One Danish opinion

KaRl

If there were indisputable facts, I suppose there wouldn't be such a mess :)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

KaRl

Wouldn't you be shocked if a shopkeeper refused to serve jews, or black people?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Alvaro Mendez

:-) Yes, or more accurately: Finally, someone has managed to see past the left-wing media propaganda. Although his actions are just foolish. Regards, Alvaro

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. -- Albert Einstein

Alvaro Mendez

Yes, and don't forget to stop by the pet shop and rub the belly of a Great Dane. :-) Regards, Alvaro

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. -- Albert Einstein

Doug Goulden

Shocked ? No... PO'ed yes. I'd vote against him the same way. Unfortunately I believe that everyone has the right to be an *sshole. I just am not going to support them. (No I'm not a racist) I just don't think the government has the right to tell people what to think. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: I just don't think the government has the right to tell people what to think. Here's probably one of the major differences between our cultures. I think the Law (not the government) has the right to tell people there are some ideas which can't be propagated (incitation to racial hatred and xenophobia)

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Michael A Barnhart

Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: I'm sure you'd feel highly offended - and quite rightly so. No, I would not be offended. This is clearly the owner making a political statement and I would be happy he lived in a country that allowed him to do so. I do not get offended by those CPians who have a different view than mine, if they are civil in the processes. "I will find a new sig someday."

Michael A Barnhart

I do not think the corollary to being a racist (being unacceptable to society in general) vs an individual making a political statement is correct in this case. "I will find a new sig someday."

Michael A Barnhart

KaЯl wrote: Here's probably one of the major differences between our cultures. I must not have read this prior to my other response. No, that is not a difference. We allow political statements but object to racial ones. To me this was just a personal political statement. "I will find a new sig someday."

Doug Goulden

Which law? The problem is that government makes the law. If the majority of the people support a government that would institutionalize slavery, or round up some random group for extermination they could merely pass a law making it legal. Don't laugh to hard its happened, that's one of the potential drawbacks of a Democracy or Republic. I believe you have to defend the rights of even the people you disagree with. I'm not saying someone has the right to endanger someone else, but as long as they don't harm anything more than a persons feelings they have the right to be ignorant. And hopefully if the need would ever come they would defend my rights also. :) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Not speaking of the Danish guy specifically , but more the racial question... Doesn't the redneck racist have the same right to express his (distasteful) opinion as muh as the Louis Farakans of the world? Both groups are jerks , but as long as they aren't advocating harming anyone else, they do have a right to speak their (confused) minds.:) BTW I'm not a racist I just think everyone has a right to their opinion as long as they don't harm someone else (hurt feelings don't count) Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We allow political statements but object to racial ones Don't you a _legal>/i> Nazi movement in the US? :confused: AFAIK , here is the law much more rigorous on this. Do you remember the case "Yahoo vs French Justice" ? Michael A. Barnhart wrote: To me this was just a personal political statement. IMO, as soon as he makes a difference between his customers because of their nationality, he's acting in a racist way. If he would refuse to serve women, wouldn't he do a sexual discrimination?

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

_

KaRl

In our democracies, the laws have to be compatible with our constitutions, so it's limiting the potential abuses, isn't it? Doug Goulden wrote: I believe you have to defend the rights of even the people you disagree with I basically agree, i would however moderate this by adding I would not defend the "rights" which contradict my basic moral rules, mostly defined by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the document you mention. However the US Constitution is a document that can be ammended. That being the case I think its the responsibility of each citizen to try to prevent the warping of the document's original intent. As far as defending the rights of those I don;t agree with.... I defend their right to speak not necessarily do what they want. If someone would harm another person or advocate harming another person then they should be stopped. As far as the moral implications ... I don;t think I can force my morality on another person as long as they aren't hurting someone else. On the other hand if someone is patently offensive, ie insults my wife, burn the flag in front of me ... I reserve the right to punch them in the nose (all else failing first);). Obviously I have to be willing to accept the fallout for my actions. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

KaRl

Doug Goulden wrote: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the document you mention http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rightsof.htm :) For the moment, it is used as a preambule of our current constitution (our current regim is the Fifth Republic, we haven't the same constitutionnal stability than the US) Doug Goulden wrote: defend their right to speak not necessarily do what they want. If someone would harm another person or advocate harming another person then they should be stopped So you agree the right of speech is not absolute, for example when it's an exhortation to murder, aren't you?:confused:

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Michael A Barnhart

Doug Goulden wrote: Doesn't the redneck racist have the same right to express his (distasteful) opinion as muh as the Louis Farakans of the world? I think there are limits to what is acceptable here. Yes he may have his opinion but not to the extent that signs in public saying for whites only is allowable. "I will find a new sig someday."

Michael A Barnhart

I believe I understand you. I do not equate nationality with race. Yes we have some differences.:rose: "I will find a new sig someday."

KaRl

Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I do not equate nationality with race IMO there's only one race, the human race. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Yes we have some differences. :cool: A World where anybody would be/think/act the same would be so boring! And a World where anybody would be/think/act as me would probably be a fucking mess! :rose:

Angels banished from heaven have no choice but to become demons Cowboy Bebop

Doug Goulden

I do agree with you, the right to free speech does not include encouraging murder or any other act that would harm someone else. But someone who is being merely offensive has to be tolerated. Certain things like child pornaography for example obviously victimize someone and are not free expression and should not be defended. I think that this is completely consistent with my personal beliefs. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

Why not? I definitely don't think anyone should be able to prevent someone from entering say a public institution, but what wrong with excluding someone from your place of business? If the fool is willing to have people walk past his place of business then so be it. Personnally I would not patronize someone who had that kind of policy, but in the end who is he hurting? Why is it OK for there to be a NAACP, but a National Association for the Advancement of Caucasion People would be wrong? I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying there is no difference. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?