-
Posts
-
oh, God, Squeak, the Little White Rat, gives his views on democracy.
especially on democracy working ‘fluidly’ (??wtf???)
You’ve made it clear that you want to outlaw anyone who disagrees with you.
Extremism means anyone who disagrees with you, and if they are articulate then they should be banned from jc.
Freedom is freedom for you, and democracy is democracy for you
Give me the common sense view of drac any day.
well, squeak, why not write little letters asking for me to be banned?
or get up a petition.
I know that the anti-EU people like your ‘patriotic’ (sic) self were very keen to keep me silent.
I’ll make a deal. If I am banned, I won’t complain and I won,t come back.
Of course, there needs to be a reason, but that wouldn’t bother a little white rat like you, would it?
then it’s merrie England once again, with healthy and clean English fun all the day long.
So angry, because an abusive thread got removed, the boards will never hear the end of it. Still it gives you some purpose doesn’t it…
We obviously disagree on the concept of “freedom”. My interpretation is, that for a democracy to function fluidly, extremist views should always be vigorously challenged and ultimately outlawed. In order to protect the rights of all in that democracy. Especially those who rely on the state to protect them from discrimination and prejudice.
I’m pretty sure than outlawing dissenting opinions is a trait of fascism, not one of freedom. You’re not protecting people’s rights by making them quilty of thought crimes, quite the oposite infact. How can you have a functioning democracy where there is only one view that you are allowed to support?
Give me the common sense view of drac any day.
Thanks!
well, squeak, why not write little letters asking for me to be banned?
or get up a petition.
I know that the anti-EU people like your ‘patriotic’ (sic) self were very keen to keep me silent.
Off topic, but I am anti-EU myself, I believe that its the remain side that is throwing petitions and letters around to overturn a democratic mandate
.Give me the common sense view of drac any day.
Thanks!
well, squeak, why not write little letters asking for me to be banned?
or get up a petition.
I know that the anti-EU people like your ‘patriotic’ (sic) self were very keen to keep me silent.
Off topic, but I am anti-EU myself, I believe that its the remain side that is throwing petitions and letters around to overturn a democratic mandate
.Give me the common sense view of drac any day.
Thanks!
well, squeak, why not write little letters asking for me to be banned?
or get up a petition.
I know that the anti-EU people like your ‘patriotic’ (sic) self were very keen to keep me silent.
Off topic, but I am anti-EU myself, I believe that its the remain side that is throwing petitions and letters around to overturn a democratic mandate
.We obviously disagree on the concept of “freedom”. My interpretation is, that for a democracy to function fluidly, extremist views should always be vigorously challenged and ultimately outlawed. In order to protect the rights of all in that democracy. Especially those who rely on the state to protect them from discrimination and prejudice.
I’m pretty sure than outlawing dissenting opinions is a trait of fascism, not one of freedom. You’re not protecting people’s rights by making them quilty of thought crimes, quite the oposite infact. How can you have a functioning democracy where there is only one view that you are allowed to support?
The legal system obviously takes a different view to yours, which is why racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and most forms of overt and covert discrimination are illegal and a criminal offense. Unless of course you are advocating the Internet should not be governed by those rules. In which case you are clearly suggesting racism and antisemitism is acceptable. Thankfully I don’t live in the society you advocate and I don’t want to.
The legal system obviously takes a different view to yours, which is why racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and most forms of overt and covert discrimination are illegal and a criminal offense. Unless of course you are advocating the Internet should not be governed by those rules. In which case you are clearly suggesting racism and antisemitism is acceptable. Thankfully I don’t live in the society you advocate and I don’t want to.
The legal system of which country? You can’t police the internet, its a decentralised network. And no, I don’t really think ‘hate crimes’ should be illegal. Something can be unacceptable without being illegal, its not the governments place to police thought. People have a right to free speach, even if that speach is racist or homophobic.
Edit:
And in regards to antisemitism, I don’t think the legal system takes that very seriously, give the many accusations (some of which seem to be legitimate concerns) against the Labout party.The legal system of which country? You can’t police the internet, its a decentralised network. And no, I don’t really think ‘hate crimes’ should be illegal. Something can be unacceptable without being illegal, its not the governments place to police thought. People have a right to free speach, even if that speach is racist or homophobic.
Edit:
And in regards to antisemitism, I don’t think the legal system takes that very seriously, give the many accusations (some of which seem to be legitimate concerns) against the Labout party.The internet is already policed in the UK both by service providers and via newly legislated UK law and people have been sent to prison for making racist remarks, threats of rape and threats to kill etc.
I don’t agree the internet is, or ever was, the ‘wild west’, where anything goes and any attempt to impose standards and rules on what is acceptable behaviour or not, is an attempt to silence free speech.
Freedom of speech is just a clumsy liberal interpretation in relation to this site, privately owned and a strawman argument to boot. Follow the site rules, set by the owner and there won’t be an issue and don’t try dictating to others what they may deem offensive or not, ironically contradicting the main premise of your own argument.
The internet is already policed in the UK both by service providers and via newly legislated UK law and people have been sent to prison for making racist remarks, threats of rape and threats to kill etc.
I don’t agree the internet is, or ever was, the ‘wild west’, where anything goes and any attempt to impose standards and rules on what is acceptable behaviour or not, is an attempt to silence free speech.
The internet exists in places that the UK government has no authority over, I haven’t looked it up but its a safe bet to say that Just Chat isn’t even hosted in the UK. People have also been sent to prison on the accusation of making threats, without any evidence of them doing anything. Athough yes, I would agree with you that site rules should be followed.
Freedom of speech is just a clumsy liberal interpretation in relation to this site, privately owned and a strawman argument to boot. Follow the site rules, set by the owner and there won’t be an issue and don’t try dictating to others what they may deem offensive or not, ironically contradicting the main premise of your own argument.
I don’t think you know what a strawman argument is, who’s argument am I building a strawman against? The only person who is dictating anything is you. Please quote one thing that I have dictated to you, lol.
The internet exists in places that the UK government has no authority over, I haven’t looked it up but its a safe bet to say that Just Chat isn’t even hosted in the UK.
I did some investigation, Chat Step is hosted by Burstfire Networks Ltd, which is registered in London. So the site might actually be hosted here and I was wrong.
Jesus how heavy is this getting…lighten up please
Jesus how heavy is this getting…lighten up please
Haha, sorry. I sometimes get carried away with conversations if I find them interesting.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!