Freedom of Speech

[Anaesthesia]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire.

Let's discuss?

[the truth]

there is only freedom of speech if youre taunting white christian men.
any other sector of society is over protected. fact.

[Redway]

there is only freedom of speech if youre taunting white christian men.
any other sector of society is over protected. fact.

:facepalm:

[the truth]

:facepalm:

hide behind your hands its true. can you use white trash about black people? can you represent mohammad the way Jesus was in the jerry springer musical? can you generalize about women the wya we do men? can you have men only shortlists? can you create the life of brian about islam? can you laugh about murders of women the way chat shows do about women killing men? the list goes on into the infinity?

[Anaesthesia]

there is only freedom of speech if youre taunting white christian men.
any other sector of society is over protected. fact.

measurable proof? "only" is pretty specific.

I am genuinely interested as to whether people feel they have the right to express themselves.

[the truth]

measurable proof? "only" is pretty specific.

pedant word play missing the truth at the heart of what Ive said. we only have freedom of speech when dealing with white Christian men....these spineless media outlets havent even dared post these cartoons. T

[Anaesthesia]

pedant word play missing the truth at the heart of what Ive said. we only have freedom of speech when dealing with white Christian men....these spineless media outlets havent even dared post these cartoons. T

It's not pedant word play, and again you use the word !only!

I don't believe there is an "only", i believe speech restriction covers more than your one example. If you want to talk about the cartoons, it would be a different thread. This was for thinking on a concept.

[the truth]

It's not pedant word play, and again you use the word !only!

I don't believe there is an "only", i believe speech restriction covers more than your one example.

you ignored my other question because you dont have an answer

[armand.kay]

I agree with it completely even there is a lot of bad that comes with it I believe people should be aloud to express their views (no matter how much I may disagree with them) without fear of being prosecuted.

[Anaesthesia]

you ignored my other question because you dont have an answer

I'm not too sure what your other question was, otherwise I'd have responded. If I go by one of your posts, there are loads of question marks there. If either of your other posts, none.

@Armand, I agree, it can cause a lot of controversy...but the fact it's then out there to be questioned should be a good thing, no? People SHOULD question things...

[the truth]

I'm not too sure what your other question was, otherwise I'd have responded.

@Armand, I agree, it can cause a lot of controversy...but the fact it's then out there to be questioned should be a good thing, no? People SHOULD question things...


can you use terms like white trash about black people? can you represent mohammad the way Jesus was in the jerry springer musical? can you generalize about women the way we do men? can you have men only shortlists? can you create the life of brian about islam? why is there such bias in law and culturally towards mothers and women with health matters .....whi is more cancer research targetted for women than men when men die of cancer more? can you laugh about murders of women the way chat shows do about women killing men? the list goes on into the infinity?

[Anaesthesia]

can you use terms like white trash about black people? can you represent mohammad the way Jesus was in the jerry springer musical? can you generalize about women the way we do men? can you have men only shortlists? can you create the life of brian about islam? why is there such bias in law and culturally towards mothers and women with health matters .....whi is more cancer research targetted for women than men when men die of cancer more? can you laugh about murders of women the way chat shows do about women killing men? the list goes on into the infinity?

see, loads of questions, for which I don't have the answers. But I believe you have the right to question them. That's what this thread is about. Not specifics.

If you are trolling, don't, I won't bite.

[the truth]

see, loads of questions, for which I don't have the answers. But I believe you have the right to question them. That's what this thread is about. Not specifics.

If you are trolling, don't, I won't bite.

I believe you probably are trolling yet I will bite because I am sincere

[Ninastar]

I believe 100% in the right to say what you like. I don't agree with what most people my age think, but I like the fact that we are free to believe whatever we like.

[the truth]

I believe 100% in the right to say what you like. I don't agree with what most people my age think, but I like the fact that we are free to believe whatever we like.

sounds lovely in theory but where do we draw the line?

but you arent allowed to sya what you like are you ? its freedom of speech within the law...you cant point at a disabled person and should cripple..you cnat go to the theatre and shout fire fire.....you cannot deny the holocaust....so where do we really draw the line? andry gray lost his career and home for making a joke about a female lineswoman? is that freedom of speech...yet sharon osbourne did a show about female murderers told them they were right to do what they did and laughed along about a man whod had his penis cut off and bled to death....double standards everywhere

[Anaesthesia]

I believe you probably are trolling yet I will bite because I am sincere

This thread description invites discussion about philosophical topics. I believe it to be a relevant topic, in which this can be discussed in a non-inflammatory way.

You are the one presupposing specific examples.

If you want to defend your right to mention the examples you did, you're in the right thread. If not, you should probably start a new one.

[Anaesthesia]

sounds lovely in theory but where do we draw the line?

but you arent allowed to sya what you like are you ? its freedom of speech within the law...you cant point at a disabled person and should cripple..you cnat go to the theatre and shout fire fire.....you cannot deny the holocaust....so where do we really draw the line? andry gray lost his career and home for making a joke about a female lineswoman? is that freedom of speech...yet sharon osbourne did a show about female murderers told them they were right to do what they did and laughed along about a man whod had his penis cut off and bled to death....double standards everywhere

so where do YOU think the line should be drawn, if at all, and why? This is about opinions, not who's judging and by what criteria.

[the truth]

so where do YOU think the line should be drawn, if at all, and why? This is about opinions, not who's judging and by what criteria.

bottom line is the the line should be drawn equally across the board for everyone all religions and sexes all sexualities all disabled all cultures etc at the moment there are different rules for different groups of people. its a sorry mess

[Ninastar]

i believe you should be able to say anything you want, unless it's a threat

[Anaesthesia]

bottom line is the the line should be drawn equally across the board for everyone all religions and sexes all sexualities all disabled all cultures etc at the moment there are different rules for different groups of people. its a sorry mess

OK, we're on the same page. Who dictates that inequality? Is it the media, the government? Who really controls what we can or can't say?

[Anaesthesia]

i believe you should be able to say anything you want, unless it's a threat

So do I... yet we can't, not even here on TIBB...everything in this world is moderated...it kinda frightens me.

Of course, it is very current culture based, what you can / can't say, but is it a case that there's always been speech censorship, just the parameters change?

[the truth]

i believe you should be able to say anything you want, unless it's a threat
so would you have sacked andy gray for his lineswoman joke?

[Anaesthesia]

so would you have sacked andy gray for his lineswoman joke?

I know you aren't asking me, but no :P

[Ninastar]

so would you have sacked andy gray for his lineswoman joke?

no

[the truth]

no

thank you for answering a direct question with a direct answer. Im glad you say no , as it applies your theory with your practice which is a rarer thing in society than it should be

[lostalex]

I think you should be allowed to say anything you like as long as you truly believe it to be true.

But you shouldn't be allowed to say things that you know are false just to hurt other people. Like accusing someone of pedophillia knowing full well they never molested you, but you say it just to destroy their life. Or knowing full well there is no fire in a theater, but you scream fire! in a crowded theater just to watch the chaos.

It's fine to scream fire in a crowded theater if you really do think there is a fire though.

[the truth]

I think you should be allowed to say anything you like as long as you truly believe it to be true.

