[Ron21]

Deleted by author.

[molecular]

ron you kln ow i agree with what you are saying biut you wont get many listeners if you keep patyronising people.

[Ron21]

Deleted by author.

[Dan_]

Originally posted by Ron21
At this moment, we are free to oppose legislation and bills.

HOWEVER, if you were in an argument with someone (real world, face-to-face), and insulted them on the basis of sexual orientation or race (and were caught by CCTV and witnesses) then you could face up to 7 years imprisonment.

Absolutely pathetic.

This is how it starts; and mere insults will be punishable too in the long run, only YOU have ZERO foresight into these matters.

Well seeing as I don't and wont be using insults of racial or sexual orientation then there's nothing I wish to say that's going to land me in trouble.'For the moment'.

He is their leader. Do you not understand how politics work?

My wording on that wasn't the best.I meant other political parties too.

Yes, they would.

And I'll tell you what I ALREADY told you yesterday on another thread.

To repeat myself for your benefit:

~~Government needs to implement new laws slowly and gradually, starting with race and sexual orientation, so that when they do finally outlaw other terms of ''abuse'', it will appear less drastic.

It will, in fact, become normalised. Only gullible sheep like you will not be able to see it coming.

Presently, if ALL speech was outlawed NOW, then there would be an uprising of the people, which is what the state are fearful of, so they must bide their time and sneak in new legislation in the hope that new generations will simply become accustomed to them.

It will probably take a good 20 years to start seeing other terms of ''abuse'' like ''fat'' becoming ''hate speech'', and another 20 for this to become widely accepted by the newer generations and the public at large.

Eventually, the government will have complete control, and it will not have registered with the public at large.

Feminism alone has managed to con almost the entire Western World in less than 100 years, and feminism was just the start.

But maybe I'm expecting too much right now, as I doubt you really understand just what I am saying. Which is, plainly put, abysmal.~~

Even if they 'slowly' implemented these laws, there is still going to be people around from our generation 20 years from now who aren't going to be in favour of allowing all insults to be stamped out, no matter how hard the government tries to brainwash us into thinking that it's not right to do so.

20 years from now the country probably will be in an even worse state with seemingly more chavs breeding, who only have expletives in their vocabulary.I'm sure many of them are homophobic and racist already.There's only going to be more of them in the future with the alarming rate they breed at,they'll be great granddads at the age of 45.

There wont be enough prisons to fit all these people, can you see these unruly types of people really falling into line? None of them end up paying fines these days so will they even bother in the future? There would be anarchy.

Yes, of course they would.

Today's 'N' word is tommorrows 'F' word (for ''fat'').

My, you really haven't got a clue, have you Dan

Stop with the patronising attitude Ron, it does you no favours.I'm sure you would get half the country trying to emigrate if such rules were put into place.

[Dan_]

Originally posted by Ron21
^ I'm beyond caring.

Though, let's face it, Dan did refer to me rather sarcastically as ''wise one'' earlier.

But I do not care, insults do not bother me. I am used to them.

A thick skin is something else missing from this world.

I wouldn't have said it if you hadn't of already been patronising towards others and banged on about freedom of speech so much.

I'm surprised you even cared to mention it.

[Noel]

I know what you mean, Ron, about free speech and all that, but I, being a Christian myself, believe that even though you should be allowed to have free speech, you shouldnt say things that would insult or hurt someone. Why would you want to say offensive things? I know that not everyone is a Christian, but just because you should be allowed to say it, it doesnt make it acceptable.

[Ron21]

Deleted by author.

[Tilly83]

I think it is rediculous people of Britian need to make a stand! I say exactly how i feel and if someone takes offense then that is there problem not mine

This whole freedom of speech is just a joke things that we have been saying for years are now being said to be offensive, nursery rhyhms are deemed to be racial. Its terrible what the government has done at the end of the day if people get offened by someone asking if they would like a black coffee or singing baa baa black sheep they are very foolish they are the ones comparing themselfs to these objects not us!

Obviously somethings need to be clamped down on, the wrong things are being changed!

I think the honest people of this world are being treated like shite yet if your dishonest you seem to get everything you need!

I cannot believe that britain was once one of the most powerfull countries in the world! Now look at us.........

[molecular]

there a pretty good film called v for vendenta that os about what ron is talking about for p[eol,le cant be bothered reading. i likjed it anyway

[Dan_]

Originally posted by Ron21
Dan:

Neither will I, but that's not the point.

The point is that it STARTS here.

And people should still be allowed to speak freely! Even if it isn't what others want to hear.

Look, you are not completely stupid, you must surely see the point I am getting at.

I do see the point you're trying to make.I'm sure that there are enough of those who are labour party, who are full on members of the PC brigade and will wish to take things a step too far in regards of what we allowed to say.
Despite the probability of an attempt at descending into a full on PC country.I just cannot support complete freedom to use racist and homophobic insults, it may well lead to what you predicted but it's just something I cannot support.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The fact that people are NOT fighting for a restricted, libertarian government shows us that actually, people are already brainwashed.

They think it is ''normal'' that women could ''never vote'' in comparison to men, and they have been tricked and fooled for years.

It will be no different when it comes to speech.

The public are sheep, and politicians know this, which is why we have so many biased laws in the first place!

Even now, the immigration issue has still not been resolved, dispite public resentment, and the same is true for speech.

The only way to win is to SERIOUSLY gather larger numbers of people to REJECT state interference.

To a certain extent I agree to you.The immigration issue has long been a key talking point amongst the public and despite so much being asked of the government to deal with it, we are still being fobbed off and the government don't have the first clue about how many people are here illegally.The trouble is the parties that do stand for a tougher stance on immigration are often far too extreme to gain any great popularity.

I think for the moment whilst it's just a certain restriction on speech there's not going to be this uprising.There's the option to vote for other parties out there for everyone.Do you feel that there is a viable option for you?

I'm sure you want for the government to have less of a hold over what you can do but that's not going to happen with the current people in charge.You can talk all you like about getting people to protest but it's fantasy to suggest such a thing will happen at the moment.

Yes, there will be more chavs, but as society DE EVOLVES, we will move into NEW territory.

Lol, there will be LESS chance of public backlash due to societal ignorance and stupidity.

We will ALL be microcipped, and taxed, fined or imprisoned for even mere dissent. And there will be NO hope in the future generation of fighting this.

You do realise, don't you, that feminism is to blame for the breakdown of the family, because it forced MEN AND WOMEN apart, gave women special privilages in divorce and eradicated the role of the father.

We have chavs BECAUSE of the lack of the fathers influence and the fact single chav mothers instill no structure or proper stablility. We have braindead louts who won't even know how to tackle the state when things get really bad, and this is what the government and the feminist lackys want!

As society de evolves, society itself will be incapable of uprising!

The prisons are already over-run as it is, they would need a huge amount more of them to cope with all those who would be punished in the future for "hate speech".Taxes would of course go up to achieve this.

The trouble is, those of us who actually are civilised people, who will work will have to carry the burden for the unemployed, of which I can see and even bigger number and those in prison.There would be a breaking point as it just wouldn't be viable to keep up with the burden put onto us.

There simply wont be enough prison's to cater for these people, they don't pay fines as they've not got the money to do so.It's all about the money and even with further taxation their wont be enough, people will just grow sick of it and go elsewhere because it wont be financially possible for them to survive.

I suppose we can discount that the chavs would even bother voting but they will be causing more trouble, not as political protesters.The same measures are in place to tackle nuisance's to society but that doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to their actions.

Then it will come down to the certain amount of civilised people still around.

[cgimusic]

I completely agree with Ron about freedom of speech. In fact we should be able to say and do whatever we want (even on tv) so long as it does not infringe on other peoples liberty and rights. Can I just ask Ron, are you a Libertarian?

P.s. Everyone should listen to Free Talk Live (iTunes Link)

[Ron21]

Deleted by author.

[Dan_]

Originally posted by Ron21
Dan, we've probably exhausted our argument out, I don't think either of us will change our minds, but, I will address the question you asked me:

Currently, I have only seen ONE candidate (and he's American) who remotely resembles what I would call a fair MP. And that's Ron Paul.

Other than him, and looking at the UK, nope, there is NO ONE I respect nor would vote for here.

Again: Most MP's are socialists, communists, feminists BEFORE they are ''New Labour'' or ''Conservative''.

Indeed, we shall have to agree to disagree on the freedom of the speech matter.Always good to have a bit of a debate on here though.I don't claim to be totally knowledgeable on politics but I do try and take an interest and will try and take part in debates as best I can and you can only learn from doing that.I take a bigger interest in sports and that takes up a bit of my time.

I've heard quite a lot about Ron Paul, on a couple other forums that I visit he seems quite a popular candidate.One policy of his that I'm really not sure of,that is withdrawing from NATO and the United Nations.

Could you see yourself going into politics? Whilst I don't always agree with your views, you seem pretty passionate.

I'll probably have trouble on who I'll vote for come the next election.There's certain policies from all the main parties that I'm really not in favour of but that comes with the territory.

[Ron21]

[Deleted by author.

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Ron21

Thanks. But as far as mainstream politics go, I would be wasting my time, especially in the UK.

I wouldn't gain large support from my ''right honourable'' (lol, more irony) peers if I introduced the ideas I have put forward here.

There would be NOTHING (apart from core values) in it for them. No bogus ''projects'' for them to steal taxes away from us, nor would there be any room for them to create more bogus ''jobs'' in the abuse industry so that they could further their authoritarian position.

The best I can do is inform others, in the hope it will have the domino effect and that some of my thoughts register with the wider population.

Incidentally, I doubt Ron Paul will succeed, and this is part of the problem:

Society is too obsessed with sex and race (Hilary/Obama) rather than policy.

Well you might not get much support from women unless they thought about it enough to see the bigger picture- that feminism actually promotes a negative attitude towards women. By pushing for more rights than men, they in fact cause resentment.

Equal rights means equal rights- not more rights for women and feminists need to stop pushing laws that will serve only to oppress men and cause more resentment towards women. We also don’t need male politicians who don’t have the steal to stand up to the feminists and so allow themselves to be blackmailed into positions whereby they believe they will look bad if they don’t fall in line with everything the feminists want and the liberties they want to take away from men.

[Ron21]

Deleted by author.

[Matt10k]

I believe men and women should be treated equally. I don't even understand why so much emphasis is placed on gender? There are certain areas where it becomes tricky, such as pregnancy as this is obviously a clear difference between men and women but other cases where women are treated differently in areas where gender isn’t even an issue.

Crime for example and the fact that women statistically receive lighter sentences for the same crimes than men. In America a male is 20 times more likely to receive the death penalty for the same crime! Call that justice? And what about spousal abuse? Men being laughed at when the women they love attack them and they fear to retaliate because of the age old double standard that a man cannot hit a woman and if a woman hit’s a man he must have deserved it.

In an age were women are drinking almost as much as men and getting increasingly violent, I find double standards like this absolutely ridiculous. A man is not even able to defend himself it seems without being thrown to the dogs. This is particularly worrying when you see studies on domestic abuse that show women are much more likely to use a weapon when abusing a partner than men.

The double standard labelling is worrying too- I noticed, when women stand up for their ‘rights’ they are called ‘strong women’ but when men try to do the same they are called ‘weak’, ‘sexist’, ‘misogynist’, 'chauvinistic pigs' (what a lovely phrase) etc...

Funny… I just noticed, misogynist is perfectly acceptable on works word (don’t ask why I still use works!) but Misandrist, at least on the version I am using is not! Possibly because misandrist is a relatively new word to describe a woman who has a sexist attitude toward or is a hater of men. A sign of the times perhaps that words like this are starting to come into circulation?

[Ron21]

Deleted by author.