere. I don't see this as indoctrination either. I read once that there are many MANY more languages and ethnicities and cultures than there are nations in the world and that nations don't just cohere naturally; they cohere by a constant act of collective will so if you want your nation to survive then you have to, to some extent, teach and preserve its culture and history and traditions in your schools. I wouldn't call this indoctrination either.

Now here is the key distinction: I think within the above a non-indoctrinating system will teach kids to also be critical and analytical and will empower them with the freedom to question and debate the curricular content of their lessons and their culture and their history, and also change it whenever it is necessary for them to do so. It will also offer them genuine choices in order to exercise that freedom.

I reserve indoctrination for any system that violently shuts down genuine critical reasoning, questioning and analysis. As such I would reserve that term for something a bit more extreme than the pledge of allegiance to be honest.  

 

Regards

 

Melmoth

Description of Theocracy. Oh, and religion in general.

I disagree with "religion in general" statement.  Yes, that statement certainly applies to the major three:  Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.  However, I would not say its the same for Taoists, Buddhists, Hinduists, and all the other non-Christian, Islam and Judaist religions.

Reasonable. I rescind my general statement and defer to the fact that those three cause most of the problems in the world.

Originally posted by melmoth1

 

I reserve indoctrination for any system that violently shuts down genuine critical reasoning, questioning and analysis. As such I would reserve that term for something a bit more extreme than the pledge of allegiance to be honest.  

 

Regards

 

Melmoth

 I'm afraid that my understanding of history leaves me unable to.

I did not mention Hitler and Stalin lightly.

There is patriotism and then there is nationalism.

I don't honestly believe that the American education system does leave their minds open to genuine critical reasoning. I think most people never once in their lives question the superiority of American principles and institutiions. i think it breeds a race of people who feel obviously superior to others.  They are surrounded by yes men. The schools re-inforce this and they never leave this comfort zone, spending the bulk of their lives in their own country and dismissing out of hand any free or alien thought as "anti americanism" or unpatriotic/unamerican.

The pledge of allegiance is not extreme but a child saying it every morning is.

An immigrant when he joins the country, sure. Once. A soldier when he joins the army. Sure. Once.

But a child every morning. Every child, every morning? That is just brainwashing plain and simple. Anyoone I catch treating children in this way can expect to be physically disciplined.

Originally posted by Windssoul

 

Reasonable. I rescind my general statement and defer to the fact that those three cause most of the problems in the world.

 Unless you live in Asia, then it's proably Bhuddist and Hindu's that cause most of the trouble in the world.

You know like the Thuggees in Indian Jones?

Or those hindu cults who murder every baby inthe village or still do human sacrifices etc. Or the Bhuddist terrorists setting off WMD in Tokyo and burning people alive in Tibet. Ghengis Khans spread of Bhuddism... by the sword.

Don't be small minded and think that eastern religions are any different than the others. People are people whoever they worship.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Windssoul

 

Reasonable. I rescind my general statement and defer to the fact that those three cause most of the problems in the world.

 Unless you live in Asia, then it's proably Bhuddist and Hindu's that cause most of the trouble in the world.

 

You know like the Thuggees in Indian Jones?

Or those hindu cults who murder every baby inthe village or still do human sacrifices etc. Or the Bhuddist terrorists setting off WMD in Tokyo and burning people alive in Tibet. Ghengis Khans spread of Bhuddism... by the sword.

Don't be small minded and think that eastern religions are any different than the others. People are people whoever they worship.

 Baff is right btw.

I used to think buddhism was the "nice" religion until I lived in Japan long enough to see otherwise.

Growing up in Scotland I was no stranger to religious extremism and sectarianism. A big Catholic versus Protestant tribalism still exists in parts of Scotland, especially Glasgow. I was born with the orange sash around me.

I hate rancorous religious sectarianism and was shocked to see first hand that buddhist sectarianism exists in Japan and it is every bit as nasty and divisive as the Protestant versus Catholic variety found in parts of Scotland. The Japanese just keep it off the streets and don't have flute bands banging their drums about it.

My wife grew up in a family bitterly divided by two different and opposing sects of buddhism btw. She hates religion as dogma as a result and I don't blame her.

This totally changed my perception of Buddhism btw.

Regards

Melmoth

Better a Dutch king than a Catholic one.

Ihmotepp, nobody is arguing that Al Qaeda blowing up people is bad. It would take quite the monster to argue otherwise.

However, you tend to make blanket statements about ALL Muslims, about how they ALL want to restrict rights, or ALL want to subjugate women. And then you wonder why people might think, "hey, I don't think it's AQ this guy doesn't like, it's Islam in general."

There are millions upon millions of Muslims who DON'T believe in killing innocents, who DON'T believe in the nastier aspects of Sharia Law (yes, there are different interpretations of it), who DON'T believe that drawing Muhammad is punishable by death, but you seem to lump Muslims all in one monolithic group, which is akin to lumping Roman Catholics in with dominionist whackos like the WBC.

He is not intrested in any other type of muslims except the hate figure ones.

He doesn't want you to hold a balanced perspective of them. He wants you to massacre these people.

There is no reasoning with him. He is an extremist. The correct response is not to humour his madness or even to try and persuade him of the errors of his ways; the correct response is to publicly ridicule and ostracise him, so that others who read his words realise that this is not socially acceptable thinking rather than be encouraged to rationalise racist hate campaigns likely end up in Norway styled murders or other more minor acts of mindless violence.

The laws are different in your country, but in my country this mans behaviour is criminal. if he lived here we would deport him. If he was a citizen we would detain him.

Originally posted by baff

He is not intrested in any other type of muslims except the hate figure ones.

He doesn't want you to hold a balanced perspective of them. He wants you to massacre these people.

 

There is no reasoning with him. He is an extremist. The correct response is not to humour his madness or even to try and persuade him of the errors of his ways; the correct response is to publicly ridicule and ostracise him, so that others who read his words realise that this is not socially acceptable thinking rather than be encouraged to rationalise racist hate campaigns likely end up in Norway styled murders or other more minor acts of mindless violence.

 

The laws are different in your country, but in my country this mans behaviour is criminal. if he lived here we would deport him. If he was a citizen we would detain him.

Well, then, I'm glad the rules are different in my country. I am a firm and fast believer in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I would rather see ideas defeated in the court of public opinion, rather than said defeat be legislated.

I would rather see hatred curtailed than given a protected enviroment in which it can grow strong.

What happened in Norway was wrong, not right. What happened in Germany was wrong not right. What happened in New York was wrong not right.

When children speak out of turn, or say stupid or anti-social things it is the job of all adults to shut them up. Why would your country feel the need for such a freedom of speech?

What good is it doing to your society to allow people to call for the extermination of the jews/muslims or more 9/11s?

Is this freedom improving the quality of your life? Is it protecting the just against the unjust? Is it encouraguing people to distinguish right from wrong?

Or is it just legitamising every hate fuelled and moronic thought anybody cares to come out with. Granting equal weight and consideration where the complete opposite is required. 

These kinds of hate campaigns have very real consequences. People are getting hurt and killed. Which is what Ihmo wants. He wants people to kill muslims and he is being active daily in his pursuit of this goal.

If you are pleased that your country allows him to do this, that's your affair. I'm pleased that mine doesn't.

Before we had this law, "Londonistan" was a safe haven for hate preachers. Now it isn't.  Good riddence.

Originally posted by kobie173

Ihmotepp, nobody is arguing that Al Qaeda blowing up people is bad. It would take quite the monster to argue otherwise.

However, you tend to make blanket statements about ALL Muslims, about how they ALL want to restrict rights, or ALL want to subjugate women. And then you wonder why people might think, "hey, I don't think it's AQ this guy doesn't like, it's Islam in general."

There are millions upon millions of Muslims who DON'T believe in killing innocents, who DON'T believe in the nastier aspects of Sharia Law (yes, there are different interpretations of it), who DON'T believe that drawing Muhammad is punishable by death, but you seem to lump Muslims all in one monolithic group, which is akin to lumping Roman Catholics in with dominionist whackos like the WBC.

That is simply  a lie.

I post about Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, The Muslim Brotherhood.

YOU turn that into "all Muslims". 

That is YOUR prejudice, not mine.

If you truly believe there are millions and millions of Muslims that don't believe in killing inoocents, then why do you turn Al Qaeda inot ALL MUSLIMS?

Which one is it?

There are millions of peaceful Muslims, or they are ALL AL QAEDA?

When I post about Al Qaeda, why do you try to turn that into ALL MUSLIMS?

Muslims, and now I'm talking about the peaceful ones, do not believe generally in freedom of speech if they don't believe people have the right to post a cartoon about Muhammed in the News Paper.

You go ask Muslims, in general, if they believe we should have the right to publisch cartoons of Muhammed.

Let me know the results.

If 99% of the peaceful  Muslims you're talking about in Iran, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, will say, sure you should be allowed to publish  cartoons of Muhammed, then....

I"ll agree with you that Muslims, in general, are for freedom of speech.

If they say no, that shouldn't be allowed, well, that's not free speech is it?

Free speech is about allowing those things to be heard that are offensive.

Speech that is not offensive, does not need protection.

If you're controlling what people can say, that's controlling people. It's not freedom.

Originally posted by baff

When children speak out of turn, or say stupid or anti-social things it is the job of all adults to shut them up. Why would your country feel the need for such a freedom of speech?

You are not a child, and the government is not your Mommy.

Originally posted by baff

Is this freedom improving the quality of your life? Is it protecting the just against the unjust? Is it encouraguing people to distinguish right from wrong?

Absolutely. It's called the free market place of ideas. Without it, then SOMEONE must make the decision on what can be heard, and what cannot.

Who do you trust to make that decision? I don't trust anyone. Certainly not Politicians or the government.

This is why Totalitarian regimes, like communism, and Theocracy in the Iran, do not allow freedom of speech. They cannot compete in the market place of ideas.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

When children speak out of turn, or say stupid or anti-social things it is the job of all adults to shut them up. Why would your country feel the need for such a freedom of speech?

You are not a child, and the government is not your Mommy.

 I am more dangerous than a child.

If your mommy was unable to bring you up to be a decent human being, the responsability to curb your bad behviour, unfortunately, falls to the government.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

Is this freedom improving the quality of your life? Is it protecting the just against the unjust? Is it encouraguing people to distinguish right from wrong?

 

Absolutely. It's called the free market place of ideas. Without it, then SOMEONE must make the decision on what can be heard, and what cannot.

Who do you trust to make that decision? I don't trust anyone. Certainly not Politicians or the government.

This is why Totalitarian regimes, like communism, and Theocracy in the Iran, do not allow freedom of speech. They cannot compete in the market place of ideas.

 This is certainly the drawback of our way of doing things.

The question is, do the pro's outweigh the cons?

The thing is, I trust almost anyone to make those decisions above you. Even my government. They are the lesser evil in this regard. 

As evil as curtailing freedom of speech is, allowing yours is much worse.

If the government starts curtailing the wrong things we have some slight measure of redress, an election for example. If you are empirically allowed to say whatever you like however ,we would have no such measure of redress over you.

I am of course happy to concede that this is not a perfect arrangement. In an ideal world, extremists like you wouldn't be the way you are. But it isn't an ideal world and we still have to deal with it as best we can.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

Is this freedom improving the quality of your life? Is it protecting the just against the unjust? Is it encouraguing people to distinguish right from wrong?

 

Absolutely. It's called the free market place of ideas. Without it, then SOMEONE must make the decision on what can be heard, and what cannot.

Who do you trust to make that decision? I don't trust anyone. Certainly not Politicians or the government.

This is why Totalitarian regimes, like communism, and Theocracy in the Iran, do not allow freedom of speech. They cannot compete in the market place of ideas.

 This is certainly the drawback of our way of doing things.

The question is, do the pro's outweigh the cons?

 

The thing is, I trust almost anyone to make those decisions above you. Even my government. They are the lesser evil in this regard. 

As evil as curtailking freedom of speech is, allowing yours is much worse.

I understand.

This is why you support Iran.

You don't actually believe in democracy.

Without freedom of speech, there can be no democracy.

How can you make an informed decision, when government controls access to information?

Iran Suppresses Free Speech

Free Speech In Iran: Crime And Punishment

You are a Statist.

In this particualr regard, yes I am.

I believe that there are real threats to my society that cannot be countered without a communal response.

As much as I believe in freedom, I believe that criminals should not be free to act in a criminal manner. There are compromises to be made here.

While I may not agree with each and every law in my country, or even abide by them, I broadly agree with the rule of law as a necessary evil that acts towards the greater good.

Sometimes we don't get to choose freedom. Sometimes we have an obligation to choose responsability instead. 

And i recognise that in life there will always be people for whom the pressure of responsability is too much. That can't be trusted with that much freedom.

I'm not sure that I support Iran. In my mind Iran is an enemy nation. But I am still able to respect them for their achievements. I certainly wish to encourage them in those things that they do of which I approve.

Just as I would not wish my own country to have a moon landing program but am able to readily applaud and admire the U.S. for it's.