But you shouldn't be allowed to say things that you know are false just to hurt other people. Like accusing someone of pedophillia knowing full well they never molested you, but you say it just to destroy their life. Or knowing full well there is no fire in a theater, but you scream fire! in a crowded theater just to watch the chaos.

It's fine to scream fire in a crowded theater if you really do think there is a fire though.

good logic. but what if theres a fire and you dont scream it?

[Ammi]

..I'm not sure that Voltaire had much experience of the internet, media, social media etc though....there should be no freedom of consequence of bullying, abuse, racism, prejudice etc...

[Dollface]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech, unfortunately

[Northern Monkey]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech, unfortunately
This.Just some things are more acceptable for some people to say than others.

[lostalex]

good logic. but what if theres a fire and you dont scream it?

i don't see what that has to do with free speech. not screaming fire has nothing to do with speech. that would be more about the freedom to remain silent(which americans also have)

anyone who has ever watched an american cop show knows the first thing the cops have to tell you is "you have the right to remain silent"

[letmein]

The UK doesn't have freedom of speech as hate speech is a crime. The US is the only country that has the most liberal laws regarding speech...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

The country's first amendment has to do with free speech. The country's laws were based on opposition to Europe's.

Lack of free speech is hurting Europe. We're seeing a rise in fascism thanks to it. Curbing what is considered hate speech only leads to animosity, which explodes into nationalism and terrorism. Europe has a history and it isn't recognizing where its headed. There are little Hitler's waiting in the wings ready to resolve "society's ills."

France was already seeing the rise of fascism. This event is going to have severe repercussions. Hang onto your seats.

[Kazanne]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire.

Let's discuss?

Freedom of speech is selective Anaesthasia,you only have to look on here,you have a different opinion than some and your fcuked,people are too scared to say what they really think.

[kirklancaster]

Freedom of speech is selective Anaesthasia,you only have to look on here,you have a different opinion than some and your fcuked,people are too scared to say what they really think.

I never disagree with you Kazz my darling (but please Lord; if Kazz is really going to be '****ed' for having a difference of opinion, then let me be the one she has it with. :dance::lovedup:)

[Kazanne]

I never disagree with you Kazz my darling (but please Lord; if Kazz is really going to be '****ed' for having a difference of opinion, then let me be the one she has it with. :dance::lovedup:)

:joker: Kirk,lol,:blush:

[bots]

We only need to refer to super injunctions to show that, where needed, the super rich can silence anyone they want. The UK doesn't have free speech and indeed its more dangerous than those without it as if it is hidden and subversive , it is much more of a threat to our freedoms.

[Liam-]

I believe in freedom of speech, until people take it upon themselves to use it as an excuse to be purposely horrible and bigoted towards other people.

Believing in what you believe is all well and good, until it crosses the line from just saying what you believe, into the realm of saying what you think in order to specifically hurt people and get their backs up, that is where i believe the line of free speech should be drawn.

[Nedusa]

Freedom of Speech is necessary in a free thinking democracy, but the speech should not be a threat to inflict harm on someone or an incitement to harm or kill someone.

Poking fun and satirising all aspects of our lives is OK if a little unkind but satire is necessary to make social comment on a host of issues.

Deliberately publishing or speaking in a deflammatory way is not allowed and it is covered in our libel and slander laws.

Religion is always fair game for satire as it is based on fantasy not fact ie
God is a theoretical human construct part of a belief system and NOT a real human being who could take offence.

[Kizzy]

Not like a real unpredictable dictator type that might take offence to say a film about them or something?

[Nedusa]

Not like a real unpredictable dictator type that might take offence to say a film about them or something?

I agree the film that was made that acts out a plot to kill the current leader of a sovereign state ( no matter how mad he may be) was in very poor taste and cannot be defended under freedom of speech or expression.

As it was unnecessary to make and it's only point was to caricature a current world leader and show his assassination, it certainly cannot be realistically defended by anybody as being in the public interest.




.

[arista]

The UK doesn't have freedom of speech as hate speech is a crime. The US is the only country that has the most liberal laws regarding speech...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

The country's first amendment has to do with free speech. The country's laws were based on opposition to Europe's.

Lack of free speech is hurting Europe. We're seeing a rise in fascism thanks to it. Curbing what is considered hate speech only leads to animosity, which explodes into nationalism and terrorism. Europe has a history and it isn't recognizing where its headed. There are little Hitler's waiting in the wings ready to resolve "society's ills."

France was already seeing the rise of fascism. This event is going to have severe repercussions. Hang onto your seats.


Yes Great Points
letmein

[Dollface]

people are too scared to say what they really think.

This is true. I used to be very out spoken on the internet until one incident where i posted a video of islamic extremists which resulted in me being threatened by a muslim woman twice my age. i was suffering from severe anxiety at the time so it was very distressing and in the end i felt i had to leave the forum. (weirdly enough, she left the forum just after me, it was like she made her account just to threaten a 16 year old!) now i try to steer clear of conversations about religion etc.

[Anaesthesia]

Freedom of speech is selective Anaesthasia,you only have to look on here,you have a different opinion than some and your fcuked,people are too scared to say what they really think.

I know, and it's partly observing this, partly current events and partly pure curiosity that led me to start this thread.

It just fascinates me how others are SO affected by other's thoughts that they take violent and abusive action. From a small, safe scale (on here) to an extent that people are killed (eg Charlie Hebdo)

It's DANGEROUS to speak your mind. Yet the more people become cowed by fear of repercussion, the more of a perfect environment for bullying and terrorising is created.

Nedusa, I loved your post, as it is close to my own feelings :

"Freedom of Speech is necessary in a free thinking democracy, but the speech should not be a threat to inflict harm on someone or an incitement to harm or kill someone.

Poking fun and satirising all aspects of our lives is OK if a little unkind but satire is necessary to make social comment on a host of issues.

Deliberately publishing or speaking in a deflammatory way is not allowed and it is covered in our libel and slander laws.

Religion is always fair game for satire as it is based on fantasy not fact ie
God is a theoretical human construct part of a belief system and NOT a real human being who could take offence."

With the last paragraph, there is the huge qualifier that even if SkyDaddy is NOT a real human being, there are enough real human beings out there to cause real serious harm on his behalf.

[kirklancaster]

I was going to post a really eloquent, well written essay on here about how we should all stand up for our right to speak when we want to and to say what we want, butI daren't because my wife says she'll bash me if I do. :joker::dance:

[Anaesthesia]

..I'm not sure that Voltaire had much experience of the internet, media, social media etc though....there should be no freedom of consequence of bullying, abuse, racism, prejudice etc...

Agreed. And there ARE consequences, which is as it should be.

Even in Voltaire's day where seditious beliefs were mostly committed to pamphlet or cartoon, you ran the risk of execution for lampooning the Royals...funny to see how priorities shift, the Royals are absolute fair game nowadays :laugh:

And interesting to see that cartoonists still run the risk of fatal repercussion.

[Anaesthesia]

I was going to post a really eloquent, well written essay on here about how we should all stand up for our right to speak when we want to and to say what we want, butI daren't because my wife says she'll bash me if I do. :joker::dance:

Haha, that reminds me of the fable of the one wise man:

A henpecked Sultan was sick of the henpecking, and summoned the men of his realm.

