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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just because I took the context of his parallel into account ... and you chose to ignore it.




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do I really need to explain .....



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




Hypothetical scenarios are not a threat.


You mean threats veiled by a supposed hypothetical scenario are easy to deny.

Why are you coming up with a hypothetical scenario involving the death of people saying things you don't like in the first place?

I don't see the function of it, besides making threats.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




I've never defended Hadith, on ATS or in the real world.

That free speech could one day make me a target, hopefully you'll be there to protect my cowardly self.


Indeed I would. How else can we know evil if we do not allow it to speak?


A fair point.

But again, I'm not advocating for a global culling, nor even legislation...

Here is an example I'm sure you won't be obtuse to...


There is a skin head group intimidating a young African American boy/Mexican girl/insert minority with racial epithets...

The abused pulls out a 38. and slugs one of the Neo Nazis...

Will you be diving in front of that bullet?
Will you be drawing as well to take down the abused?


Good for you if you would.

My point is that I wouldn't.

That's all I've said in this thread.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz




Do I really need to explain .....


You can attempt to, but I somehow doubt you could.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
No you assumed Charlie wanted to conduct an experiment where population cleansing takes place, you took it a little far, It was an incorrect assumption not an association you made.

a reply to: ketsuko



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Um, no. You connected it to the first amendment which is the context of the quote you used about defending to the death your right to say it.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

Correct me if i am wrong but i believe that freedom of speech does not cover personal threats...


If i am wrong there you absolutely have the right to call for my death..i just would not agree,nor defend your position..


Now i dont suppose you could answer the first question i asked you....thx


It was concerning Sharia Law, wasn't it?

If I am gay and someone wants to push for a religion that kills gays, then I would see it as a direct threat on my life and I wouldn't necessarily defend someone who wants to kill me.

But that's human nature.

I'll probably never defend anyone who wants to kill me.

Guess I'm just morally flawed and not enlightened.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

OK



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

There's an ignore button? Where where?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

That's a strange example. Free speech is, according to John Stuart Mill, the freedom to express one's opinions freely, not the freedom to intimidate others. There is no such freedom, and free speech does not entail intimidation.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't mirror it I put a satirical spin on it to highlight the point I was making...

"They" came and "no one gave a toss" is not at all the same as me advocating for a war cry to hunt people down in the dead of night.

You guys pulled that out of nowhere.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

To be fair, I could understand hesitation due to fear, or failure to act. Not everyone is able to react in bad situations or will know how they will react.

However.....deciding that if you know someone is in there, and that you know them to be someone you don't like means you shouldn't make an effort.....is premeditation.

Murder.

You have a fellow human being who needs help or they'll loose their life.

If they die because fear over took you.....that's life and it happens.

If they die because you decided they were not worth saving.....what does that say?

Every life is precious and unique. No mater what their ideas and beliefs are.

Deciding that someone is not worth saving simply because of the ideas and beliefs........seems just as bad as those that have the ideas and beliefs that you do not care for.

Something to think about.....and I certainly hope you are never put in that situation.....both for your sake and the person that needs saving.

The exception being paralyzed with fear for you're own life. That's normal.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just because I took the context of his parallel into account ... and you chose to ignore it.



Just because you will always attempt to compare those you think are "left" with despotstyrantsyadayadayada.

Beyond all that ... Charlie actually EXPRESSING his FREE SPEECH HERE ... and what are you and the rest of the Red Team doing?

Trying to shut him down, or make it seem as if he's saying something he ABSOLUTELY ISN'T.

You're all merely proving the utter hypocrisy of the platitude he's excoriating.

CHARLIE HAS FREE SPEECH AS WELL, NO?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

At one time ATS did have an ignore button.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

If that's not the assumption he wanted to make, then he should not have linked to a quote that was about population cleansing.

I guess when you read as much as I do, you remember the context and make connections that give connotations. Someone used Niemoller which carries its history and meaning quite clearly, and Charlier made a play on it which furthered that notion that he would be happy to see the cleansing carried out.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
Charlie, didn't your parents ever tell you not to poke a hornet's nest with a stick?

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: reldra

And you are exhibit #1 who will be happy to carry out Charlie's little experiment.

Just remove the people you don't like. And I'm sure after you've offed a few million all the rest will be perfectly happy.


That makes no sense, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I see a bunch of truth in the OP.

The fact is the right to speech does not preclude people from concluding someone is a d*ckhead. There are plenty of folks I disagree with that i would go to the mat for but not solely because of free speech.Those kooks at Westboro Baptist have a right to free speech but I wouldn't lift a finger to save them from drowning. That isn't godly or right but it is how I genuinely feel.

Guess we all get to carry our own bigotry.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: NeoSpartan
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




Hypothetical scenarios are not a threat.


You mean threats veiled by a supposed hypothetical scenario are easy to deny.

Why are you coming up with a hypothetical scenario involving the death of people saying things you don't like in the first place?

I don't see the function of it, besides making threats.


He hasn't threatened anyone or anything ... but you are clearly exhibiting slander.

Repeatedly.

Why?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join