Free Speech in the UK Gets Worse

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well yes if pedos are talking to kids online.
Or pedos making you tube videos discussing child abuse.

All the more reason to educate people to the tell-tale signs of evil.

a reply to: Kurokage

You gave me examples of people starting wars.

Yes, the idea that words affect humans like a drugs goes all the way back to Ancient Greece. Read the father of sophism, Gorgias, and he says much the same thing. Plato and to some extent Aristotle took issue with their overestimation of the power of words. Seeing how far that superstition has went, it appears they were right.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


I gave you examples on how words started wars. Exactly the proof you asked for.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well yes if pedos are talking to kids online.
Or pedos making you tube videos discussing child abuse.

All the more reason to educate people to the tell-tale signs of evil.

But by going with what you say, how can words be evil?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Surely it is best to limit the speach of pedos to children before abuse can happen can you not see that?.

a reply to: Kurokage

I gave you examples on how words started wars. Exactly the proof you asked for.

No proof how a word and/or words start wars. With cause and effect, there is the cause then the effect. You leaped over many other causes to find one that suited your claim.

a reply to: testingtesting

Surely it is best to limit the speach of pedos to children before abuse can happen can you not see that?.

Or you could teach children and parents to be wary of the signs of pedos.

a reply to: Kurokage

But by going with what you say, how can words be evil?

People are evil. Words only reflect what they think.

The reason we're not kicking off about it is because yet another idiot "vlogger" who loves himself has been nicked and warned for being an offensive idiot. We don't care. We're busy.

The idea that "it's funny because it's offensive" is one I agreed with until I was about 20.

So I say again: just because we're not drama queens exploding with indignation over every tiny little thing, don't mistake that for watching as the country collapses.

We're doing just fine, thanks. Worry about the growing division in your own country.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
The reason we're not kicking off about it is because yet another idiot "vlogger" who loves himself has been nicked and warned for being an offensive idiot. We don't care. We're busy.

The idea that "it's funny because it's offensive" is one I agreed with until I was about 20.

So I say again: just because we're not drama queens exploding with indignation over every tiny little thing, don't mistake that for watching as the country collapses.

We're doing just fine, thanks. Worry about the growing division in your own country.

I'm not American. I am in the commonwealth. As I already said, and as you imply, you're too busy enjoying your freedoms to defend them. Pats on the back all around.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We do but still pedos prey on the young. So again are you are defending the pedos right to talk to kids? citing free speech. I can not believe someone could say that so I want clarification please.

a reply to: testingtesting

We do but still pedos prey on the young. So again you are defending the pedos right to talk to kids? I can not believe someone could say that so I want clarification please.

I defend everyone's right to speak. So while you focus on pedos, remember that your same line of thinking was used to silence heretics, blasphemers, abolitionists and civil rights activists. I know holding principles is difficult for relativists, but there are many other ways to combat child grooming that doesn't involve censorship.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

I gave you examples on how words started wars. Exactly the proof you asked for.

No proof how a word and/or words start wars. With cause and effect, there is the cause then the effect. You leaped over many other causes to find one that suited your claim.

There was a link to proof that you are choosing to ignore, words created the cause which lead to the effect and I lepted over nothing.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Wow.
Defending pedos right to talk to kids online.....
I'm done I'm glad I don't live in your full free speech fantasy land.

a reply to: Kurokage

There was a link to proof that you are choosing to ignore, words created the cause which lead to the effect and I leaped over nothing.

I'm not going to follow your links because you cannot prove it yourself. Why don't you just tell me the words and how they caused a war?

a reply to: testingtesting

Wow.
Defending pedos right to talk to kids online.....
I'm done I'm glad I don't live in your full free speech fantasy land.

You either believe in free speech for views you despise, or you don't believe in free speech. At least you're an honest censor. Those are quite rare.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kurokage

There was a link to proof that you are choosing to ignore, words created the cause which lead to the effect and I leaped over nothing.

I'm not going to follow your links because you cannot prove it yourself. Why don't you just tell me the words and how they caused a war?

You asked me to prove it, I did with the links, you've chosen to ignore it, and maintain your mindset, or are you just trolling for attention?

a reply to: Kurokage

You asked me to prove it, I did with the links, you've chosen to ignore it, and maintain your mindset, or are you just trolling for attention?

You proved nothing. You posted a link. Is that how you prove everything in your life?

a reply to: paraphi

People always whine about free speech. The thing is that there are social norms have been put into law, and these (in the UK at least) seek to curtail offensive and hate speech, particularly when it incites people to perpetuate hate. I can say what I like, but would be quite rightly challenged if I started to bang on about stuff that is socially unacceptable because it fuels hate.

Who decides what is hate speech? If a person said 200 years ago in the UK that black people and women should be allowed to vote or be MPs that would’ve been considered an offensive idea. The notion that they were fit to hold positions of power would have offended many so if someone went against social norms then and been imprisoned for it there would never have been change to voting rights.

The point is that ideas have the potential to offend so it’s better to allow all speech as that is better than only allowing “acceptable” speech. Ideas that change society are at first seen as absurd or offensive. Of course some ideas are better than others but that is why it’s best that all ideas are allowed to be heard as the individual can decide for themselves if it’s good or bad.

Nobody is allowed to call for violence or anybody’s death under the banner of “free speech” the two are not the same.

I’ve seen people say that criticism of aspects of Islam is hate speech. To some radical Muslims I’m sure it is but to others it’s just an opinion about certain practices. Who decides on what is right or wrong there? Nobody in their right mind wants people to feel unsafe or threatened but if free expression of ideas and opinions is taken away then pretty soon anybody not in a position of power will suffer

a reply to: Painterz

Except that by not allowing those people to speak it actually gives them more credibility in some sense as then they can claim that the only reason they’re not allowed to speak is that their message is so powerful that those in charge fear them. There’s a quote that goes something like “if you want to know who rules you then find who you cannot criticise.”

It also drives those people underground where there’s no chance to even sway those who might be on the fence. Why isn’t it better to let their views be heard and then ridicule and pull their arguments to pieces. Why give them the chance to say they are the ones being oppressed and possibly even garnering sympathy as a result?

It seems the people who don’t want others to speak usually believe it’s because they can sway others. They seem to have a poor opinion of people that others are persuaded by things they wouldn’t be persuaded by.

Of course, if any group says that a group or individual doesn’t deserve to live or should be harmed then this isn’t free speech and shouldn’t be tolerated. Ideas are not the same as threats.

If an idea is abhorrent then it’s better to have everybody listen to it so they know exactly how to respond rather than just shut it down.

Limiting speech because it’s believed that some people are too stupid to see through it just gives more power to the state about what is or isn’t an acceptable view. Allowing Free speech encourages personal responsibility. I think if you trust people they’ll be better people rather than thinking they can be trusted and the state should step in