manarak Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Bottom line is that some people here appear to want to defend a neo-Nazi caricature of the concentration camps under a flag of free speech. Probably would like to see more of it, of course purely in the dispassionate interest of counterbalancing 'special treatment'. Not confident enough to peddle open fascist sentiments but happy to stand behind those who do. I think your posts illustrates well the failure of the general public to grasp the issues at hand. The problem is not whether to loathe or applaud the tattoo, the issue is should it be permissible or not, and I am of the opinion that it must be permitted (as far as hate speech provisions are not fulfilled), otherwise we risk to get on a slippery slope of reducing freedom of expression even more, for example it might then not be permissible to say "we must eradicate fascists"... Considerations like what the majority of people thinks must not be taken into account on these issues, because constitutions have been made to also protect minorities, including minorities of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 As far as the freedom of Nazi expression, you've got to admit Germany is a special case. Their laws about this have historical roots, which they brought on themselves. I wouldn't presume that the freedom of expression thing needs to be exactly the same in every country. Similar to the concept of democracy. There isn't one flavor of it. There are national variations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Bottom line is that some people here appear to want to defend a neo-Nazi caricature of the concentration camps under a flag of free speech. Probably would like to see more of it, of course purely in the dispassionate interest of counterbalancing 'special treatment'. Not confident enough to peddle open fascist sentiments but happy to stand behind those who do. It is the height of great reason to first default to the presumption that those who disagree with you have a social character flaw. Is it not possible there is merit to a view different than yours? This presumption is evidence of the problem- progressives actually inflict their will upon the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 As far as the freedom of Nazi expression, you've got to admit Germany is a special case. Their laws about this have historical roots, which they brought on themselves. I wouldn't presume that the freedom of expression thing needs to be exactly the same in every country. Similar to the concept of democracy. There isn't one flavor of it. There are national variations. Agree. Every country is different...yet some criticize Thailand for having its own variation of free speech. Wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seastallion Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Hmmmm, nor do farangs that protect terrorists cos they think a certain "religion" is a peaceful one eh..? Where are those farangs that protect terrorists (of any religion)? If you know, you should report them. I certainly would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Numerous off-topic posts and replies have been removed. Continue and you will receive a suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdkane Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 This is such an odd anomaly. Western democracies are proud of their freedom of speech and freedom of expression....unless that speech or expression is about Jewish themes. Then, nobody can say anything. Why is that? Not a rhetorical question, and not one seeking emotive answers. Just rational answers. (Hint: key word "rational".) I can stand on my soap box and announce that I hate (Christians, Muslims, gays....). But I can not say anything against Jews. I don't understand the inconsistency. I hope we can discuss this rationally as I believe this topic could be important. Personally, I do believe that hate speech should not be condoned. Not necessarily illegal (except in very limited circumstances), but not condoned nor encouraged. Nazi symbolism is considered hate speech by many, particularly in the west. You can't stop individuals from exercising their freedom of expression, but those in leadership positions absolutely cannot condone it (listening Mr. D. Trump?). This is where being politically correct is preferred in our top leaders. At the same time, a Charlie Hebdo cartoon which may be considered hate speech by Muslims should receive the same level of scrutiny. Or are we only criticizing what the west considers hate speech? Just saying.... Sorry, but you and the people who agree with you are so misguided and even scary. ANY containment of speech or expression is harmful. Do you really only want to hear things that you agree with? Then you are in the right place. You must agree with the laws here that sentence people to decades in prison for "hate" speech. You, and people who think as you do, are harmful and belong in the dark ages. Quite literally, there would be no science if people (e.g., Galileo, James Watson, & Jensen) had not uttered hate speech. And anyone who would truly be hurt by an idiot's tattoo needs to toughen up. Don't even pretend that you are open-minded. The acid test of a society is whether they can tolerate differences of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas2 Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) I'm critical to LM because I'm in favour of freedom of speech... Er, except... Er, actually I'm conditionally a little bit in favour of freedom of speech... But as long as I and my government think and agree that it's ok, I'm TOTALLY in favour of it: The well taught opinion of brainwashed hypocrites/victims. They don't understand the concept at all and don't deserve this right. They are just dangerous, aggressive Klein-Menschen, pc-correct people, do-gooders (these are insults in my books, btw). Conclusion: The concept of freedom of speech is sooo complex, a bitch, and as such it REALLY has to be regulated and enforced according the local laws... To help and give a hint to the people who don't yet understand this concept: Use YOUR own, unregulated freedom of speech and show the idiots (in your opinion) and all the others, what idiots they are with your own explanations and arguments (historical backgrounds or principles). People who need physical violence to suppress and regulate (oh sorry, I forgot... I meant "enable/guaratee/support") the freedom of speech (in "Western countries", Germany) are obviously not fit for such a concept and this freedom; They better shut up and stop babbling about the concept of freedom of speech. This principle is absolute. There is no such thing as conditional principles. Edited January 21, 2016 by Andreas2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 An inflammatory post has been removed. Please stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now