Org Mobile Site
Thread: Living in a theocracy
In defence of Christians i would think that the type of politicians introducing these laws are trying to win cheap votes rather than believe that thier religion should suffer no insult.... maybe a mix of the two for some...
TBH this is guesswork on my part... but most christians i met/talked to seem happy for criticism to be legal...
TBH this is guesswork on my part... but most christians i met/talked to seem happy for criticism to be legal...
These are fundamentalists in our government we call them the polder-taliban. To give you an impression
http://www.speld.nl/wp-content/uploa...et_721694b.jpg
http://www.speld.nl/wp-content/uploa...et_721694b.jpg
Well he hasn't exactly got a winning smile... kind of has an evil stare too...
Definetly Christian evil incarnate!
Originally Posted by Brenus:
I sleep better at night knowing that people like you and your family serve in the French forces. You do France proud. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I disagree though that nazi-propaganda should be prohibited. Because, if it were up to me, the military receives a license to kill nazis at sight. And how would we ever tell who's a nazi if they can't make themselves known?
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
I sleep better at night knowing that people like you and your family serve in the French forces. You do France proud.
I disagree though that nazi-propaganda should be prohibited. Because, if it were up to me, the military receives a license to kill nazis at sight. And how would we ever tell who's a nazi if they can't make themselves known?
I feel the same way about 'net conversations: let the idiots talk, and let their opponents heap well-deserved scorn and ridicule upon them. It makes freedom stronger, IMO. Sadly, it also encourages the nut-cases, they thinking they have a partially respectful audience, for which they spew ad infinitum.I sleep better at night knowing that people like you and your family serve in the French forces. You do France proud.
I disagree though that nazi-propaganda should be prohibited. Because, if it were up to me, the military receives a license to kill nazis at sight. And how would we ever tell who's a nazi if they can't make themselves known?
Still, let 'em talk. People are not as stupid as pretendant leaders think they are.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
I feel the same way about 'net conversations: let the idiots talk, and let their opponents heap well-deserved scorn and ridicule upon them. It makes freedom stronger, IMO. Sadly, it also encourages the nut-cases, they thinking they have a partially respectful audience, for which they spew ad infinitum.
That audience is mostly laughing at them though, so I don't think that it's really much of a problem. Better they get their anger out over the internet than through violence anyway.I feel the same way about 'net conversations: let the idiots talk, and let their opponents heap well-deserved scorn and ridicule upon them. It makes freedom stronger, IMO. Sadly, it also encourages the nut-cases, they thinking they have a partially respectful audience, for which they spew ad infinitum.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I am really getting tired of these christians on our government, first they don't want to work on sundays in the middle of a crisis no the LORD says no, they try to introduce laws on blasphemy, and now they now they want creatism on public schools. Believe in fairytales fine, but just leave us alone.
You barbarians work on sundays...?I am really getting tired of these christians on our government, first they don't want to work on sundays in the middle of a crisis no the LORD says no, they try to introduce laws on blasphemy, and now they now they want creatism on public schools. Believe in fairytales fine, but just leave us alone.
When do you have your hangovers?
“I disagree though that nazi-propaganda should be prohibited. Because, if it were up to me, the military receives a license to kill nazis at sight. And how would we ever tell who's a nazi if they can't make themselves known?”
I agree.
However, what I was pointing out is the problem of free speech of openly criminal organisations, and some that did exist. Not just speeches, theories, but ones, which had power and did what they said.
Note: See how this debate was derailled just in speeking of Negationism... That is great Art...
The poor persecuted pro-nazi....
I agree.
However, what I was pointing out is the problem of free speech of openly criminal organisations, and some that did exist. Not just speeches, theories, but ones, which had power and did what they said.
Note: See how this debate was derailled just in speeking of Negationism... That is great Art...
The poor persecuted pro-nazi....
Originally Posted by :
I disagree though that nazi-propaganda should be prohibited.
Would you allow to create a political party that will take the power of the State? I disagree though that nazi-propaganda should be prohibited.
If you feed them, they'll bite your hand.
Originally Posted by Caius:
Would you allow to create a political party that will take the power of the State?
If you feed them, they'll bite your hand.
If neo-Nazis have enough political power to take over the state, you have more issues then just the legality of their political wing.Would you allow to create a political party that will take the power of the State?
If you feed them, they'll bite your hand.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You barbarians work on sundays...?
When do you have your hangovers?
You barbarians work on sundays...?
When do you have your hangovers?
Frag is referring to a meeting between our ministers that was supposed to take place at a time when the banking crisis had pretty much reached its peak. The idea was to hold it on sunday, agree on some measures and announce them before the stock exchange opened for "maximum effect". Some politicians of the "Christen Unie" objected.
Originally Posted by Brenus:
Because if you accept the idea they have the right to expose their ideal, you accept the fact that they can be elected and their power would be a legitimate one. Evil, but legitimate. Then, will you accept as the will of the majority the extermination of all minorities, races, sexual, and others potential victims. Yes?
I don't know enough about the Front National to judge their similarity to the "real" fascists, but do you think it should be deemed a criminal organisation?Because if you accept the idea they have the right to expose their ideal, you accept the fact that they can be elected and their power would be a legitimate one. Evil, but legitimate. Then, will you accept as the will of the majority the extermination of all minorities, races, sexual, and others potential victims. Yes?
“I don't know enough about the Front National to judge their similarity to the "real" fascists, but do you think it should be deemed a criminal organisation?”
Hard question.
I would say no, even if some members I spoke with when I thought it was worth to try were potentially dangerous. Well, they were openly true Nazi to speak frankly (reproduction of SS poster on the wall, hate for others races, religions etc).
But the movement as such doesn’t openly want to destroy the regime. Jean Marie Le Pen did calculated “coup d’éclat” about the Holocaust (detail of history) but I would say that no, in my actual knowledge, the Front National is not a criminal organisation.
