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

a reply to: mamabeth

You played the victim card in a round about way.
You can deny it all you like but people's reading comprehension must be severely lacking if they can't gauge what you were trying to say.

I want everyone to exercise their 1st, on racist, homophobic, misogynistic, allodoxaphobias, etc and express them selves the best they know how. No one wants to censor anyone....just don't be a crybaby when you are called out on your ignorant BS. It's so common for the racist to whine play the victim and then try to call their detractors in turn racists as a defense mechanism. Lame and transparent BS!

And I will exercise my my rights to logically and forcefully expose your ignorant and low trashy behavior and thought processes.

The only allowed racism is coulrophbia.

a reply to: NeoSpartan

I don't know, but it would be instructive as would his definition of just exactly what constitutes such an outburst.

After all, then we'd know which of us are on his list.

a reply to: ketsuko

Horse puck. Why is everything you don't agree with "tyrannical" or "despotic"?

Jeez.

He's blowing off steam and realizing his own mental strengths. Maybe a little less projection/categorization/pigeon-holing would be helpful, eh?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What's interesting is that many would defend your right to say what you want. Regardless how they feel about your ideology.

Would they though?
Really and honestly?

So when I start calling for Sharia Law and the masses rise up to put an end to the radicalism you'll be there to defend my life?


I heartily laugh at such an assumption.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The thread title is an often quoted (but not actually a) Voltaire quote designed to give off the impression of valour and honour and bleeding for ones enemies... I've often seen it quoted or paraphrased and it's a political ideology I disagree with. No, there will be no killing or threats. That I know of. But if there is, oh well.

Right. The way I see it you got fed up with the current sentiment on ATS and now you are making veiled threats.

I guess you can only keep up the charade of being "moderate" for so long.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NeoSpartan

I don't know, but it would be instructive as would his definition of just exactly what constitutes such an outburst.

After all, then we'd know which of us are on his list.

In this case, as always, if the shoe fits wear it.

I can't help but feel that when people mention racism it's always the same posters who knee jerk as if it's an attack on them.

Stop projecting. And pigeonholing yourselves.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

THAT would require uncorruptable law enforcement ...but it is a nice thought...of course we COULD shoot them over here but I imagine the law might get a tad antsy.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What's interesting is that many would defend your right to say what you want. Regardless how they feel about your ideology.

Would they though?
Really and honestly?

So when I start calling for Sharia Law and the masses rise up to put an end to the radicalism you'll be there to defend my life?


I heartily laugh at such an assumption.

When your speech infringes on my rights, then it stops being free speech.

You are aware of the difference, aren't you?

originally posted by: NeoSpartan
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The thread title is an often quoted (but not actually a) Voltaire quote designed to give off the impression of valour and honour and bleeding for ones enemies... I've often seen it quoted or paraphrased and it's a political ideology I disagree with. No, there will be no killing or threats. That I know of. But if there is, oh well.

Right. The way I see it you got fed up with the current sentiment on ATS and now you are making veiled

threats.

I guess you can only keep up the charade of being "moderate" for so long.

That's because you must be a persistent victim of people's words.

First decrying what you didn't comprehend and now assuming I must be a radical because I won't die for the people I've highlighted.

You know, people say "you" generically as well as to point fingers.

If I was talking about ATS members I'd say it. Loud and proud.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe you should go read it again.

Those lines as written basically advocate for the forcible removal of groups from society in the name of forming Utopia.

That's the very sort of reasoning Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others like them used to justify their own mass killings.

If we just remove this or that group ... then everyone left will be happy. It's for the greater good.

I can't help it if you would prefer to ignore the implications.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

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

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NeoSpartan

I don't know, but it would be instructive as would his definition of just exactly what constitutes such an outburst.

After all, then we'd know which of us are on his list.

In this case, as always, if the shoe fits wear it.

I can't help but feel that when people mention racism it's always the same posters who knee jerk as if it's an attack on them.

Stop projecting. And pigeonholing yourselves.

Well, are you or are you not the person who wrote this:

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.

So in this case, I think it's very relevant to know what the definitions are so that I can know if I need to be worried that they're coming for me or not.

After all, I'd like to see this Utopia you're "removing" all those undesirables for.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

WAIT if YOU call for shariah law in England then you ARE at a stage of radicalization.
I have NO WAY of knowing you as a man but I wouldn't see a lady treated that way,I'M fine with hanging around Jews and pagans.
I AM aware of the decadence and bad we all know.
THAT is the west. YOU don't HAVE to do it too but I won't embrace Islam ,who are as equal as any is to me.
Unless you start demanding things of me.
I SHOULD be there to fight and die if you are a man of unity ,SURE why not I'm not all that busy lately anyway.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What's interesting is that many would defend your right to say what you want. Regardless how they feel about your ideology.

Would they though?
Really and honestly?

So when I start calling for Sharia Law and the masses rise up to put an end to the radicalism you'll be there to defend my life?


I heartily laugh at such an assumption.

When your speech infringes on my rights, then it stops being free speech.

You are aware of the difference, aren't you?

Yes I am.
What's the difference in me saying I want Sharia Law (argumentatively not literally) and some racist saying "lesser races should be slaves" or that Gay people "shouldn't be allowed to wed"...
They're also an infringement of rights eventually...

And they're precisely the sort of things I was talking about in my OP.

Too bad the victims popped up affronted by my freedom of speech.

Just so we're clear, now I've elaborated... you wouldn't defend my right to free speech to the death.
Why didn't you say that in your first post instead of being caught out.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

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.

Then you should have no problem when people criticize your religion for the exact same reasons.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

First decrying what you didn't comprehend and now assuming I must be a radical because I won't die for the people I've highlighted.

No because you are obviously threatening with violence, be it by proxy. The message is clear.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: NeoSpartan

I don't know, but it would be instructive as would his definition of just exactly what constitutes such an outburst.

After all, then we'd know which of us are on his list.

In this case, as always, if the shoe fits wear it.

I can't help but feel that when people mention racism it's always the same posters who knee jerk as if it's an attack on them.

Stop projecting. And pigeonholing yourselves.

Well, are you or are you not the person who wrote this:

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.

So in this case, I think it's very relevant to know what the definitions are so that I can know if I need to be worried that they're coming for me or not.

After all, I'd like to see this Utopia you're "removing" all those undesirables for.

Are you a racist, homophobe or paedo...

I've never seen anything to suggest that you are but if you feel obligated to pigeonholing yourself who am I not to believe you when you're so insistent on taking offence to it?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So you decide to use your free speech to advocate that no one else should have it? Fine. Bit hypocritical of you though.

a reply to: ketsuko

No need to read it again. You're determined, because of the poster, to twist what he's saying, metaphorically, into your normal "despotic/tyranical/totalitarian" cliched nonsense ...

... unless of course you're advocating for racism, homophobia and pedophilia?