"Men!" he said. "I want all of you who are not under the control of your wives to go and stand by the fountain. Those who bow to their wives' command go to the statue."

One solitary man, looking rather sheepish, moved to the fountain. The sultan was delighted!

"Good fellow, please tell me your secret and I will give you riches beyond your imagining!" beamed the sultan"

"My lord," said the wise man. "It is this. My wife said she would kill me if I didn't."

[kirklancaster]

This is true. I used to be very out spoken on the internet until one incident where i posted a video of islamic extremists which resulted in me being threatened by a muslim woman twice my age. i was suffering from severe anxiety at the time so it was very distressing and in the end i felt i had to leave the forum. (weirdly enough, she left the forum just after me, it was like she made her account just to threaten a 16 year old!) now i try to steer clear of conversations about religion etc.

Hey Dollface, I'm really pissed off to hear that. I do understand, but you should post if you really feel strongly about something even if you post about everything but terrorism then. Just proves what I'm being lambasted for by some on here; that some 'ordinary' Muslims do support terrorist bastards.

I hope the twat that threatened you gets struck down with a lightening bolt and rots in hell.

[JoshBB]

there is only freedom of speech if youre taunting white christian men.
any other sector of society is over protected. fact.

Oh my god you really have to pretend white christian men are oppressed, don't you...

[kirklancaster]

Haha, that reminds me of the fable of the one wise man:

A henpecked Sultan was sick of the henpecking, and summoned the men of his realm.

"Men!" he said. "I want all of you who are not under the control of your wives to go and stand by the fountain. Those who bow to their wives' command go to the statue."

One solitary man, looking rather sheepish, moved to the fountain. The sultan was delighted!

"Good fellow, please tell me your secret and I will give you riches beyond your imagining!" beamed the sultan"

"My lord," said the wise man. "It is this. My wife said she would kill me if I didn't."

:joker::joker::joker:

[sassysocks]

Freedom of Speech is necessary in a free thinking democracy, but the speech should not be a threat to inflict harm on someone or an incitement to harm or kill someone.

Poking fun and satirising all aspects of our lives is OK if a little unkind but satire is necessary to make social comment on a host of issues.

Deliberately publishing or speaking in a deflammatory way is not allowed and it is covered in our libel and slander laws.

Religion is always fair game for satire as it is based on fantasy not fact ie
God is a theoretical human construct part of a belief system and NOT a real human being who could take offence.

Anyone who doesn't believe in free speech does not belong in the Western world.

These idiots who come to Britain and other parts of Europe and think they can force their religious views on the people native to the countries they are guests in through threats and violence are not welcome here and never will be.

They are fools of the highest order who will never get the world dominance they seek because they lack the intelligence required.

[Livia]

I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of speech, so long as it is within the law.

[Dollface]

Hey Dollface, I'm really pissed off to hear that. I do understand, but you should post if you really feel strongly about something even if you post about everything but terrorism then. Just proves what I'm being lambasted for by some on here; that some 'ordinary' Muslims do support terrorist bastards.

I hope the twat that threatened you gets struck down with a lightening bolt and rots in hell.

Thanks kirk I hope she rots in hell too, vile woman. (i do like to hold a grudge :joker:)

[Cherie]

Hey Dollface, I'm really pissed off to hear that. I do understand, but you should post if you really feel strongly about something even if you post about everything but terrorism then. Just proves what I'm being lambasted for by some on here; that some 'ordinary' Muslims do support terrorist bastards.

I hope the twat that threatened you gets struck down with a lightening bolt and rots in hell.

I really haven't seen you lambasted on here Kirk, Points have been debated, if you participate and put your views out there, then you must expect at least some opposition, that is how it is for everybody not just you.

[user104658]

I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of speech, so long as it is within the law.
So if the law was changed tomorrow and made free speech a thing of the past, you would "support" the tiny piece (or zero?) free speech left?

That's not really any sort of "freedom" of any kind, is it Livia...

I would agree if you were just saying "within reason", i.e. Not crossing an obvious moral line, but bringing something so vague and changeable as "the law" into it negates any hint of autonomy. "Of course you are free, you're free to do absolutely anything that Bob says you're allowed to do."

[Livia]

So if the law was changed tomorrow and made free speech a thing of the past, you would "support" the tiny piece (or zero?) free speech left?

That's not really any sort of "freedom" of any kind, is it Livia...

I would agree if you were just saying "within reason", i.e. Not crossing an obvious moral line, but bringing something so vague and changeable as "the law" into it negates any hint of autonomy. "Of course you are free, you're free to do absolutely anything that Bob says you're allowed to do."

I'm a lawyer TS. That's why I feel qualified to say that I believe in freedom of speech within the law. So your post is just "ifs" and "ands".

[JoshBB]

I believe in freedom of speech under the following conditions:

- the person does not deliberately harass someone
- the person does not make threats (eg. saying they will stab someone or blow up a building)
- the person does not deliberately try to discriminate against a person or group of people
- the person does not incite hatred of any kind purposefully.
- the person does not try to pass laws or speak in support of those which would discriminate against a group of people or person.

[Niamh.]

closed for cleaning

[Niamh.]

Kirk and TS please don't continue this argument on when I reopen or you will be infracted

[Kizzy]

'Popular messaging services like Snapchat and WhatsApp are in the cross hairs in Britain.

That was the message delivered on Monday by Prime Minister David Cameron, who said he would pursue banning encrypted messaging services if Britain’s intelligence services were not given access to the communications.'

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/british-prime-minister-suggests-banning-some-online-messaging-apps/?_r=0

[user104658]

Kirk and TS please don't continue this argument on when I reopen or you will be infracted

It was old news 2 days ago Niamh! But no matter, I enjoy the commanding tone :hehe:

[user104658]

'Popular messaging services like Snapchat and WhatsApp are in the cross hairs in Britain.

That was the message delivered on Monday by Prime Minister David Cameron, who said he would pursue banning encrypted messaging services if Britain’s intelligence services were not given access to the communications.'

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/british-prime-minister-suggests-banning-some-online-messaging-apps/?_r=0

Yeah saw this last night. If anyone was looking for reasons that Western powers might engage in the encouragement of false flag terrorism: there is your answer. They've wanted to do this for years, no one wants it, so convenient "matter of life and death" reasons start to present themselves and all of a sudden it's;

"Oh well, erosion of civil liberties is bad of course, but THE TERRORISTS! So We'll just have to accept it. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about :). What do you mean you don't want a thought reading brain chip implanted in your child's head at birth? How suspicious! You must be planning to turn them into an evil terrorist!!"

[kirklancaster]

Irrational scare-mongering put aside where it belongs, there is only one thing wrong with Cameron's proposition - it does not go far enough.

The world is changing, becoming more violent and degenerate with each day, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

All babies born in the UK should be fingerprinted and have their DNA taken. These should then be stored on a National computer similar to HOLMES.

This will enable the police to quickly identify future murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of future suspected terrorists.

All other citizens of the UK should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

This will enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

All immigrants to the UK should should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

This will enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and also enable them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

All visitors to the UK should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

The Identity Cards should be retrieved by Customs Officers upon the visitors exiting the UK and filed. This will enable any absconders to be instantly noticed, instead of them merely disappearing into the ether as currently, and will also result in the precise numbers of absconders being known instead of the 'finger in the wind' estimates currently trotted out.

This will also enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

We all have a duty to help those who who daily put their lives on the line to both protect us from our enemies, and maintain the security of this country, and no sane, rational, law-abiding person who is loyal to this country and appreciative of the democratic freedoms it affords, should object to the above measures.

It is not a precursor to any Orwellian dystopian nightmare future, nor the first step on a slippery road to fascism, it is a scheme of necessary and overdue measures to ensure our survival in an increasingly violent world and 'cliched' or not, only those with something to hide will object.

[user104658]

If I didn't fear that Niamhey might spank me, I might be tempted to point out the Irony in stating that irrational scare mongering should be put aside, and then posting a boat load of irrational scare mongering.

I also might point out that if we were to take DNA samples and fingerprints from everyone entering the UK, then no one would enter the UK if they had any choice, and our economy would crumble over night.

I might also agree that it wouldn't be a precursor to an Orwellian nightmare. It would just BE an Orwellian nightmare.

But I do fear Niamh so I will just leave it well alone.

[Niamh.]

It was old news 2 days ago Niamh! But no matter, I enjoy the commanding tone :hehe:


It wasn't actually Kirk had just posted when I deleted it :fist:

[the truth]

within the law and within fair laws and the laws must be applied equally which theyre not. the muslim radicals have gotten away with inciteful hate for years and women have endlessly more rights of freedom of speech than men in the UK. Also we have allowed the jewish people to bring in some of their own laws to the UK which again is wrong. it must be one law for all applied equally.

[kirklancaster]

If I didn't fear that Niamhey might spank me, I might be tempted to point out the Irony in stating that irrational scare mongering should be put aside, and then posting a boat load of irrational scare mongering.

I also might point out that if we were to take DNA samples and fingerprints from everyone entering the UK, then no one would enter the UK if they had any choice, and our economy would crumble over night.

I might also agree that it wouldn't be a precursor to an Orwellian nightmare. It would just BE an Orwellian nightmare.

But I do fear Niamh so I will just leave it well alone.[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;7479541]

Why? If we adhere to the rules why fear Niamh's intervention? Unless you feel that you cannot keep within the rules?

Anyway, I must respond to your posts but I welcome Niamh's scrutiny because I am intent on adhering to the rules in favour of legitimate, intelligent debate:

A) "Yeah saw this last night. If anyone was looking for reasons that Western powers might engage in the encouragement of false flag terrorism: there is your answer. They've wanted to do this for years, no one wants it, so convenient "matter of life and death" reasons start to present themselves and all of a sudden it's;"

B) "Oh well, erosion of civil liberties is bad of course, but THE TERRORISTS! So We'll just have to accept it. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about :). What do you mean you don't want a thought reading brain chip implanted in your child's head at birth? How suspicious! You must be planning to turn them into an evil terrorist!!"


The above is nothing more than irrational scare-mongering by any criterion.

In A) it is inferred that our government and our Western allies have been in collusion for a long time with a sinister plan to 'encourage' 'false-flag terrorism'. As is usual, no proof is given of course to substantiate this totally ludicrous piece of anti-democratic propaganda.

No substantiating evidence is given either to validate the ridiculous sweeping presumption that "No one wants it", because this is simply not true. The majority of sane, rational, peace-loving citizens of any Western Democracy will welcome any measure which helps protect their freedom and put an end to the terrorist slaughter of innocent lives.

As for the statements in B), well :shrug: these are straight from the pages of a cheap science fiction story for juveniles and are an example of irrational scare-mongering at its worst;

"What do you mean you don't want a thought reading brain chip implanted in your child's head at birth? How suspicious! You must be planning to turn them into an evil terrorist!!"

First of all, the technology does not exist to create a "thought reading brain chip" (whatever gizmo that may be) and the very notion that any Western democratic government would be complicit in "implanting" such a 'device' into babies heads at birth is hysterical.

Of course, all the above simplistic and ludicrous 'alarmist' statements are posted without any substantiating grounds or evidence, whereas there are very genuine reasons for our governments proposition that the owners of social media sites should be compelled - by legislation if necessary - to 'police' their sites and to report relevant suspicious usage, because terrorists cells have been using social media to communicate with other terrorist cells increasingly over the past few years. Sometimes in plain speech and sometimes with 'encrypted' messages.

Indeed, the Islamic Fundamentalist murderers of poor Lee Rigby had openly made threats to murder on Facebook in November, before going on to execute him in cold-blood in London in 2013, yet the owners of Facebook did not notify our Security and Intelligence Services of such threats, and perhaps if they had, then these UK based cowardly terrorists may have been placed under surveillance and Lee Rigby's callous death prevented.

Who could possibly protest against the measures being proposed by Cameron? Our National Security and the prevention of the slaughter of innocent people should be above all political bias, and certainly beyond infantile and irrational 'scare-mongering'.

Now with the greatest of respect I come to your response to my post:

C) "If I didn't fear that Niamhey might spank me, I might be tempted to point out the Irony in stating that irrational scare mongering should be put aside, and then posting a boat load of irrational scare mongering."


If you post a counter opinion of my post without personal attack - as I have done above - then why fear any intervention by Niamh? This is a forum for 'Serious Debate'.

Anyway, onto the very grave fallacy in the statements you make in A) above;

There is no 'irony' in my statement that "irrational scare mongering should be put aside", because your statements regarding our governments collusion with our Western Allies in some 'conspiracy to "encourage 'false flag' terrorism' is irrefutably silly 'scare mongering', as is your warning of technologically impossible "thought reading brain chips" being forcibly implanted into all babies brains at birth, yet my proposals that ID cards should be mandatory along with DNA and fingerprinting as detailed in my post is neither 'scare mongering' nor technologically impossible, and are measures which are both necessary and long overdue.

And of course, as always, I do not contend or propose without giving sound, logical reasons for doing so.

D) "I also might point out that if we were to take DNA samples and fingerprints from everyone entering the UK, then no one would enter the UK if they had any choice, and our economy would crumble over night."

Your statements in D) above are sadly but more unsubstantiated scare mongering, and simply not true.

1) It takes aprox 15 minutes to take a photograph, fingerprints and a DNA swab.

2) If such a process were to be introduced, then the infrastructure has to be put into place, and such a process would not simply be 'thrust' onto visitors to the UK without warning. It would be advertised well in advance so that potential visitors to the UK would be forewarned and given ample time to acclimatise themselves to the procedure.

3) Decent, law-abiding, peace-loving people would readily accept the need for such a brief procedure and would plan their travel details accordingly, only the politically biased, the anti-western democratic, or those with 'something to hide' would perhaps stay out of the UK in protest, and that would be a good and great thing.

4) In today's high tech world, most serious business is conducted via other means than 'face to face' meetings by briefcase toting men in bowler hats and pin stripes, but serious business people whose business is legitimate would not shirk at undergoing the proposed security procedures anyway, so where is your corroborating evidence for irrationally stating that; "our economy would crumble over night."?
.
E) "I might also agree that it wouldn't be a precursor to an Orwellian nightmare. It would just BE an Orwellian nightmare."

It would not be a nightmare at all - 'Orwellian' or otherwise. It would be a huge preventative part of a remedy to address a nightmare which is already here and becoming pandemic - terrorism.

Is an inoculation jab against flu, malaria, polio, or any other disease the nightmare? Or is it a very necessary, preventative measure against the diseases which are the nightmare? Does the 10 to 15 minutes that such a procedure takes up prevent people from participating in inoculation schemes?

The answer to the last question is a resounding 'No'.

Well, given that terrorism is yet another disease, but one spread by insane monsters, then any preventative measures orchestrated by our leaders to prevent it and ultimately aid in defeating it, will surely be welcomed by any sane, rational, peace-loving person on the planet no matter what race, religion, creed or colour.

If you disagree with my contentions, then that is your democratic right on a discussion forum, but I ask only that you do so intelligently, without making unsubstantiated statements or bringing personal elements into any response.

[user104658]

OK, what I'm starting to learn here, is that I shouldn't assume that everyone will understand a point made using hyperbole. When I talk about them "implanting chips in brains" I am exaggerating - what I am really talking about is exactly what you've described. Sampling and cataloguing everyone's DNA and fingerprints. That is the non-sci fi equivalent of it, surely, and who knows what the technology of tomorrow will make possible? Honestly, if we allow your suggestion, the idea that one day children might be microchipped and GPS tracked from birth is not scare mongering, it is entirely possible. After all, why wouldn't we allow every possible measure?

I do think that you are also being presumptuous in saying that any decent law abiding citizen would happily accept these measures. Some would, but many wouldn't. It's an invasion of privacy and an erosion of freedom. How can you advocate removing freedom to protect freedom? Where does it end?

Obviously there are no official figures on the effect on tourism because, thankfully, no Country has ever imposed such intrusive measures on its visitors. However, to give some actual figures, inbound tourism is worth over £120 billion per year to the United Kingdom and that is projected to rise to over £250 billion in the next 15 years. If even just half of those people were to decide to go elsewhere because of extreme security measures here then it would blow an absolutely massive hole in our economy. I am utterly convinced that many people would be put off coming here, to state that no one would or that only criminals would is completely false... You have absolutely no evidence for this, either, so I can only assume that you Base it on what you generally know about people. And I know that many, many decent law abiding freedom loving people would be very hesitant to enter a country engaging in these measures. To state that there would be no cost is a lie. Not to mention the cost of implementing such a massive scheme in the first place!

[Nedusa]

Irrational scare-mongering put aside where it belongs, there is only one thing wrong with Cameron's proposition - it does not go far enough.

The world is changing, becoming more violent and degenerate with each day, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

All babies born in the UK should be fingerprinted and have their DNA taken. These should then be stored on a National computer similar to HOLMES.

This will enable the police to quickly identify future murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of future suspected terrorists.

All other citizens of the UK should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

This will enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

All immigrants to the UK should should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

This will enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and also enable them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

All visitors to the UK should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

The Identity Cards should be retrieved by Customs Officers upon the visitors exiting the UK and filed. This will enable any absconders to be instantly noticed, instead of them merely disappearing into the ether as currently, and will also result in the precise numbers of absconders being known instead of the 'finger in the wind' estimates currently trotted out.

This will also enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

We all have a duty to help those who who daily put their lives on the line to both protect us from our enemies, and maintain the security of this country, and no sane, rational, law-abiding person who is loyal to this country and appreciative of the democratic freedoms it affords, should object to the above measures.

It is not a precursor to any Orwellian dystopian nightmare future, nor the first step on a slippery road to fascism, it is a scheme of necessary and overdue measures to ensure our survival in an increasingly violent world and 'cliched' or not, only those with something to hide will object.

A very depressing view of one possible future Kirk, if we go down that road then why not really start to use all technologies at our disposal.

Lets have everybody in the Country go to a polling booth to vote at the next election and whilst there we can have you receive a bar code tattoo which contains all your relevant data. This then could act as a permanent ID card which would in fact speed things up at Airports etc.

All newborns can be microchipped so they can be monitored at all times, these chips can be designed to include ways to cause pain so people could be punished very quickly if they stepped out of line.

We could root out all illegal immigrants by stopping and bar scanning masses of people at random, the ones who were not legal could be taken away and put into internment camps and/or tortured then deported.

Terrorism now would be practically eliminated as the movements of everybody could be analysed and with ALL communications monitored the terrorist would have no real chance to even get into the Country let alone planning an attack.

We would have an obedient,compliant,quiet population of God fearing,hard working people but they would be but one step up from zombies, a sort of Stepford Population with practically no crime...

Nirvana, Shangri la....actually no that is NOT the sort of future I would ever want to live in.





.

[Northern Monkey]

Irrational scare-mongering put aside where it belongs, there is only one thing wrong with Cameron's proposition - it does not go far enough.

The world is changing, becoming more violent and degenerate with each day, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

All babies born in the UK should be fingerprinted and have their DNA taken. These should then be stored on a National computer similar to HOLMES.

This will enable the police to quickly identify future murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of future suspected terrorists.

All other citizens of the UK should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

This will enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

All immigrants to the UK should should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

This will enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and also enable them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

All visitors to the UK should be issued with Identity Cards complete with photogaph. They should also have their fingerprints taken and their DNA taken. These should be stored with a copy of their photograph on the same computer as above.

The Identity Cards should be retrieved by Customs Officers upon the visitors exiting the UK and filed. This will enable any absconders to be instantly noticed, instead of them merely disappearing into the ether as currently, and will also result in the precise numbers of absconders being known instead of the 'finger in the wind' estimates currently trotted out.

This will also enable the police to quickly identify murderers and criminals who leave DNA traces behind, and assist them to rapidly apprehend them, as well as greatly assisting the Security and Intelligence Services to keep track of the movements of suspected terrorists.

We all have a duty to help those who who daily put their lives on the line to both protect us from our enemies, and maintain the security of this country, and no sane, rational, law-abiding person who is loyal to this country and appreciative of the democratic freedoms it affords, should object to the above measures.

It is not a precursor to any Orwellian dystopian nightmare future, nor the first step on a slippery road to fascism, it is a scheme of necessary and overdue measures to ensure our survival in an increasingly violent world and 'cliched' or not, only those with something to hide will object.
Sorry can't agree with this.I have nothing at all to hide but this is too far.If we as a nation have to resort to finger printing our children as they are born and having to carry ID cards around then the terrorists have won already.They want to scare us into losing our freedoms and that would be exactly what they would have done if this was implemented.As TS said that would be an Orwellian dystopian nightmare.No government should have that much control over our freedoms.They are here to serve us.Next thing gradually it would become 'necessary for our security' to put trackers in those ID cards and then chips in UK babies with trackers in and so on.

[kirklancaster]

Quote: =Toy Soldier;7482879]"OK, what I'm starting to learn here, is that I shouldn't assume that everyone will understand a point made using hyperbole. When I talk about them "implanting chips in brains" I am exaggerating - what I am really talking about is exactly what you've described."


Well perhaps it may be more prudent then, to suitably identify hyperbole, instead of passing it off as serious comment in a response to a very seriously constructed post, made in earnest, on a very serious subject, on a 'Serious Debate' thread.

"Sampling and cataloguing everyone's DNA and fingerprints. That is the non-sci fi equivalent of it, surely, and who knows what the technology of tomorrow will make possible? Honestly, if we allow your suggestion, the idea that one day children might be microchipped and GPS tracked from birth is not scare mongering, it is entirely possible. After all, why wouldn't we allow every possible measure?"

No, you are categorically wrong; DNA and Fingerprinting as proposed in my post are relatively non-intrusive 'external' processes taking up very little time and causing the minimum of inconvenience to people undergoing such a process, whereas, the 'thought reading brain chip implant' which you propose as the equivalent - hyperbole or not - is a very invasive surgical procedure involving quite a lengthy process.

"I do think that you are also being presumptuous in saying that any decent law abiding citizen would happily accept these measures. Some would, but many wouldn't. It's an invasion of privacy and an erosion of freedom. How can you advocate removing freedom to protect freedom? Where does it end?"


A fair point about presumption, but I stand by my 'presumption' that "any decent law abiding citizen would happily accept these measures" as being far more accurate than your original 'presumption that; "no one want it" because my presumption is based on the logic that the majority of such type of people would suffer a small inconvenience, and sacrifice a small non-invasive amount of 'personal freedom', for the cause of the greater good in restricting terrorism and helping to more quickly catch sexual murderers and other killers, in addition to preventing further terrorist slaughter of innocents.

Some decent law abiding people - as you so rightly state - may not willingly accept such measures, but like those who also do not through political bias or 'hidden agendas', then they are in a minority and will just have to accept such measures if they are UK resident, or will not have to enter the country if they are not.

As for; "... erosion of freedom. How can you advocate removing freedom to protect freedom? Where does it end?"


It's all a matter of degrees and necessity. Sometimes, when a tree is being attacked by disease, prudent gardeners carry out certain necessary measures to save it. These measures often include 'hard pruning' to remove already diseased parts of the tree, in tandem with a regime of regular spraying with fungicide/insecticide as a preventative measure against further attack.

Sometimes, sick people undertake a course of antibiotics to fight infection and prevent further infection and have to sacrifice drinking alcohol whilst doing so, in order to beat the disease and regain their health.

'Quid Pro Quo' - and such measures as proposed in my post are but small sacrifices in order to beat serious violent crime and even more serious and violent terrorism.

"Obviously there are no official figures on the effect on tourism because, thankfully, no Country has ever imposed such intrusive measures on its visitors. However, to give some actual figures, inbound tourism is worth over £120 billion per year to the United Kingdom and that is projected to rise to over £250 billion in the next 15 years. If even just half of those people were to decide to go elsewhere because of extreme security measures here then it would blow an absolutely massive hole in our economy. I am utterly convinced that many people would be put off coming here, to state that no one would or that only criminals would is completely false... You have absolutely no evidence for this, either, so I can only assume that you Base it on what you generally know about people. And I know that many, many decent law abiding freedom loving people would be very hesitant to enter a country engaging in these measures. To state that there would be no cost is a lie. Not to mention the cost of implementing such a massive scheme in the first place."

Well, in the first place, I feel that you are not taking into account the very real slump in tourism during times of escalated terrorist outrages in the UK, as in the IRA bombings to major cities and other incidents.

Then there is the very real fact that people - including tourists - are intimidated by terrorist bombings and murderous rampages, so when -- 'When' not if -- such terrorist activities commence in the UK, then we will see a very real fall in tourism revenue as tourists stay away in fear. Who now in the UK will book holidays in the Lebanon? Afghanistan? Syria?

In addition, when you state that: "extreme security measures" "will blow a massive hole in our economy", lack of adequate security measures which keep pace with the growing reality of terrorism, will result in more than just "a massive hole being blown in our economy" - it will see massive holes being blown in our cities and in the innocent people who reside in them.

As for: "the cost of implementing such a massive scheme in the first place." the initial cost of putting the infrastructure in place is negligible in comparison to the costs saved by preventing crime and terrorism , but it is against the saving of lives where the cost of such measures should be weighed, not to mention the price we may ultimately have to pay without such measures - the UK in the control of Islamic Fundamentalists and life under Sharia Law for those of us not beheaded.

[kirklancaster]

Sorry can't agree with this.I have nothing at all to hide but this is too far.If we as a nation have to resort to finger printing our children as they are born and having to carry ID cards around then the terrorists have won already.They want to scare us into losing our freedoms and that would be exactly what they would have done if this was implemented.As TS said that would be an Orwellian dystopian nightmare.No government should have that much control over our freedoms.They are here to serve us.Next thing gradually it would become 'necessary for our security' to put trackers in those ID cards and then chips in UK babies with trackers in and so on.

You are of course within your rights to disagree, Paul, but for the record; T.S. was quoting my phrase in 'Orwellian dystopian nightmare', and I disagree that 'trackers' would be necessary in photo ID Cards where proper monitoring was in place and a proper system which affords instant verification of such cards , be it via fixed electronic devices at airports and Custom points, or via mobile hand held devices issued to our police and security services.

The 'thought reading brain chips implanted in babies heads' is just preposterous infantile nonsense. Sorry.

[kirklancaster]

A very depressing view of one possible future Kirk, if we go down that road then why not really start to use all technologies at our disposal.

Lets have everybody in the Country go to a polling booth to vote at the next election and whilst there we can have you receive a bar code tattoo which contains all your relevant data. This then could act as a permanent ID card which would in fact speed things up at Airports etc.

All newborns can be microchipped so they can be monitored at all times, these chips can be designed to include ways to cause pain so people could be punished very quickly if they stepped out of line.

We could root out all illegal immigrants by stopping and bar scanning masses of people at random, the ones who were not legal could be taken away and put into internment camps and/or tortured then deported.

Terrorism now would be practically eliminated as the movements of everybody could be analysed and with ALL communications monitored the terrorist would have no real chance to even get into the Country let alone planning an attack.

We would have an obedient,compliant,quiet population of God fearing,hard working people but they would be but one step up from zombies, a sort of Stepford Population with practically no crime...

Nirvana, Shangri la....actually no that is NOT the sort of future I would ever want to live in.

.

I'm sorry Nedusa, that we seem to be in agreement with a lot of things, but not on this.

Perhaps, I have done a great disservice to Cameron by posting my views, because I have deflected attention away from the real reasons why I posted - people's opposition to Cameron's proposals to impose certain duties on the owners of 'social media sites' regarding terrorist usage of those sites. Now, unfortunately, those people are 'off the hook'.

Coming back to your post Nedusa, you are extraordinarily stretching what I proposed into the most terrifying visions of a dystopian nightmare future without any valid reason for justifying such a leap of fancy.

I can't help but notice too, that your stance on terrorism and immigration seems to have swung from one extreme to the other, which is mystifying.

Anyway, though I respect your right to oppose my views, I stand firm, and would say that, there are two alternative visions of the future; the very improbable one detailed by T.S., yourself and Paul, which has little basis in fact based on my proposals, and the even more terrifying future of continued and escalated slaughter of innocents by terrorists, the continued and increasing attacks on our democratic way of life, or even the unthinkable ultimate nightmare - the UK controlled by Islamic Fundamentalists and its previously free citizens living under Sharia Law, or rather those who have not already been beheaded.

[Northern Monkey]

You are of course within your rights to disagree, Paul, but for the record; T.S. was quoting my phrase in 'Orwellian dystopian nightmare', and I disagree that 'trackers' would be necessary in photo ID Cards where proper monitoring was in place and a proper system which affords instant verification of such cards , be it via fixed electronic devices at airports and Custom points, or via mobile hand held devices issued to our police and security services.

The 'thought reading brain chips implanted in babies heads is just preposterous infantile nonsense. Sorry.It is infantile nonsense now and 'thought reading chips' is far fetched but implants with tracking devices is less sci-fi and is only a few steps away from trackers in ID cards.But the more freedoms we gradually lose the more accepted more measures will be until we reach the nightmare that you speak of.Gradual more invasive measures each time pushing the boundries of acceptance until we're fecked.In politics things never get reversed no matter who's in power.Once one government brings in a policy,The next one no matter how they preach against their predocessors won't reverse it as they can reep the benefits and deny responsibility for its existence.Personally i don't want to be tracked wherever i go and i don't want my kids to be or their kids.That is not freedom and is giving in to terrorism.Imo.
They tested out the idea of ID cards a few years back.They just threw it out there to see the public response and it did'nt go down well.People don't want to be forced to produce them everywhere they go.I think it is a slippery slope and we the public have to let our governments know when we believe they are going too far.

[user104658]

Just a quick thread derail kirk: if we're going to be posting on the same threads about these issues and adhering to the rules as suggested by Niamh, then I would greatly appreciate it if you reign in some of how you express things, even if it's in relation to the argument and not intended to be personal.

I understand that there are many things that we're never going to see eye to eye on and I have absolutely no problem with disagreement, but at the moment, it certainly feels a little bit personal.

I don't mind that if I can respond in kind or at least have a bit of fun with it as we were before, but where that isn't possible, I'd prefer to keep the debates a little more civil.

Specifically, I am referring to this:

just preposterous infantile nonsense. Sorry.

Again I don't have a problem with you thinking that the analogy is an exaggeration too far and saying so (I am well aware that I have a tenancy to over-exaggerate when making a point), and I don't even have a problem with your phrasing IF the circumstances allow that sort of back-and-forth, I do enjoy the sport. But we have been asked to stop so I feel like I have to say that in this situation, there's really no need for you to phrase your disagreement in ways that could be inflammatory.

In return, I can promise to refrain from using extreme hyperbole in these sorts of threads.

I very much enjoy engaging in these threads on TiBB and I can see the moderators stance on this where things going this way is putting other people off when it comes to participating, and that's not really fair.

Im going on a bit but thought it needed saying. I hope it's taken in the spirit it's intended.

[Nedusa]

I'm sorry Nedusa, that we seem to be in agreement with a lot of things, but not on this.

Perhaps, I have done a great disservice to Cameron by posting my views, because I have deflected attention away from the real reasons why I posted - people's opposition to Cameron's proposals to impose certain duties on the owners of 'social media sites' regarding terrorist usage of those sites. Now, unfortunately, those people are 'off the hook'.

Coming back to your post Nedusa, you are extraordinarily stretching what I proposed into the most terrifying visions of a dystopian nightmare future without any valid reason for justifying such a leap of fancy.

I can't help but notice too, that your stance on terrorism and immigration seems to have swung from one extreme to the other, which is mystifying.

Anyway, though I respect your right to oppose my views, I stand firm, and would say that, there are two alternative visions of the future; the very improbable one detailed by T.S., yourself and Paul, which has little basis in fact based on my proposals, and the even more terrifying future of continued and escalated slaughter of innocents by terrorists, the continued and increasing attacks on our democratic way of life, or even the unthinkable ultimate nightmare - the UK controlled by Islamic Fundamentalists and its previously free citizens living under Sharia Law, or rather those who have not already been beheaded.

Kirk, I actually agree some of what you suggest may have to be implemented in order to try and avoid the situation that is happening in France, but I wanted to show where that kind of control eventually goes.

It's not that much of a leap from what you suggest to what I listed. and I would still prefer to take my chances with the terrorists than live in that kind of Dystopian nightmare...thank you very much

And i'm sorry if my stance on terrorism is "mystifying" to you, I have not changed my views one inch in fact I posted earlier on a another thread where I re-iterated my anger re Islam in general.

What I have had to do however, is re-state my desire to welcome the so called peaceful majority if they can express more solidarity with their Christian brothers. also I don't want to be seen as Anti-Muslim per se as then my posts could be seen as inflammatory and interpretated as hate speech which they are not.

My views on this subject should be quite clear now for all to see.

Also I recently received an infraction from TiBB for one of my more straight talking replies to one poster who was attacking my post by suggesting the french cartoonists deserved to die.

So although this is a great Forum to debate issues we have to keep a sense of perspective and not become too emotional or aggressive or obsessive in our posts.

Hope you can see this.





.

[kirklancaster]

Just a quick thread derail kirk: if we're going to be posting on the same threads about these issues and adhering to the rules as suggested by Niamh, then I would greatly appreciate it if you reign in some of how you express things, even if it's in relation to the argument and not intended to be personal.

I understand that there are many things that we're never going to see eye to eye on and I have absolutely no problem with disagreement, but at the moment, it certainly feels a little bit personal.

I don't mind that if I can respond in kind or at least have a bit of fun with it as we were before, but where that isn't possible, I'd prefer to keep the debates a little more civil.

Specifically, I am referring to this:



Again I don't have a problem with you thinking that the analogy is an exaggeration too far and saying so (I am well aware that I have a tenancy to over-exaggerate when making a point), and I don't even have a problem with your phrasing IF the circumstances allow that sort of back-and-forth, I do enjoy the sport. But we have been asked to stop so I feel like I have to say that in this situation, there's really no need for you to phrase your disagreement in ways that could be inflammatory.

In return, I can promise to refrain from using extreme hyperbole in these sorts of threads.

I very much enjoy engaging in these threads on TiBB and I can see the moderators stance on this where things going this way is putting other people off when it comes to participating, and that's not really fair.

Im going on a bit but thought it needed saying. I hope it's taken in the spirit it's intended.

Certainly a valid point T.S. and I apologise then, and will ensure that I do moderate such expressions. Sincere thanks for your 'olive branch' this time, which I will grasp and agree to go on from here as before.

[kirklancaster]

Kirk, I actually agree some of what you suggest may have to be implemented in order to try and avoid the situation that is happening in France, but I wanted to show where that kind of control eventually goes.

It's not that much of a leap from what you suggest to what I listed. and I would still prefer to take my chances with the terrorists than live in that kind of Dystopian nightmare...thank you very much

And i'm sorry if my stance on terrorism is "mystifying" to you, I have not changed my views one inch in fact I posted earlier on a another thread where I re-iterated my anger re Islam in general.

What I have had to do however, is re-state my desire to welcome the so called peaceful majority if they can express more solidarity with their Christian brothers. also I don't want to be seen as Anti-Muslim per se as then my posts could be seen as inflammatory and interpretated as hate speech which they are not.

My views on this subject should be quite clear now for all to see.

Also I recently received an infraction from TiBB for one of my more straight talking replies to one poster who was attacking my post by suggesting the french cartoonists deserved to die.

So although this is a great Forum to debate issues we have to keep a sense of perspective and not become too emotional or aggressive or obsessive in our posts.

Hope you can see this.

.

I can see what you are saying Nedusa - you write with such clarity and skill I never fail to understand you. But please don't misunderstand me, because I am not falling out with you but merely disagreeing and was a little perplexed by what I did perceive as a change in stance - not that you have not the right to do so, but more by your reasons. However, now you've explained all's well.

[Cherie]

Kirk, I actually agree some of what you suggest may have to be implemented in order to try and avoid the situation that is happening in France, but I wanted to show where that kind of control eventually goes.

It's not that much of a leap from what you suggest to what I listed. and I would still prefer to take my chances with the terrorists than live in that kind of Dystopian nightmare...thank you very much

And i'm sorry if my stance on terrorism is "mystifying" to you, I have not changed my views one inch in fact I posted earlier on a another thread where I re-iterated my anger re Islam in general.

What I have had to do however, is re-state my desire to welcome the so called peaceful majority if they can express more solidarity with their Christian brothers. also I don't want to be seen as Anti-Muslim per se as then my posts could be seen as inflammatory and interpretated as hate speech which they are not.

My views on this subject should be quite clear now for all to see.

Also I recently received an infraction from TiBB for one of my more straight talking replies to one poster who was attacking my post by suggesting the french cartoonists deserved to die.

So although this is a great Forum to debate issues we have to keep a sense of perspective and not become too emotional or aggressive or obsessive in our posts.

Hope you can see this.





.


:clap2:

[user104658]

What I have had to do however, is re-state my desire to welcome the so called peaceful majority if they can express more solidarity with their Christian brothers.

This, I 100% agree with and I guess all I can say is that my entire stance is based on my belief that this is in fact the only way that religious extremism can be brought back under control. No amount of soldiers, bombs or military campaigns can stop it. Only people who have the same basic belief system - but a more moderate version - can bring these people around or help to ensure that their young people are better protected from being taken in by them.

And that's why I think it's essential that, at all costs, we avoid marginalizing these communities, making it "us and them" (even if we believe that's already been done), and bringing in ideas that they should be closely monitored or even cast out. You could argue that they should simply want to help anyway, to improve their own image, but I think it's important to remember than in many communities (even here, but especially overseas), standing up against these things can be exceptionally risky and at the end of the day most peaceful Muslim's primary concern is going to be protecting themselves and their own families. Are they really likely to stand up to fundamentalism is they don't feel like they are supported and backed up by the rest of society? The more cast out people feel, the more likely they are to think of only themselves and their loved ones.

To play devil's advocate - if I was of Middle Eastern origin and lived in a Muslim country, would I stand up against extremists and condemn them, even if I found their actions to be abhorrent? With two young children in my home? No... I think I would pretend to be a god-fearing Muslim and keep my head down as much as possible.

[Nedusa]

This, I 100% agree with and I guess all I can say is that my entire stance is based on my belief that this is in fact the only way that religious extremism can be brought back under control. No amount of soldiers, bombs or military campaigns can stop it. Only people who have the same basic belief system - but a more moderate version - can bring these people around or help to ensure that their young people are better protected from being taken in by them.

And that's why I think it's essential that, at all costs, we avoid marginalizing these communities, making it "us and them" (even if we believe that's already been done), and bringing in ideas that they should be closely monitored or even cast out. You could argue that they should simply want to help anyway, to improve their own image, but I think it's important to remember than in many communities (even here, but especially overseas), standing up against these things can be exceptionally risky and at the end of the day most peaceful Muslim's primary concern is going to be protecting themselves and their own families. Are they really likely to stand up to fundamentalism is they don't feel like they are supported and backed up by the rest of society? The more cast out people feel, the more likely they are to think of only themselves and their loved ones.

To play devil's advocate - if I was of Middle Eastern origin and lived in a Muslim country, would I stand up against extremists and condemn them, even if I found their actions to be abhorrent? With two young children in my home? No... I think I would pretend to be a god-fearing Muslim and keep my head down as much as possible.

Good Point, much has been said recently of the fact more peace loving Muslims don't speak out against the extremist acts carried out in their name. Could there be more than a kernel of truth in the fact that no one wants to stand up against these fanatics and risk having their lives destroyed as a consequence.

If that is the case then how and under what circumstances would large numbers of the silent peaceful muslim majority finally stand up and public state "No...not in my name"

We have seen atrocity after atrocity carried out and each one worse than the last and closer to home yet nothing is really said other than standard condemnations by elected leaders.

What would actually have to happen to cause a major outcry by Muslims against the murder carried out in their name.

Should there be for example like the troubles in Northern ireland in the seventies, some sort of civil peace movement like Muslims for Peace perhaps even the Muslim Church publishing plans for modernising Islam or bringing it into post modernity.

At least start the debate with the Muslim Church as to where the faith is going and how the extremism is damaging it.

If they are talking then there must be some hope that the killing might stop.

Surely enough blood has been spilled over this.






.

[the truth]

yea so were back where we started, we can anything we like about white men and christians but we cant with any other section of society

[Jose Mourinho]

Thing is, everyone has a right to say what they want, when they want and how they want, but there is simply NO WAY to stop reactions to whatever speech is said though. Freedom of speech has NEVER meant you can say what you want and ASSUME that everyone must smile and ACCEPT what you have said, because that simply already defies the logic of freedom of speech. With freedom of speech, inevitably comes consequences both in verbal retaliation and wrongly so ..through physical force....physical retaliation defies the law of free speech, otherwise we would call it Freedom of physical expression.

The worst example of this is the Charlie Hebdo killings. People got offended and handled it the wrong way defying the very law of freedom of speech, by physically taking away people's lives in order to intimidate them and PHYSICALLY STOP THEM from further using their right to voice their opinions. Now that is what I call a breach of freedom of speech. The law is actually trying to protect their freedom of speech and has done so by capturing and gunning down 3? I think? Of the killers.

Incidents like the Charlie Hebdo one ARE WHAT I CALL a breach of freedom of speech. Other than that I myself personally have had no problems expressing my views and when I have been penalized or retaliated against I can accept it and react appropriately without using force to physically terminate another person's right to freedom of speech.

I see no problem with freedom of speech.

[the truth]

I see no problem with it either.

[Ithinkiloveyoutoo]

Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html


http://i.imgur.com/TTN2LY6.gif

[Jose Mourinho]

http://i.imgur.com/TTN2LY6.gifHe would like to have it that way and for sure it would stop a lot of trouble I guess but the Pope really does not make the rules!

[Kizzy]

'Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.'

It was to be expected due to the extremist views of a minority, but that's not to say those actions are justifiable.