During my brief flirtation with journalism, I discovered the importance of distinguising facts from opinion...
... But the beauty is thats all entirely subjective !
Maybe you can dispense some more of your facts ... and i could reply by not utilizing words at all, and merely post pictures of dinosaurs. Then we'd both be trolling
Firstly, to clear something up, my dialog firmly offers zero consideration to RandRs personal taste, whether or not a discussion is in his opinion 'good' or 'ruined', nor does it concern itself with his personal interpretation of 'crap'. Friendly FYI.The ability to speak freely does not condone the discrimination of anyone, this is not double speak on my behalf, but simple common sense. Not to mention just basically morales that people in this country are taught from pre-school.
Your making a lot of good discussion, dont ruin it by being bringing up crap like that
Capitalism has no record of causing disaster. Socialism does. As history proves (Koreas, Germanies, West Europe vs East, Japan/HongKong/Singapore/Macau vs China/Cambodia, Latin America vs North America, on and on), the higher the 'percent capitalism', the higher the quality of life. There is no historical record of people being shot trying to leave more capitalist states to enter more socialist states.Because we already know one or the other is a disaster if pursued singularly.
Please read this over again and tell me if it sounds rational to you. I will simply apply this logic to a non-political example:you know its perfectly reasonable in a socialist sense for man to posses property. Indeed, in a socialist society theres nothing stopping one from accumulating more wealth and property then another. There's merely a greater level of redistribution from that person to those that dont have that same level of wealth.
Their budget is 'the life of every human'.I challenge the Greens to present a budget from their policies.
Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.
Feel free to use it. I thought that one up after a fair few Heineken's - and those are the ONLY greens I will let into my houseA perfick encapsulation of my views.
1/ It is a mistake to underestimate your political adversaries, unless of course that was just a gratuitous insult. Either way, all the work you have done on this forum to seem reasonable is now lost.
2/ It is a low probability that people who are not paid up members of the Fabian Society are in fact Palin groupies.
Socialists fancy themselves as intellectuals yet readily take the low road with pejoratives. How about arguing on the merits of policy rather than casting aspersions.
Firstly, to clear something up, my dialog firmly offers zero consideration to RandRs personal taste, whether or not a discussion is in his opinion 'good' or 'ruined', nor does it concern itself with his personal interpretation of 'crap'. Friendly FYI.
Socialism is theft rolling around in rhetorical candy-floss.
bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....
your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.
If you believe in the validity of your opinion, try telling an American that because there constitution gives them the right to free speech, they have the right to discriminate against someone. See how far you get .... because in the real world, it doesnt, and any attempt at justifying discrimination or vilification through "its just free speech" will surely end up in a court of law.
The right to free speech, does not condone or give anybody the right to justify discrimination.
If you dont like my interpretation of that, thats fine, but its a pretty common interpretation, and one thats surely upheld by the majority of people and court systems around the world.
Well, if we are being absurdist:bahahaha. my 'personal taste' is backed up by law ....
your argument is like saying just because you have the right to own a gun, you can shoot somebody with it.
So by your logic, one can have freedom of speech, and also end up in court for certain statements. So for instance (and tothemax6 will point out he holds the opposite views), if I say "Japanese people are primitive and stupid" - I have discriminated, yes? If I say "I hate Japanese people", I have discriminated, yes? And I should be punished by force, yes? Again, double-speak - the ability to simultaneously hold two views that a mutually contradictory. One either has freedom of speech, or one is banned from a subset of speech.If you believe in the validity of your opinion, try telling an American that because there constitution gives them the right to free speech, they have the right to discriminate against someone. See how far you get .... because in the real world, it doesnt, and any attempt at justifying discrimination or vilification through "its just free speech" will surely end up in a court of law.
According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[32] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.[33] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[3
In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[34] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[34]
Actually, their poicy on coal mining is a watered down version of their idiology.I think the key thing to consider in relation to Green polices ... is to take them with a pinch of salt ....
They are not designed to ever be implemented. There designed to create debate and awareness.
This is wrong precisely because anything can be declared to be obscene or hateful to a particular viewpoint. To claim that saying certain things violates rights is irrational. By this logic, it is reasonable to jail people for verbal statements. Indeed to claim that there are 'limitations to freedom of X' is again, double-speak. Either something is free, or it is constrained. 2+2 only equals 4.IFocus said:Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
””Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.
That is a very broad definition - according to that definition I am bigoted against Nazis, pro-rape and child abuse groups, communists, white supremecists and Carlton supporters.Definition of bigotry:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
It seems that those pointing the finger and accusing others of bigotry should look at where their other three fingers are pointing...
Definition of bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
””Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.*
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
It seems that those pointing the finger and accusing others of bigotry should look at where their other three fingers are pointing...
That is a very broad definition - according to that definition I am bigoted against Nazis, pro-rape and child abuse groups, communists, white supremecists and Carlton supporters.
I would still be offended to be labelled a bigot as the general understanding of the term bigot in society tends to be someone who hates a particular group because of who they are, rather than simply what they stand for.
* you should have added - it is only bigotry when it comes from the right...never from the left.
I'm sure there are plenty who would argue the exact opposite - neither would be a bigoted opinion thoughI have also noticed that those from the right are more willing to acknowledge faults with their chosen party. The left seem hell bent on defending even the things that they would probably strongly oppose if it came from the right. Just an observation...
I'm sure there are plenty who would argue the exact opposite - neither would be a bigoted opinion though
Well yes the important thing is that ideas and speech are competitively favoured by choice, not by force.You're right, of course, tothemax6. But there nevertheless prevails a kind of moral highground which tacitly determines that some commentary is unacceptable.
Viz the pejorative language directed toward anyone who is agnostic about so called climate change. They are called 'the deniers' and there is no doubt that this description is negative and critical.
Similarly, any objection to any facet of some religions will quickly bring an accusation of bigotry and/or vilification.
So, yes, we may enjoy freedom of speech in a legal sense, but anyone who goes against the mainstream of opinion is quickly put down.
I don't think that's a very good definition. It should include at the end "because it differs from one's own". I am fully against socialists, for instance, not simply because socialism differed from my views when I first learned about it, but because upon studying it, my objective analysis concluded with "this is great only at doing bad things". And I am unapologetically against bad things. This isn't bigotry, it is judgment.sails said:Definition of bigotry:
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?