National Anthems

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

National Anthems

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 24 of 46 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >

Stirlingsays 27 Sep 17 4.40pm
Originally posted by nickgusset There's a difference betseen acceptable free speech and inciting bigoted hate or singing the praises of gay paedophilia. Offence is apart of free speech. A reality you yourself benefit from. Milo supports the age of consent, something he said in that same interview so....when it comes to relaying the truth about a situation. You aren't an honest person. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Sep 17 4.40pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

There's a difference betseen acceptable free speech and inciting bigoted hate or singing the praises of gay paedophilia.

Offence is apart of free speech. A reality you yourself benefit from.

Milo supports the age of consent, something he said in that same interview so....when it comes to relaying the truth about a situation. You aren't an honest person.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Sep 17 5.00pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Offence is apart of free speech. A reality you yourself benefit from. Milo supports the age of consent, something he said in that same interview so....when it comes to relaying the truth about a situation. You aren't an honest person. Is Inciting racial hatred a part of free speech? Theres a difference between that and offence.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 27 Sep 17 5.00pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Offence is apart of free speech. A reality you yourself benefit from.

Milo supports the age of consent, something he said in that same interview so....when it comes to relaying the truth about a situation. You aren't an honest person.

Is Inciting racial hatred a part of free speech? Theres a difference between that and offence.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Sep 17 5.00pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Offence is apart of free speech. A reality you yourself benefit from. Milo supports the age of consent, something he said in that same interview so....when it comes to relaying the truth about a situation. You aren't an honest person. The age of consent is a very complex situation - and I'm pretty sure that our arbitrary means of determining it, isn't based on exact science or individual basis - its also not something that's universal across cultures. I think there is something definite in Milo's opinions which isn't really the same as justification of paedophilia. That said, I tend to find people who deliberately go out of their way to cause offence, on the basis that they can, by law, to be c**ts who somehow have managed to avoid a well deserved shoeing. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Sep 17 5.00pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Offence is apart of free speech. A reality you yourself benefit from.

Milo supports the age of consent, something he said in that same interview so....when it comes to relaying the truth about a situation. You aren't an honest person.

The age of consent is a very complex situation - and I'm pretty sure that our arbitrary means of determining it, isn't based on exact science or individual basis - its also not something that's universal across cultures. I think there is something definite in Milo's opinions which isn't really the same as justification of paedophilia.

That said, I tend to find people who deliberately go out of their way to cause offence, on the basis that they can, by law, to be c**ts who somehow have managed to avoid a well deserved shoeing.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 27 Sep 17 5.04pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Is Inciting racial hatred a part of free speech? Theres a difference between that and offence. This I agree with. Neo-Nazis aren't exercising free speech, when they're pushing an agenda that specifically targets the reduction of rights of groups in society. You can't claim to 'defend free speech' and identify as a National Socialist, or Communist for that matter, because those very ideologies require the silence of dissent. Lying isn't free speech, its propaganda. We've all had enough experience of the far left and the far right, to know that extremist politics isn't about debate or reasoned argument, its about establishing power over those concepts, to maintain authority. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 27 Sep 17 5.04pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Is Inciting racial hatred a part of free speech? Theres a difference between that and offence.

This I agree with. Neo-Nazis aren't exercising free speech, when they're pushing an agenda that specifically targets the reduction of rights of groups in society.

You can't claim to 'defend free speech' and identify as a National Socialist, or Communist for that matter, because those very ideologies require the silence of dissent.

Lying isn't free speech, its propaganda. We've all had enough experience of the far left and the far right, to know that extremist politics isn't about debate or reasoned argument, its about establishing power over those concepts, to maintain authority.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 27 Sep 17 7.45pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 This I agree with. Neo-Nazis aren't exercising free speech, when they're pushing an agenda that specifically targets the reduction of rights of groups in society. You can't claim to 'defend free speech' and identify as a National Socialist, or Communist for that matter, because those very ideologies require the silence of dissent. Lying isn't free speech, its propaganda. We've all had enough experience of the far left and the far right, to know that extremist politics isn't about debate or reasoned argument, its about establishing power over those concepts, to maintain authority. I'm not sure it is just them. Agree with me or I will shut you down debating has become the norm for many. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (27 Sep 2017 7.45pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

27 Sep 17 7.45pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

This I agree with. Neo-Nazis aren't exercising free speech, when they're pushing an agenda that specifically targets the reduction of rights of groups in society.

