By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Freedom of speech is under attack and it could get worse

 

However, once in the world of adults, my philosophy is based on the ideal that people are able to think rationally. Do you really believe that kind of philosophy is wishful thinking? If so, then Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong because he asked people to think for themselves. Most revolutionists who made an important difference asked the same thing. Tyrants demanded the opposite, that people not think for themselves.


I think that the ideal that all adults are able to think rationally is wrong. Many adults think that ghosts, bigfoot, lockness monster, aliens, reincarnation or "god" exist, when actually no real proof exists. Each individual is raised in a different maner and each individual feel things differently, this is a fact, something rational for somebody will be irrationnal for others. We feel emotions so we are bound to be irrationnal at times and have irrational speaches, adults included. That's why I spoke before about education,facts and belief instead of ideas. Ideas are not a structured way of thinking and are usually an hypothesis of something that could be or make sense at first glance with the education/information at hand. Ideas are the start of a fact search, not the result. Throwing ideas around do not result in finding the truth, like I said before the best ideas may be the wrong answer after a fact analysis. It may be fun or rewarding to see that a majority of person as the same ideas as you in a forum or in a public debate, but it do not make those ideas the "truth" or the best thing to do. That said, I think that you cannot deny freedom of speech on facts or belief but you can limit freedom of speech on belief or assomptions presented as facts. When there are irrefutable facts going against your belief, you cannot invoke freedom of speech to spread unfounded believes as facts.  



Around the Network

Yes, i think you are right. We should defend the people who killed others in a foreign contry because of their own religious values wich are born from a different country and ignore the established rights on the country of foster. Sounds legit.

I had warned this was gonna happen in the other thread we had about this when it came to the chinese banning the burka in a province. It will keep happening and it will keep getting worse. The excuse that its a group of "radicals" doesnt fly anymore. Its irrelevant. Societies need to defend themselves over it and if religion doesnt offer them a way, they will do it themselves. Quite honestly, i wouldnt blame them if they just shot those people on sight.
Playing saint and saying its a contradiction doesnt fly. Its not a contradiction, its a defensive measure against agressors.

If Islam doesnt reform itself, this will just keep getting worse. Good islamic people need to purge those of them that are making islam a weapon of war. To think the west will just keep taking these attacks without retaliation is quite naive.



Nem said:

Yes, i think you are right. We should defend the people who killed others in a foreign contry because of their own religious values wich are born from a different country and ignore the established rights on the country of foster. Sounds legit.

I had warned this was gonna happen in the other thread we had about this when it came to the chinese banning the burka in a province. It will keep happening and it will keep getting worse. The excuse that its a group of "radicals" doesnt fly anymore. Its irrelevant. Societies need to defend themselves over it and if religion doesnt offer them a way, they will do it themselves.
Playing saint and saying its a contradiction doesnt fly. Its not a contradiction, its a defensive measure against agressors.

If Islam doesnt reform itself, this will just keep getting worse.

Who are you replying to? Looks like a post made in the wrong thread. It is a thread about freedom of speech, not religion.



Wighead said:
Nem said:

Yes, i think you are right. We should defend the people who killed others in a foreign contry because of their own religious values wich are born from a different country and ignore the established rights on the country of foster. Sounds legit.

I had warned this was gonna happen in the other thread we had about this when it came to the chinese banning the burka in a province. It will keep happening and it will keep getting worse. The excuse that its a group of "radicals" doesnt fly anymore. Its irrelevant. Societies need to defend themselves over it and if religion doesnt offer them a way, they will do it themselves.
Playing saint and saying its a contradiction doesnt fly. Its not a contradiction, its a defensive measure against agressors.

If Islam doesnt reform itself, this will just keep getting worse.

Who are you replying to? Looks like a post made in the wrong thread. It is a thread about freedom of speech, not religion.

 

Oh alright... then its fine to make more caricatures of the prophet. Cool! Spread the word.



Nem said:
Wighead said:
Nem said:

Yes, i think you are right. We should defend the people who killed others in a foreign contry because of their own religious values wich are born from a different country and ignore the established rights on the country of foster. Sounds legit.

I had warned this was gonna happen in the other thread we had about this when it came to the chinese banning the burka in a province. It will keep happening and it will keep getting worse. The excuse that its a group of "radicals" doesnt fly anymore. Its irrelevant. Societies need to defend themselves over it and if religion doesnt offer them a way, they will do it themselves.
Playing saint and saying its a contradiction doesnt fly. Its not a contradiction, its a defensive measure against agressors.

If Islam doesnt reform itself, this will just keep getting worse.

Who are you replying to? Looks like a post made in the wrong thread. It is a thread about freedom of speech, not religion.

 

Oh alright... then its fine to make more caricatures of the prophet. Cool! Spread the word.

Even I am lost right now.



 

Around the Network
IFireflyl said:
Nem said:

Oh alright... then its fine to make more caricatures of the prophet. Cool! Spread the word.

Even I am lost right now.


Why? You did read the OP? The murders in france were due to caricatures of the prophet. That was the freedom of speech attacked and the french government is banning manifestations in favor of that ideal. So, what exactly dont you two get?



If somebody is interested in conspiracy theorys, please give this guy a chance:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOoZ-u5gx4G_DCHDlJXOUVcfd03C9m-BG



tagged



padib said:
IFireflyl said:

To answer this question, yes. Yes I do. Do I think we should be able to do that? Yes. I just don't think that we can. My reasoning is that history shows that bad people do bad things. Words and actions can be harmful. To a (I might even say 'very') small extent I think what is said needs to be regulated. The people that would abuse what you're saying may be in the minority, but it is easier to prevent/deter something bad from happening (in the context of rules/regulations/etc) than it is to clean up the mess afterwards. Take slavery for example. If there had been laws in place that said slavery is illegal in the first place then the U.S. wouldn't have had slavery. They had slavery though. Guess what? The black community still remembers that. Have you heard about the Ferguson, MO riots that recently happened? Granted, freedom and freedom of speech are two different things, but it is the same principle. There were no laws against slavery. When someone said publicly, "Let's have slaves," did people band together and throw that idea out the window? No. People got on board with it. The rest is history, but I think I've made my point. I like your ideals. I just don't think humanity is grown up enough to handle that.

I see where you're coming from. Part of me agrees with you, but part of me wants to hope in the better side of us. My thinking is that, if I treat my fellow as a rational being, then odds are he will behave as I treat him. If I treat him like a sheep, he may very well end up acting as a sheep.

Does that make sense?

I heard of the Ferguson MO riots, people do remember repression. That's why I think that repressing ideas is harmful on the long term. The solution that repression attempts to bring is the same as the one I would like to see (e.g. harmony), I just believe that the approach leads to unhealthy outcomes.

If someone has a bad idea, if they are repressed it could backfire over the long term. If they are given the right to speak and be heard, they may be convinced to change their minds.


I get what you're saying, I do... but this just goes back to the slavery issue. There are other examples, I'm sure. Slavery is a big one, and it is one that can't be argued. Everyone knows it happened. People didn't get together and say, "You know what... it's probably not a good idea that we own another human being." They got together and said, "Make someone else work for me?? How much?!!?!?!!" It was a disgusting thing to do, and because their weren't laws against it people got on board. Because people weren't restricted they said, and did, what they wanted to do. A lot of people. A lot. So what happens if we let people freely speak out (publically) against the government/races/religions, and enough people agree? That kind of hate speech is what causes war and pandamonium. It causes people to turn on each other. It causes a rift between two or more entities. Your idea is great, but only if it works 100% of the time. We know that people are stubborn, so when stubborn people have opposite views, and they can publicly vent whatever they want it just causes problems. When it doesn't work, when people make the wrong choice, there is pain and suffering for generations. That kind of bad far outweighs any good.



 

RCTjunkie said:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. As long as people can call out stupid ideas and work to better the world freedom of speech works. We should be able to criticize governments, institutions, and even people. The founding fathers of the US said that phrases like fire in a crowded theater isn't protected and that I understand. But limiting freedoms to protect feelings or "enhance security" is preposterous.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was not a founding father. And he coined that phrase as a justification for preventing a socialist from handing out anti-war leaflets, so it was still preposterous.