And having spoken to others groups, in fact Le Pen is Socialist Social traitor.
I remember an interview of French Basque Nationalists wondering who was Karadzic and who was Mladic…
Hard question.
I would say no, even if some members I spoke with when I thought it was worth to try were potentially dangerous. Well, they were openly true Nazi to speak frankly (reproduction of SS poster on the wall, hate for others races, religions etc).
But the movement as such doesn’t openly want to destroy the regime. Jean Marie Le Pen did calculated “coup d’éclat” about the Holocaust (detail of history) but I would say that no, in my actual knowledge, the Front National is not a criminal organisation.
And having spoken to others groups, in fact Le Pen is Socialist Social traitor.
I remember an interview of French Basque Nationalists wondering who was Karadzic and who was Mladic…
Originally Posted by Brenus:
imprescriptibles(don't know the translation: something like impossible to take from)
Inalienable.imprescriptibles(don't know the translation: something like impossible to take from)
Blasphemy: irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc...
Considering that I have received an infraction from you for blasphemy (not in those words I have to admit) I find your Thread a bit self-contradicting.
No offense, but if you yourself is willing to uphold such 'laws' then why is it such a big deal that these laws could be enforced upon you?
And, no I do not support blasphemy laws, which is why I really detest not being able to present my views on religion to the org.
Considering that I have received an infraction from you for blasphemy (not in those words I have to admit) I find your Thread a bit self-contradicting.
No offense, but if you yourself is willing to uphold such 'laws' then why is it such a big deal that these laws could be enforced upon you?
And, no I do not support blasphemy laws, which is why I really detest not being able to present my views on religion to the org.
Originally Posted by rasoforos:
Blasphemy: irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc...
Considering that I have received an infraction from you for blasphemy (not in those words I have to admit) I find your Thread a bit self-contradicting.
No offense, but if you yourself is willing to uphold such 'laws' then why is it such a big deal that these laws could be enforced upon you?
And, no I do not support blasphemy laws, which is why I really detest not being able to present my views on religion to the org.
Sigh. The old freedom of speech argument. Very well.Blasphemy: irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc...
Considering that I have received an infraction from you for blasphemy (not in those words I have to admit) I find your Thread a bit self-contradicting.
No offense, but if you yourself is willing to uphold such 'laws' then why is it such a big deal that these laws could be enforced upon you?
And, no I do not support blasphemy laws, which is why I really detest not being able to present my views on religion to the org.
First, this is a private forum with rules. On application for membership of this forum, you agree to observe those rules. You can choose to abide by those rules or leave. There is no right of free speech on a private forum.
Second, I am a volunteer tasked with upholding those rules. Not my own personal biases, but the forum rules. If I have an issue with those rules, I can leave.
Thirdly, no-one is preventing you from presenting your views on religion as long as it is done with respect for other members. What you may not do is bash, insult or otherwise vicariously offend other members who hold different - and sacred to them - opinions. Frankly, I fear we give anti-religionists too much leeway sometimes. As with political opinions, I know I am finding roughly the right line when my inbox is full of howls of indignation about my bias sent from both extremes.
The corollary to the above then, is that since there are plenty of fora where you can be as beastly as you like to other people, your freedom of speech is not infringed. You can merely go somewhere else to insult others. Here however, you will behave.
The original post referred to a national law. Other than the population of Ireland moving en masse to France, the proposal infringes on their rights.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Sigh. The old freedom of speech argument. Very well.
First, this is a private forum with rules. On application for membership of this forum, you agree to observe those rules. You can choose to abide by those rules or leave. There is no right of free speech on a private forum.
Second, I am a volunteer tasked with upholding those rules. Not my own personal biases, but the forum rules. If I have an issue with those rules, I can leave.
I think that upholding, let alone enforcing laws that are contrary to one's beliefs to be morally objectionable. This is not meant as an offence. It is merely the way I feel for myself.Sigh. The old freedom of speech argument. Very well.
First, this is a private forum with rules. On application for membership of this forum, you agree to observe those rules. You can choose to abide by those rules or leave. There is no right of free speech on a private forum.
Second, I am a volunteer tasked with upholding those rules. Not my own personal biases, but the forum rules. If I have an issue with those rules, I can leave.
You cannot allow yourself the privilege of double standards and yet deny it from your country.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
The corollary to the above then, is that since there are plenty of fora where you can be as beastly as you like to other people, your freedom of speech is not infringed. You can merely go somewhere else to insult others. Here however, you will behave.
I will comment you on your good use of Latin plural The corollary to the above then, is that since there are plenty of fora where you can be as beastly as you like to other people, your freedom of speech is not infringed. You can merely go somewhere else to insult others. Here however, you will behave.
I, however, find that this paragraph is just a diversion. I am not questioning the system of the 'org' (if you read the forums carefully you will find that I am a fan of your rather 'heavy handed' approach and believe that it has made the backroom a better place).
I am trying to emphasize that you cannot be of two minds. To me, it does not matter if it is a forum or a country. A person should always uphold his views. You mentioned the old 'free speech' argument
yet you throw in the even older 'just doing my job' argument.
Afterall aren't forum rules a mirror of our perceived common sense of justice? The same way libel and slander are punishable both in a forum (...well some forums) and in a country (...well some countries) the same way blasphemy seems to be offensive to the public mind and is thus punishable. Of course your rights are infringed but human beings have a tendency to be willing to sacrifice their freedom if it will make their environment more safe. Moderated fora is a good example. We prefer the tavern even though we could go and rant freely on anti-religious or fundamentalist discussion groups
Anyway I will not tire you more, even though I really enjoy reading your posts. Let's have a beer and just accept we dissagree
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO