What is wrong with some of you? I have a right to be offensive, much as you have a right to be offen

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Kinda goes to show just how deep brainwashing can go. It's the cult like mentality. That's how cultists think. They no longer think objectively and could just shrug it off as humor as you said. Any normal person or even religion would just shrug it off and laugh but they seem to get up in arms.

Mind you I think the whole thing is just one big stagged g--v psy op. I'm definitely not falling for it. It's stagged from start to finish.

A picture is worth 1,000 words, they say...



^ Expresses my feelings on the matter succinctly.

Originally posted by Hushabye
A picture is worth 1,000 words, they say...

^ Expresses my feelings on the matter succinctly.

edit on 15-9-2012 by Hushabye because: (no reason given)

that picture has a thousand words..

reply to post by rwfresh


I wonder how many attention spans correlate

reply to post by Hushabye


the movie is bs, the reactions are bs everything we are fed is bs, the powers that be have a reason for war and are constructing a war right in front of are eyes, its insane that we bicker here on ats weather a movie started a war or not. no, a movie didn't start a war, a religion didn't start a war, money and power started the war. and now millions if not billions will die. but lets lets get back to the disscusion about a movie and religion.

My opinion on the matter is very simple.

I support and uphold the essential right of free speech, offensive (even intentionally offensive) or not. I will always, always oppose censorship of any kind, because it sets a precedent whereby anything not in vogue or unpopular may be stifled and oppressed. Everyone has the right to their opinion, however repugnant I might consider it to be, and I will always defend their right to express it in any medium because the moment I attempt to silence someone I vehemently disagree with is the moment I advocate tyranny.

But by the same token, and with that right in mind, I likewise feel that trolls, gleefully argumentative individuals, internet tough guys, and people who choose to be intentionally inflammatory are what is wrong with the internet, and why it is not the paradigm of communication and learning that it has the potential to be more so than any other achievement or technology in human history.

It's as simple as that for me. Peace.

My take on this here in the UK is that we have 2 freedoms of speech, one Muslim and one Anyone else.

The Muslim / Radical version goes like this: SAY ANYTHING YOU LIKE AND BE AS INSULTING AND THREATENING AS YOU LIKE AND RUBBISH ANY RELIGION YOU LIKE.

And the Anyone else is like this: Say what you like as long as you don't mention Islam, if you do then apologists for Islam and Radical Islamics will call you what they like and be as threatening as they like. And of course from out of the wood work will come the oh so PC floaters looking to seem intelligent and not the spoon fed saps they are.

And why is this, all because one religion has shown the most disgusting intolerance I've ever seen.

Imagine is all religions were like this, Dave Allen would have been beheaded after his first show.

You have to be able to learn to laugh at yourself as much as others, its the only way decent negotiated peaceful dialogue can be made. I'm sorry but I will never be afraid to express myself because of the threat of violence from those simply looking to quench a blood-lust.

Do we all want to be like Sweden, a country demonising itself because it wants to avoid offending you know who. It tells the press what they can may or may not report on when it comes to militant Islam, it tried to hide crime figures because of the common origin of the criminals in the most part. I'm sorry but if all rapes done in a period were done by Middle East or African men who were immigrants from Shariah based countries then it has to be made public.

Will it offend the ordinary Muslims who go about their business and integrate, NO, they may not want to be lumped in with these people but they do know who's doing it. When you have such a clear and precise threat to the women of your country I say you tell, when you have area's that house these people then I say you say where it is so they can avoid those people (since they can't be bothered to deal with them).

When you have places where old people, homosexual men, people who own dogs etc etc are being targeted in the name of Shariah then get off your backside and acknowledge it and DEAL with it. Don't let some shifty little politician get away with trying to hide the matter in case Radicals are offended.

Here in the UK we have a strange law, I can (and have) walk down the road and have a group of young radical males scream hate at me and my wife, they can say the most insulting things possible and threaten my and her life YET if I am seen to respond or push them away you take a wild guess at who gets arrested.

Freedom of speech...FINE

Freedom to Hate speech...NOT FINE

Freedom to threaten...NOT FINE

All these MUST be policed equally on both sides, sadly its not here...

i'm all for free speech, we should be allowed to say whatever we like.

but the issue comes when people use "fee speech" and accept no responsibility for what they say

i think free speech should be protected, and what we should do is force people to bear the responsibility of the results of their free speech, and afford people some protection for the actions upon hearing someones freely spoken words/movie etc

ie. if I call someone a 'n-word'/raghead/ginger/fat/bushpig/fairy etc etc, and that person then proceeds to punch my head in, well fair play to the guy that punched my head in, I should have maybe had a think before I opened my big fat mouth

Originally posted by maintainright
i'm all for free speech, we should be allowed to say whatever we like.

but the issue comes when people use "fee speech" and accept no responsibility for what they say

i think free speech should be protected, and what we should do is force people to bear the responsibility of the results of their free speech, and afford people some protection for the actions upon hearing someones freely spoken words/movie etc

ie. if I call someone a 'n-word'/raghead/ginger/fat/bushpig/fairy etc etc, and that person then proceeds to punch my head in, well fair play to the guy that punched my head in, I should have maybe had a think before I opened my big fat mouth

Well your allowed to actuall be racist to a red headed person but not muslim/chinese/black people/
And that is the most underlooked thing on ATS there is ...Stop whining muslims/ black people/etc.
Them redheads are tough people who don't cry like you do..

They get on with it suffered abuse since time began to this very day without no
protection from the stupid laws of the world .. grow up and take a leaf out of there book!

Man, why stop with just Mohammad? Anyone who follows any religion is an idiot. Jesus was just a lying stupid cult leader, Buddha was a glutinous pig and Abraham was an incestuous child molester. I spit on religion. It's the worst thing to ever happen to this planet. Period.

If my right to be offended at your offensiveness offends you, then I am doubly offended...and somewhere in this whole thing I am positive a "divide by zero" thing is going to happen and we're both going to simply cease to exist - so my best advice is that we all get drunk and just fight over way less confusing things - like which waitress is cuter, or sports teams or something....

Sheesh - is it always up to me to save the world from infinity loop paradoxes????



~Heff

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by maintainright
i'm all for free speech, we should be allowed to say whatever we like.

but the issue comes when people use "fee speech" and accept no responsibility for what they say

i think free speech should be protected, and what we should do is force people to bear the responsibility of the results of their free speech, and afford people some protection for the actions upon hearing someones freely spoken words/movie etc

ie. if I call someone a 'n-word'/raghead/ginger/fat/bushpig/fairy etc etc, and that person then proceeds to punch my head in, well fair play to the guy that punched my head in, I should have maybe had a think before I opened my big fat mouth

Well your allowed to actuall be racist to a red headed personbut not muslim/chinese/black people/
And that is the most underlooked thing on ATS there is ...Stop whining muslims/ black people/etc.
Them redheads are tough people who don't cry like you do..

They get on with it suffered abuse since time began to this very day without no
protection from the stupid laws of the world .. grow up and take a leaf out of there book!

Insulting ginger people is NOT Racism. Ginger is a colour, not a race or ethnicity. Strictly speaking, it's "Hairism", and therefore absolutely fair game for insulting.

Originally posted by BadBeast

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by maintainright
i'm all for free speech, we should be allowed to say whatever we like.

but the issue comes when people use "fee speech" and accept no responsibility for what they say

i think free speech should be protected, and what we should do is force people to bear the responsibility of the results of their free speech, and afford people some protection for the actions upon hearing someones freely spoken words/movie etc

ie. if I call someone a 'n-word'/raghead/ginger/fat/bushpig/fairy etc etc, and that person then proceeds to punch my head in, well fair play to the guy that punched my head in, I should have maybe had a think before I opened my big fat mouth

Well your allowed to actuall be racist to a red headed personbut not muslim/chinese/black people/
And that is the most underlooked thing on ATS there is ...Stop whining muslims/ black people/etc.
Them redheads are tough people who don't cry like you do..

They get on with it suffered abuse since time began to this very day without no
protection from the stupid laws of the world .. grow up and take a leaf out of there book!

Insulting ginger people is NOT Racism. Ginger is a colour, not a race or ethnicity. Strictly speaking, it's "Hairism", and therefore absolutely fair game for insulting.

If you attach the word ginger to
someone that has ginger hair it is considered the ultimate insult to be called that in england when spoken in england. In england it is used to ridicule that person only.If you think it's fair game perhaps you like making fun out of people with red hair for your own entertainment (brave behind that keyboard) ."Since my sister has that colour hair you better choose your next words carefully son"..

Originally posted by BadBeast


Insulting ginger people is NOT Racism. Ginger is a colour, not a race or ethnicity. Strictly speaking, it's "Hairism", and therefore absolutely fair game for insulting.

People think that abusing gingers is harmless, but is it ok for sober, grown men to shout abuse at redheaded women in the streets? and innocent children? Is it ok when this abuse is a continuation of the bullying received from classmates throughout childhood? Is it ok when this attitude is institutionalized to the point of being acceptable on mainstream TV?

People assume that because hair colour is not the same as race, that this systematic abuse is less important. However, there has never been a scientific definition of 'race' and hair colour has just as much (or as little) meaning as a way of distinguishing people.