You can't claim to 'defend free speech' and identify as a National Socialist, or Communist for that matter, because those very ideologies require the silence of dissent.

Lying isn't free speech, its propaganda. We've all had enough experience of the far left and the far right, to know that extremist politics isn't about debate or reasoned argument, its about establishing power over those concepts, to maintain authority.

I'm not sure it is just them. Agree with me or I will shut you down debating has become the norm for many.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (27 Sep 2017 7.45pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 27 Sep 17 7.48pm
Originally posted by nickgusset Is Inciting racial hatred a part of free speech? Theres a difference between that and offence. I'm not sure you can choose what free speech is but you can police the intent. That is a judgement call.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

27 Sep 17 7.48pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

Is Inciting racial hatred a part of free speech? Theres a difference between that and offence.

I'm not sure you can choose what free speech is but you can police the intent.
That is a judgement call.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 27 Sep 17 7.50pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger I'm not sure it is just them. Agree with me or I will shut you down debating has become the norm for many. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (27 Sep 2017 7.45pm) You are so right.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 27 Sep 17 7.50pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I'm not sure it is just them. Agree with me or I will shut you down debating has become the norm for many.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (27 Sep 2017 7.45pm)

You are so right.

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 27 Sep 17 8.11pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 This I agree with. Neo-Nazis aren't exercising free speech, when they're pushing an agenda that specifically targets the reduction of rights of groups in society. You can't claim to 'defend free speech' and identify as a National Socialist, or Communist for that matter, because those very ideologies require the silence of dissent. Lying isn't free speech, its propaganda. We've all had enough experience of the far left and the far right, to know that extremist politics isn't about debate or reasoned argument, its about establishing power over those concepts, to maintain authority. The US Constitution protects all speech, whether it be hateful or complete bollocks (or both). Such protection is only from the government, though, so if you attend a rally and march with people wearing Swastikas and throwing Nazi salutes - marching being deemed "speech" - and then get fired for your hateful views (as happened to at least a couple of the Charlottesville marchers), then you have exactly zero legs to stand on. Everyone gets to have their say, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is required to listen, agree or even allow them a platform from which to speak. Only the Federal government is prohibited from "abridging" free speech; but otherwise if you're a salmon swimming against the tide of public opinion, you're on your own. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 27 Sep 17 8.11pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

This I agree with. Neo-Nazis aren't exercising free speech, when they're pushing an agenda that specifically targets the reduction of rights of groups in society.

You can't claim to 'defend free speech' and identify as a National Socialist, or Communist for that matter, because those very ideologies require the silence of dissent.

The US Constitution protects all speech, whether it be hateful or complete bollocks (or both). Such protection is only from the government, though, so if you attend a rally and march with people wearing Swastikas and throwing Nazi salutes - marching being deemed "speech" - and then get fired for your hateful views (as happened to at least a couple of the Charlottesville marchers), then you have exactly zero legs to stand on.

Everyone gets to have their say, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is required to listen, agree or even allow them a platform from which to speak. Only the Federal government is prohibited from "abridging" free speech; but otherwise if you're a salmon swimming against the tide of public opinion, you're on your own.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

wordup 27 Sep 17 10.53pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Its healthier than ascertain that only some forms of free speech and expression, related to peaceful protest is valid. Its telling that people on the right in the US seem to be very vocal about the right to protest, free speech and free expression, then immediately jump to damn someone for doing so because it doesn't mesh with their views. The protests were dignified, non-violent and non-disruptive in the extreme (they didn't even affect the game), and yet the outpouring, vitriol and outrage from the US president exceeds that of the murder of a woman in Charlottesville. But too right surely? I mean think of the violence and horror caused by athletes peacefully protesting on one knee. It's FAR worse than a president using unprecedented language and behavior to racially target people in a contrived populist move in Alabama. Or one of his surrogates saying how grateful they should be not to be shot in the head. I mean why does that stuff matter right? And surely it's worse than some women (possibly ANTIIFA!!!!) getting mowed down by a neo nazi. Why dwell on it I say. We need to be 'fair' you see. Maybe it was an accident or something. Let's move on... athletes on one knee is what it's all about.. and I for one am outraged.. Sorry, humour helps . Edited by wordup (27 Sep 2017 11.06pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

wordup

27 Sep 17 10.53pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Its healthier than ascertain that only some forms of free speech and expression, related to peaceful protest is valid.

Its telling that people on the right in the US seem to be very vocal about the right to protest, free speech and free expression, then immediately jump to damn someone for doing so because it doesn't mesh with their views.

The protests were dignified, non-violent and non-disruptive in the extreme (they didn't even affect the game), and yet the outpouring, vitriol and outrage from the US president exceeds that of the murder of a woman in Charlottesville.

But too right surely? I mean think of the violence and horror caused by athletes peacefully protesting on one knee. It's FAR worse than a president using unprecedented language and behavior to racially target people in a contrived populist move in Alabama. Or one of his surrogates saying how grateful they should be not to be shot in the head. I mean why does that stuff matter right?

And surely it's worse than some women (possibly ANTIIFA!!!!) getting mowed down by a neo nazi. Why dwell on it I say. We need to be 'fair' you see. Maybe it was an accident or something. Let's move on... athletes on one knee is what it's all about.. and I for one am outraged..

Sorry, humour helps .

Edited by wordup (27 Sep 2017 11.06pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 Sep 17 11.13pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston The US Constitution protects all speech, whether it be hateful or complete bollocks (or both). Such protection is only from the government, though, so if you attend a rally and march with people wearing Swastikas and throwing Nazi salutes - marching being deemed "speech" - and then get fired for your hateful views (as happened to at least a couple of the Charlottesville marchers), then you have exactly zero legs to stand on. Everyone gets to have their say, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is required to listen, agree or even allow them a platform from which to speak. Only the Federal government is prohibited from "abridging" free speech; but otherwise if you're a salmon swimming against the tide of public opinion, you're on your own. Corporate McCarthyism......I actually don't know where I stand on this issue. Maybe the law is balanced where it is at the moment....companies can hire/fire who they like but if you have a reasonable argument you can sue. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Sep 2017 11.14pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Sep 17 11.13pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Corporate McCarthyism......I actually don't know where I stand on this issue. Maybe the law is balanced where it is at the moment....companies can hire/fire who they like but if you have a reasonable argument you can sue.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Sep 2017 11.14pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Sep 17 11.25pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Corporate McCarthyism......I actually don't know where I stand on this issue. Maybe the law is balanced where it is at the moment....companies can hire/fire who they like but if you have a reasonable argument you can sue. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Sep 2017 11.14pm) They like to silence whistleblowers over here. Oh and you have to have over a grand if you want to even think about a tribunal. Poor people shafted again Edited by nickgusset (27 Sep 2017 11.26pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 27 Sep 17 11.25pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Sep 2017 11.14pm)

They like to silence whistleblowers over here. Oh and you have to have over a grand if you want to even think about a tribunal. Poor people shafted again

Edited by nickgusset (27 Sep 2017 11.26pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 Sep 17 11.37pm
Originally posted by nickgusset They like to silence whistleblowers over here. Oh and you have to have over a grand if you want to even think about a tribunal. Poor people shafted again Edited by nickgusset (27 Sep 2017 11.26pm) An area of agreement. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Sep 17 11.37pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

They like to silence whistleblowers over here. Oh and you have to have over a grand if you want to even think about a tribunal. Poor people shafted again

Edited by nickgusset (27 Sep 2017 11.26pm)

An area of agreement.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 24 of 46 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

National Anthems

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors