It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

...But I'll defend to the death, your right to say it...

page: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Learningman




If I may make a point, and it is in all probability not the point of the OP, when there are certain views the general public find distasteful, be it anti-monarchism, pro-paedophilia, pro murder or pro sharia or pro (insert butthurtworthy word), while I'd vehemently argue for their right to say such things, my own views would prevent me for putting myself in danger for them. And my view is that I see nothing wrong with it. I admit a flaw, as if I were to be shown the flaw, I doubt very much I'd change my mind.

If you think of me as less a worthy man than you, cest la vie.


It's your life.

Out of curiosity. Would you watch him die if it was occurring right in front of you? Or would you turn your back?


You truly honestly have no understanding of the quote that formed the introduction to this OP, it seems many do not. It's not allowing or not allowing someone to die, it's about defending someone's right to say the very things that are found distasteful to the defender. I would agree with Charlie that while I accept someone has the right to say what they want (that's the defending bit), I wouldn't be willing to actually stand in the way of the consequences of them saying things that I find abhorrent.

It's really not that hard, sheesh, the quote or sentiment it encapsulates is hardly new, is it? If what you are saying is that saying anything, whether it is intimidatory, intended to incite violence or similarly seeking to impose with threats your worldview on another - you have the right to do so, you also have the responsibility to accept what the consequences may be. If that is really too difficult to understand then perhaps you are in the wrong thread.




posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted


You truly honestly have no understanding of the quote that formed the introduction to this OP, it seems many do not. It's not allowing or not allowing someone to die, it's about defending someone's right to say the very things that are found distasteful to the defender. I would agree with Charlie that while I accept someone has the right to say what they want (that's the defending bit), I wouldn't be willing to actually stand in the way of the consequences of them saying things that I find abhorrent.


We've already established that you and others would stand by and watch mob or vigilante justice unfold because they used words you did not like.

We've already established your principles, which are nothing short of double standards.

So yes, the question remains, while someone is getting beaten for saying something you find abhorrent, what do you do? Stand there and watch?
edit on 27-1-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Quaint...
But...
...Well... Pardon me, that won't be happening.


Not from my end anyways...

If you want to die for your racist outbursts...
Or your xenophobia, homophobia, or any type of incessant hatred... You crack on, pal...
That's your decision, good luck fighting the good fight, hehe...

But no, don't expect me and my sword/gun to drop a single persons blood to defend you while you do so...
You do so at your own risk.

Capiche.
Comprende.
Overstand me, sir/madam...



Aside from a couple of demographics, you're are the lowest common denominator of the low...

You are, politely putting it, scumbags.

You don't deserve good people to put their life and limb at risk for your "right" to be an arsehole of the highest calibre...


Differing opinions are welcome, and ironically I'll defend your right to a different opinion to the death...
Just not those who cross the line between human, and divider...

Quite a conundrum to say the least.
But not cryptic enough to confuse.


Good day.




But not cryptic enough to confuse.


Can you explain that one Charlie, for the people that obviously are confused?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: uncommitted


You truly honestly have no understanding of the quote that formed the introduction to this OP, it seems many do not. It's not allowing or not allowing someone to die, it's about defending someone's right to say the very things that are found distasteful to the defender. I would agree with Charlie that while I accept someone has the right to say what they want (that's the defending bit), I wouldn't be willing to actually stand in the way of the consequences of them saying things that I find abhorrent.


We've already established that you and others would stand by and watch mob or vigilante justice unfold because they used words you did not like.

We've already established your principles, which are nothing short of double standards.

So yes, the question remains, while someone is getting beaten for saying something you find abhorrent, what do you do? Stand there and watch?


Which bit of my post did you not understand, T's and C's prevent me from using my right to free speech around your comprehension, but good grief you are so blind in your own opinion.

The quote about defending to the death is the concept of the right to say what you want - and I believe that is measured with as long as you accept what the consequences may be. Where you keep dredging up this idea of someone else dying as a consequence I do not know.
edit on 27-1-2016 by uncommitted because: typo



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NeoSpartan


Differing opinions are welcome, and ironically I'll defend your right to a different opinion to the death...
Just not those who cross the line between human, and divider...

Quite a conundrum to say the least.
But not cryptic enough to confuse.


Accepting differing viewpoints to the death, but not willing to defend someone abhorrent to the death is the conundrum...

But it should not be enough to confuse people into believing I want people dead.

Just that I'm not willing to risk life and limb for the abhorrent...
I would for mere disagreement though.

I welcome differing viewpoints because it's how I've learned for 28 years.
Differing viewpoints ranging from foreign policy to domestic discourse...

When someone crosses the line between human interaction and absolute division is where I put my morals to the forefront.

I can't explain any better than that.
edit on 27-1-2016 by CharlieSpeirs because: Spelling.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs





Just that I'm not willing to risk life and limb for the abhorrent... I would for mere disagreement though.


So what is your definition of abhorrent? Can you give an example?


You said "xenophobes".

So who are they at risk from? You say you don't want them dead but you certainly seem to think other people you know of do.


Are the "strangers" going to kill the "xenophobes", confirming their worst fears and proving their point?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Everyone has the right to voice their opinion on matters without fear of violent retribution.

The sum of your argument is such that you will not defend the autonomy of another human being, if you disagree with the contents of their mind.

There is a difference between concepts and actions.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted



Which bit of my post did you not understand, T's and C's prevent me from using my right to free speech around your comprehension, but good grief you are so blind in your own opinion.

The quote about defending to the death is the concept of the right to say what you want - and I believe that is measured with as long as you accept what the consequences may be. Where you keep dredging up this idea of someone else dying as a consequence I do not know.


I understood all of it, and besides being slightly incoherent, I didn't agree with anything of what you said.

I'm not sure if you missed it or if you are just deaf in your comprehension. But "good grief", Charlie Brown, looks like I'll have to explain it better for you. I was speaking about a hypothetical scenario before you plucked it out of context to serve your own strawman. A fellow poster and I were discussing what would happen if someone was being killed for saying something racist, whether we would stick up for them. He said "No". I said I would.

And then you say this:


It's really not that hard, sheesh, the quote or sentiment it encapsulates is hardly new, is it? If what you are saying is that saying anything, whether it is intimidatory, intended to incite violence or similarly seeking to impose with threats your worldview on another - you have the right to do so, you also have the responsibility to accept what the consequences may be. If that is really too difficult to understand then perhaps you are in the wrong thread.


Sheesh, perhaps you are in the wrong century. You're indirectly arguing in favor of the use of force for retaliation for speech, as if in some twilight zone that sort of punishment fits that sort of crime. Yes, I would risk my life for a bigot if he is being harmed for what he said, if his rights are being forfeited by someone else, because they lack the wit to deliver a comeback. I value life more than I value someone's feelings, even my own. I vehemently disagree with you, and I think your position is particularly ugly.

The consequence of speaking out against the church was once to be burned at the stake. The consequence of speaking out against the Nazis was the death camp. The consequence about speaking out against Islam is a fatwa. Are those the consequences we should accept? Violence is not the consequence of free speech, but is the consequence of violent and stupid people. You have the responsibility—no, the duty—to accept that.

edit on 27-1-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: spelling



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Charlie, I may disagree with you on this particular nuance... but you just keep right on going and doing what you're doing.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: nullafides


Are we to believe that you feel there should be laws designed to punish those who say or speak of unpopular things?


No, nullafides... Just no.

I didn't even allude to laws once in this thread.

Others have put those words in my mouth ad infinitum...
But I won't chew those words because I never said them.


Fair enough, my friend



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Charlie, I may disagree with you on this particular nuance... but you just keep right on going and doing what you're doing.


There was bound to come a time where we disagreed, Kali...

Being that I'm such a contrarian I'm surprised it took over 2 years.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

When he said this;

"Racism and homophobia are politically correct nowadays lol".

Which is clearly one of the dumbest posts I have ever seen......

EVERYTHING is under attack, and special kinds of attacks by people who think only they can defind what racism is, and how to define those that have a distaste for gay people perhaps, riled people up, because things are nowhere near as simple as the OP suggests.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: mamabeth


a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The only things restricting me from speaking my mind...
1.Political Correctness
2.T&C rules.


How on Earth does political correctness restrict you from speaking your mind?



How does it NOT restrict you ?

The entire idea of it, the ENTIRE PREMISE is about RESTRICTION.

What sort of schooling does one need to be trained into thinking with this bizarre slant on the world ?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
We've learned some things here today:

1). Only Governments are required to adhere to "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".

2). Some would not risk their lives for these rights, especially if it was for someone we did not like.

3). Saying something is cause for dire consequence, such as loss of job, ostracization, and maybe even death.

3). We defend the human rights only to those we like, and who are nice to us and other people.



5). We want to make this look like we are allowing free speech, but secretly want to ban the ideas and thoughts of those we consider wrong, BECAUSE they are inherently wrong and there is no in between or other grounds in any of these areas.

6). We know what is best for everyone and we are pissed off about it, and WE will decide what can and cannot be said, and what can be considered SPEECH, anything that does not adhere to our EXACT principles and what we think should be hated, will not be considered speech and we will scream it down, and claim that our screaming and vitriol is to protect us from the FREE SPEECH.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DBCowboy

First they came for the racists and nobody gave a toss...

Then they came for the homophobes and nobody gave a toss...

Then they came for the paedos and nobody gave a toss...

Then everybody else lived happily ever after.

Until somebody close to YOU is identified as a racist, homophobe, or paedophile. THEN your perspective would change, I guarantee it.

But people such as yourself tend to believe that all of the above are always easily identifiable and that you could never be related to or associated with people like that.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: uncommitted



Which bit of my post did you not understand, T's and C's prevent me from using my right to free speech around your comprehension, but good grief you are so blind in your own opinion.

The quote about defending to the death is the concept of the right to say what you want - and I believe that is measured with as long as you accept what the consequences may be. Where you keep dredging up this idea of someone else dying as a consequence I do not know.


I understood all of it, and besides being slightly incoherent, I didn't agree with anything of what you said.

I'm not sure if you missed it or if you are just deaf in your comprehension. But "good grief", Charlie Brown, looks like I'll have to explain it better for you. I was speaking about a hypothetical scenario before you plucked it out of context to serve your own strawman. A fellow poster and I were discussing what would happen if someone was being killed for saying something racist, whether we would stick up for them. He said "No". I said I would.

And then you say this:


It's really not that hard, sheesh, the quote or sentiment it encapsulates is hardly new, is it? If what you are saying is that saying anything, whether it is intimidatory, intended to incite violence or similarly seeking to impose with threats your worldview on another - you have the right to do so, you also have the responsibility to accept what the consequences may be. If that is really too difficult to understand then perhaps you are in the wrong thread.


Sheesh, perhaps you are in the wrong century. You're indirectly arguing in favor of the use of force for retaliation for speech, as if in some twilight zone that sort of punishment fits that sort of crime . Yes, I would risk my life for a bigot if he is being harmed for what he said, if his rights are being forfeited by someone else, because they lack the wit to deliver a comeback. I value life more than I value someone's feelings, even my own. I vehemently disagree with you, and I think your position is particularly ugly.

The consequence of speaking out against the church was once to be burned at the stake. The consequence of speaking out against the Nazis was the death camp. The consequence about speaking out against Islam is a fatwa. Are those the consequences we should accept? Violence is not the consequence of free speech, but is the consequence of violent and stupid people. You have the responsibility—no, the duty—to accept that.


See the piece I have placed in bold. You keep misconstruing and attempting to make what I (and others) have said something to fit what you would like to have been said to allow you to continue your argument. If, in the UK, someone uses 'free speech' to make for example speeches inciting others to violence based on another group of peoples ethnicity, and are considered a credible threat, then they face arrest and prosecution. I (albeit grudgingly) support the right of the person to use free speech, but I also support the fact that the speech is subject to those consequences.

Of course, the concept of free speech is closely linked to that of a democratic society. To use examples from the middle ages church or Nazi Germany is not really relevant, neither is North Korea or Zimbabwe - if you think they are indeed relevant, then good for you.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted


I would agree with Charlie that while I accept someone has the right to say what they want (that's the defending bit), I wouldn't be willing to actually stand in the way of the consequences of them saying things that I find abhorrent.


Then you are not defending them.

A person shouldn't face violence because they said things someone didn't like.

If someone has stupid ideas, reason with them.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


In principle I agree entirely with the saying - but I certainly would not stand alongside The Westboro Baptist Church, Islamic Extremists, Abortion clinic protesters or Pedophiles and defend them if they were being attacked or were threatened with being shot for their opinions.
This is the crux of it - would you literally give your life for Scum like that, and I agree with you Charlie, I don't think I would.
However, if those groups and their free speech were targeted then where would it stop?
The whole "They came for the communists" comes to mind.

In theory and philosophically I agree entirely with the premise of it - in reality, I'd find it difficult to lay down my life for abhorrent and disgusting people.
I'd offer up my life in several instances and for a few reasons and different people - but the likes of people I mentioned above? then sorry but no.
edit on 29-1-2016 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Not related to the comment this was directed at, but I have another question. Do you see a line in the sand, of self destructiveness, whereby you would see my view? Meaning, if someone is voicing their opinion, however valid, in a setting where it is an invitation for violence (none-condoned), would you still wish to protect the individual? You already know my less than utopian answer, and i actually feel no shame, perhaps to my detriment, but I honestly see it as common sense (a term usually used by the right to justify wrongness, so i see the connotations), and from what I know of you you are very sensible, and becoming one of my favourite posters. I would value your answer.



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
The way I see it, a person who stands for freedom of speech and expression would, by definition, fight and perhaps fall in teh fight, for everyone, no matter their views to express them. Fighting and dying for the individual, the opinion they hold, or anything related, is not a part of it. By all means say what you wish, but go to Nottingham and shout 'n-word's are scum, and you are personally inviting vitriol.

Same goes for going to soho and calling them faggots, though they don't give a crap.

(Wow, ATS auto corrected my typing of n i g g e r s. Free speech needs the fight brought here, if anywhere.)
edit on 29/1/2016 by Learningman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join