Free Speech Yet Again
-
Lol. A dozen people killed during the Crusades... yeah, ok. I also love how your estimates are based on historical accuracy as they really kept a death toll throughout all these conflicts and you have access to all these documents. Riiiiight. Your figure of 9 million is as worthless to me (and everyone else for that matter) as a rotten banana peel. For that matter, so is your "estimate" of 5% - 10% "of those killed in the name of atheism". Why do you even waste your time trying to convince me with total nonsense? A "good estimate" :laugh:
espeir wrote:
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors.
LOL. Yeah, the Reconquista had absolutely nothing to do with the Christians forcing the Moors (Muslims) from Spain. You're right. How silly of me. :rolleyes:
I obviously reversed the crusades and witch burning figures (because of the quote button). But yes, that figure is a good estimate. You have 50 million US abortions in the past 30 years. Another 50 million worldwide (lowballing for your benefit). 36 million WWII deaths. I think the figure was something like 30 million Chinese from their communist government. That right there is about 170 million in the past 100 years in the name of atheism. That makes the 9 million killed over the past 1000 years in the name of religion a paltry maximum of 5.3% of those killed in the name of atheism over the past 100. If people kill in the name of religion as widely as you claim, they sure aren't very good at it. Churches need to take lessons from atheists! Prove that The Reconquista was done in the name of religion. It's Spanish for The Reconquest. One does not "conquest" for religion but for land.
-
New England Witch Burnings Honour killings Those are the only two I would give you. You continue to want to blame religoin exclusively for events that also had significant secular components. I would agree that these events may have been technically done 'in the name of religion', but they were also done in the name of many other, purely secular, purposes. So you simply cannot lay the blame for all those deaths on religion. The history is far more complex than that. For example, Constantinople was at least as important for economic and military reasons as it was for religious ones. Religion may have been important to get the peons to actually kill each other, but to those pulling the strings religion was entirely a secondary concern. Relgion in and of iteself would have never created the necessary conditions to motivate such sustained and expensive operations. And, in any case, historically we see no less violence and carnage in times and places when religion played no role then when it did. And the continued use of religion as the great evil of history, and the state as the hapless victim of overwhelming and uncontrollable religious zealotry, clearly shows the continueing and pervasive influence of Marxist thought on modern human culture. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 8:58 Thursday 9th February, 2006
And you continue to want to blame secularism for events that also had significant religious components, as well as blame Marx for events that happened centuries before his birth. Sure, in the big picture, the motivation is almost always political -- territory and/or power -- but, at the level of the people actually doing the killing, the motivation has been religious more often than not.
-
As a German law arguement that is totally fine. But as a free speech principals arguement it isn't ok. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons? :confused: regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons?
There is a slight difference here Paul. Hitler was real, Mohammed, God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost, Buddha, the Multi-Armed Elephant headed God are all make believe, more so than Santa Clause, cause at least he puts presents under the tree every year. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Ed, if was to shit on the American flag while I am in the US (where I spend my weekdays), and I get arrested, would you say it goes against the free speech? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
would you say it goes against the free speech?
I would. IMO our government/police would be wrong to arrest you. However... ...at the same time, it wouldn't really bother me too much if they turned the other cheek while someone beat the shit out of you as well. Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
But you are OK with the printing of the Mohammed cartoons?
There is a slight difference here Paul. Hitler was real, Mohammed, God, Jesus, The Holy Ghost, Buddha, the Multi-Armed Elephant headed God are all make believe, more so than Santa Clause, cause at least he puts presents under the tree every year. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
I'm pretty sure that Mohammed, Jesus and Buddha were all historical figures. Come to think of it...So was Santa Claus.
-
Ed, if was to shit on the American flag while I am in the US (where I spend my weekdays), and I get arrested, would you say it goes against the free speech? -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Do you talk out of your a**?
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
would you say it goes against the free speech?
I would. IMO our government/police would be wrong to arrest you. However... ...at the same time, it wouldn't really bother me too much if they turned the other cheek while someone beat the shit out of you as well. Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
ihoecken wrote:
And when you say there shouldn't be ANY consequences then you are not allowed to make fun of anybody else. Because the consequence is that he feels offended. That is a consequence and shows that your concept of free speech is totally nonsense.
:confused: :wtf: I think you misread my statements. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
ihoecken wrote:
And when you say there shouldn't be ANY consequences then you are not allowed to make fun of anybody else. Because the consequence is that he feels offended. That is a consequence and shows that your concept of free speech is totally nonsense.
:confused: :wtf: I think you misread my statements. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
would you say it goes against the free speech?
I would. IMO our government/police would be wrong to arrest you. However... ...at the same time, it wouldn't really bother me too much if they turned the other cheek while someone beat the shit out of you as well. Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind.
This is the essence of Free Speech, being able to express yourself without being afraid of negative consequences. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind.
This is the essence of Free Speech, being able to express yourself without being afraid of negative consequences. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
This is the essence of Free Speech, being able to express yourself without being afraid of negative consequences.
Not really. The essence of free speech is the rigth to tell the truth without being haunted afterwards. It's not the right to do what you like. When you read any constitution of a western country you won't find a free speech you like to have and that is good. You don't have the right to insult anybody in anyway you like. You don't have to the right to lie in many cases. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
This is the essence of Free Speech, being able to express yourself without being afraid of negative consequences.
Not really. The essence of free speech is the rigth to tell the truth without being haunted afterwards. It's not the right to do what you like. When you read any constitution of a western country you won't find a free speech you like to have and that is good. You don't have the right to insult anybody in anyway you like. You don't have to the right to lie in many cases. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
Not really. The essence of free speech is the rigth to tell the truth without being haunted afterwards. It's not the right to do what you like
Yes, that is what I meant, sorry. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Do you talk out of your a**?
Hey dimwit, that does not mean I find it OK to shit on the US flag. I was just trying to illustrate the german law is not so ridiculous, and that shitting on the US flag or do the goose walk in germany is not free speech, it is simply provocation. But your brain is probably too small for such subtlety. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Free speech doesn't mean speech without ANY consequence of any kind.
This is the essence of Free Speech, being able to express yourself without being afraid of negative consequences. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
In a world of 6 billion individuals with a vast array of cultures and religions it is essentially impossible to make any statement that doesn't offend someone. When people are offended - there are always consequences. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
ihoecken wrote:
Not really. The essence of free speech is the rigth to tell the truth without being haunted afterwards. It's not the right to do what you like
Yes, that is what I meant, sorry. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
In a world of 6 billion individuals with a vast array of cultures and religions it is essentially impossible to make any statement that doesn't offend someone. When people are offended - there are always consequences. Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
As of a reply to my post states, Free Speech is not meant to provoke or insult other poeple/culture, it is to be able to express the truth without being oppressed for doing so. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
-
As of a reply to my post states, Free Speech is not meant to provoke or insult other poeple/culture, it is to be able to express the truth without being oppressed for doing so. -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson
Michel Prévost wrote:
Free Speech is not meant to provoke or insult other poeple/culture, it is to be able to express the truth without being oppressed for doing so.
Fair enough, but all I'm saying is that despite its intentions any statement can and will be construed as provocation. (ie. There will be consequences) Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
-
(1) We are sick of your Nazi jokes. They were funny until around March 17, 1957. They are stale, boring, childish and not funny. Bring on some healthy, dry english humour, and we get along. (2) certain insignia of the 3rd reich are prohibited in Germany. Everyone knows that, and if you come here, follow the rules. (3) Laws like that are the only measure a democratic country has against shitheads. Would you rather have a headline "30.000 Nazis march through Berlin! US Ambassador applauds german courts for ruling they are protected under free speech."? OK, those english folks with a Nazi fetish probably wouldget off on that, but IMHO they should stick to their sheep.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistI can understand how Nazi stuff would greatly offend Germans personally and perhaps nationally. However, in my mind, freedom of speech should be seen as close to absolute as possible. With it, you have to learn to put up with the ass-hats, and trust your fellow citizens to recognize them for what they are. A few years back, a Christmas parade in Atlanta (my hometown) was cancelled because the KKK wanted to enter a float in the parade. The theme of the float was to be "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" (clever, eh?). There was absolutely no legal recourse available, so the parade organizers decided to cancel the parade. Personally, I think they should have had the parade. Let the KKK have its float. Let the TV cameras see a bunch of men dressed up in bedsheets wanking on about 'white power' and 'white perfection'. Let everybody see them for the clowns they are under those bedsheets. Let the TV cameras air the parade goers along the entire parade route turning their backs as the KKK float passed. Cancelling the parade let the KKK and its supporters play up their delusional martyr complex. Having an entire city literally turn it's back on you, publicly, would have been wholly devastating to the KKK internally...
-
Michel Prévost wrote:
Free Speech is not meant to provoke or insult other poeple/culture, it is to be able to express the truth without being oppressed for doing so.
Fair enough, but all I'm saying is that despite its intentions any statement can and will be construed as provocation. (ie. There will be consequences) Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.
Unfortunately, you are right :sigh: -------- "I say no to drugs, but they don't listen." - Marilyn Manson