Abuse of any group of people for their looks should be totally unacceptable. There should not be a sliding scale of the acceptability of prejudice.

Originally posted by Mclaneinc
My take on this here in the UK is that we have 2 freedoms of speech, one Muslim and one Anyone else.

The Muslim / Radical version goes like this: SAY ANYTHING YOU LIKE AND BE AS INSULTING AND THREATENING AS YOU LIKE AND RUBBISH ANY RELIGION YOU LIKE.

And the Anyone else is like this: Say what you like as long as you don't mention Islam, if you do then apologists for Islam and Radical Islamics will call you what they like and be as threatening as they like. And of course from out of the wood work will come the oh so PC floaters looking to seem intelligent and not the spoon fed saps they are.

This is the UK. We have no legally enshrined right to free speech at all. If someone doesn't like what you are saying, and they have the money to do it, they can apply to a Court for a gagging order. Then, unless you successfully challenge the ruling, you will be imprisoned if you breach the ruling.

As for the bogus jingoism of "Hatespeech" and "Hatecrimes", there was no need whatsoever to roll out a raft of new legislation to cover any so called "hatecrime". We already had perfectly workable legislation to cover anything like that. If a white man gets beaten up by a white man, then we had laws to cover it. Depending on the seriousness of the attack, there is the Criminal charge of "Common assault occasioning Actual / Grievious bodily harm.". But the way the law was enforced by the Police, (low priority, and too much bother to vigorously pursue in most cases) meant that the chance of an appropriately robust conviction was minimal.

So in order to take the onus of effectively implementing the Law away from the Police, and allow them to continue treating assault as "low priority", the "Hatecrime" legislation meant they could selectively use their resources on
crimes that are more politically sensitive, and then make them "target crimes"..

So for instance, in scenario 1/ A white man gets beaten up by 3 other blokes on his way home from the Pub, and suffers a broken rib, and concussion, and spends 2 nights in hospital. This will not be investigated, or pursued with much vigour or zeal on the part of the Police. A low priority crime. Take statements, make a few enquiries, and if if there's nothing much to go on, then shelve it.

Scenario 2/ A Black man is attacked by 3 white blokes, who are heard to call him a a "'n-word'" during the course of the attack, in which he suffers a split lip and a black eye. In this case, the Police will be right onto it. They will put the time, manpower, and resources into investigating this one simply on account of it being a "hatecrime". Two men getting assaulted, one quite seriously, should merit the same level of Police response, regardless of race, or motivation. In fact, due to the seriousness of the injuries, scenario one should get more manpower. But it wont.

This leads to headlines like "A sharp rise in the number of hatecrimes being brought before the Courts", making the Police seem more efficient, and less institutionally racist. But it's at the cost of redirecting resources away from every other equally deserving Assault. Both crimes are equally unacceptable. Both are adequately covered by existing legislature. But only one is deemed worthy of investigating properly, and this only for political reasons. .

i think it was a great post, sick and tired of having to "watch " what i say(which i usualy dont anyways) yet listen to religous crap all day, tv, radio, internet, ats, politics, ect ect, if i can listen to the fairy tales all day, people from different religions have to learn some tolerance the other way around, otherwise i jump back on bandwagon and say burn all the books, then no one can teach these dumb stories
this whole movie thing going just proves man is too stupid to handle relgion, like children with firecrackers just waiting to light one up in someones face

Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy.

Thank god I'm a country boy.

reply to post by winofiend


Not only do I not understand some of your slang, but I am not attacking you. I simply asked if you were the type of guy who wants to upset people by attacking beliefs they hold dear. You agreed that were you, and then went off on a tangent, acting tough. I'm not offended by your views, I could give a rat's ass.

If you say you have the right to offend people, and you also assert that others have the right to be offended, what do you think is the logical outcome of such behavior? What color is the sky in your world?

Seems to me you're a "prickly" sort of fellow. Take that any way you want to.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


Thank You, if only Obumbling fool would say as much. I remember hearing a quote. It went something like " I don,t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Originally posted by LostPassword
reply to post by Propulsion

 

YOU and those like you are products of Mainstream Media Brainwashing

Do you see Russian embassies attacked worldwide? No, because they haven't been starting foreign

battles all over the world and staging coup's etc etc. Sure, Russia deals with terrorism but mostly "blow back"

because of what happened in Chechnya .

edit on 15-9-2012 by LostPassword because: (no
reason given)

edit on 15-9-2012 by LostPassword because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2012 by LostPassword because: (no reason given)

Are you forgetting Afghanistan, Poland, Ukraine etc etc etc, The iron curtain drawn down after WW2 Tsk Tsk you forgot your memory stick!