Fundamental Mormons seek recognition for polygamy

How about Bald-White guys, we protected also?

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


Arguments against legal restrictions

....

Freedom of speech is argued by many writers to be the most basic freedom. The essayist and novelist George Orwellsaid “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Orwell argues that a society that is too careful not to offend cannot be truthfully expressive, artistic, or diverse. Taking offense to speech is an arbitrary response. To account for every possible way a phrase may be found offensive is not only impossible, but a hindrance to freedom of expression and even thought.

...

In a related story: (Another chicken-or-the-egg ...)


John Leo
Let the Segregation Commence
Separatist graduations proliferate at UCLA.
13 June 2007

Commencement weekend is hard to plan at the University of California, Los Angeles. The university now has so many separate identity-group graduations that scheduling them not to conflict with one another is a challenge. The women’s studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation are both set for 10 AM Saturday. The broader Hispanic graduation, “Raza,” is in near-conflict with the black graduation, which starts just an hour later.

Planning was easier before a new crop of ethnic groups pushed for inclusion. Students of Asian heritage were once content with the Asian–Pacific Islanders ceremony. But now there are separate Filipino and Vietnamese commencements ....

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-13jl.html


(traderNik, ... he labels someone "Orwellian" in one breath, and in the very next advocates scrambling infant brains and criminalizing thoughts)
 
hey neophyte that was a very clear explanation of why people like nik don't belong in the U.S.

Can you imagine being proud of the fact you have lost basic human rights in name of "progress" and being confused enough to call the other side Orwellian. The irony would be funny if it were not so sickening.
 
he is an interesting study in contrasts.

On the one hand, he uses perfect grammar and spells impeccably, and one can only assume he speaks in perfect diction, on the other hand, most of his conclusions are so riddled with predisposition it's humorous, yet maddening because we all know the halls of bureaucracy are filled with like-minded folk.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I think what we need to do, is actually show the dangers or damage that comes from hate speech.

If we can show how hate speech harms people beyond a reasonable level that comes with the right of free speech, then of course we should do something to curb or punish hate speech. I don't know why we need hate crime laws, it seems somewhat redundant. Most crime toward another human being is not the product of love.

I am not sure we have done the job of properly showing how hate speech damages our society sufficient to punish people for the practice of hate speech.

I think people have the right to march in anti-Gay parades, just as those who march in pro-Gay parades.

Those who are anti-something, generally don't have a good logical foundation to their position, so if we can expose the level of ignorance that they rest their case on, the hate speech can actually be demonstrative of what is wrong with bigotry, etc.

I think the primary concern of hate speech, is that it is powerful, and those who hate do have power in that hate. It can incite others to hate, but free speech should trump even that concern as long as we cannot directly find due cause to silence someone for their opinion, no matter hateful.

I also believe much still stems from the work of Hitler who used hate speech so effectively, and showed how a powerful speaker playing to the lowest aspect of human nature, i.e. hatred, intolerance, bigotry can work so well and efficiently to promote a cause, by using a scapegoat methodology.

In some fashion that is exactly what Ahnold did out here in Californeeeeeia when he was first elected. He said repeatedly the people of Californeeeeia were good, the problem was the politicians. Not much different really than Hitler saying the German people are good, the problem is the Jews...so put me in power and I will take the power away from the Jews.

It is appealing to the masses, because then the masses take no personal responsibility for their situation, and need not change their own ways that contributed to the problem in the first place...
More...

I am not sure what you mean. If you are for criminalizing an expressed idea - I completely disagree with you. You are paving the way for the complete destruction of freedom.

You have the free market place of ideas to compete with bad ideas.

If you are for criminalizing the act of telling someone to kill someone - we already have criminal conspiracy laws.
 
I can see that you are unclear.

My point was that unless we can show damages, or future damages as a result of hate speech, then it should not be controlled in general.

What I am saying in reference to Hitler, however, is that if a very popular politician rose to power on the basis of hate speech, I don't think that is a good thing...as once in power they might just use that power to act on what was only hate speech, turning it into hate actions...

I would truly think about leaving America if a hate filled man like Michael Savage ever rose to high levels of political power. Should his speech be controlled? No, but there is some degree of incitement for others to hate in what he does, which I also don't think is a great situation.

Quote from jem:

I am not sure what you mean. If you are for criminalizing an expressed idea - I completely disagree with you. You are paving the way for the complete destruction of freedom.

You have the free market place of ideas to compete with bad ideas.

If you are for criminalizing the act of telling someone kill someone - we already have criminal conspiracy laws.
More...
 
Quote from roberk:

Can you understand that a few people think the baby has rights and they are fighting for those.
More...

Is the blastocyst a 'baby'? If it is, we'd better get working on that ban on masturbation, because it's babies all the way back.

(Hate to say it but that's a pretty good example of the kind of rhetoric we expect from the anti-choice people).

Yes, I understand it, and not only that, I am glad that there are people at the other end of the rope pulling us the other way from my own direction. For example, I am all for taking it slow and easy when it comes to reproductive technologies and genetic engineering. Those who claim that that there are no moral issues to be pondered and resolved are fooling themselves. I say this even though I have openly mocked the ID/Creationists, who have floundered around the issue, first decrying the results of science then trying to claim that they have scientific proof of Creation. I love the scientific method, since it's the driving force behind human progress.

I am also glad that there are people out there fighting for the rights of animals even though I don't agree with everything they say and I think it's ludicrous, for example, to say that aboriginal people living traditional lifestyles should be banned from taking animals which they use for subsistence.

With regard to the allegation that I'm anti-free speech... it's fascinating. God knows how many times I have posted that I value free speech above all and that in my view, one ill effect of the so called 'war on terror' has been the erosion of the very freedoms that made America great. I even defend the right of those who accuse me of being a bureaucracy-loving (???? - I hate bureaucracy and bureaucrats more than anyone here!!), knee-jerk liberal or a 'commie' (that's a new one) to make such an accusation.

In fact the faith-mongers only make themselves look ridiculous with their arbitrary moralizations (this sexual act is okay, this one is not, this liaison is okay, this one is not, this decision between two consenting adults is okay, this one is not, this way for a woman to decide her own fate is okay, this one is not). I encourage them to carry on.

Like I said, in a few hundred years, these faith-based arguments will mostly be historical oddities.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"As far as being a Christian, I am not a Christian. Surprise!"

Given the levels of hatred, bigotry, intolerance you express...of course you are not following the past of Christ...

Your entire position is irrational, as it is founded in applying your own personal moral point of view, in a hateful way, to others.
More...

I have never uttered a hateful word. You must be stoned again.
Maybe you just can not comprehend another person's point of view.
That's okay. Your problem.

I guess I could also say you are irrational as your moral (or lack of morals)
point of view can be harmful to all of society.

I bet you believe AIDS is just a nice little side effect of gay sex.

I would bet when Jesus said Love your brother, he did not mean
it literally. Get my drift?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:



"When it comes to humans having freedoms, there has to be a line
drawn where certain things are allowed and some are not."

Certain things?

Like how consenting adults choose to have sex with other consenting adults?

Ridiculous...
More...

Why do you think it is ridiculous? Maybe AIDS is a nice little signal
that maybe gay sex is a no no.

I once knew a friend who was a hemophiliac who got AIDS infected
blood back in the late 80's. He is dead now. He died a nasty,
terrible death.

I guess it is one of the reasons why I have no respect for gay people.

And never will. If it wasn't for them, he would most likely be still alive.
 
notice how nik changes the subject.

Nik are you for partial birth abortion. Do you consider that progressive.

Are you for criminalizing hate speech against gays. do you still thank that is progressive?
 
Quote from chuck.ells:

A separation of church and state?

My own opinion is that there is no place in government policy for marriage of any kind, as marriage is a religious custom.
Allowing special rights and privileges to married people, above and beyond what single people get, lets organized religion have too much authority in state matters.

I know my views are in the minority, yet there they are.
More...

Fine, then they need to stop subsidizing these idiot, inbred child-molesting degenerates. Don't kid yourself, these are mostly a bunch of slime.

Read "Under the Banner of Heaven" to get some idea of what is really going on. Bad for our society...very bad.

Colorado City pulls in 3 million plus dollars a year in welfare. They contribute nothing. Cut them off. They produce genetically defective offspring at an alarming rate because of all the inbreeding and daughter rape. They pray for Downs syndrome children because that guarantees them a tidy income from the govt.

You don't know shit if you think these fundamental polygs deserve to be left to their own ways.

bt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top