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

Oh look !

People jumping into this thread taking the words from Charlie's opening post and twisting them and turning them until they become upside down and inside out.

*yawn*


Don't worry about Charlie, you have no need to defend your words.

Some of us actually are capable of comprehending the entire context of your original post, while others... not so much.

It's become the standard modus operandi around this place these days.



And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...

(funny, I seem to be singing that song in my head alot while reading ATS lately)

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

I haven't even mentioned the 1st Amendment...
Now you've moved on from making things up, well no you haven't because you made that up as well, but you've now moved on to American Exceptionalism as if you're the only Nation where freedom of speech is defended.

Good going, kets.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

He didn't "link to it" ... he responded to having it foisted in his virtual face as if he were somehow advocating for genocide in ANY WAY.

You're merely trying to twist what he said and shut him down.

SO much for "dying for free speech" eh?

#wherestheslopbucketimgoingtobesick

a reply to: ketsuko

How much you read doesn't help when you make an incorrect assumption, and in this instance you did.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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.

No, that's what Niemoller was talking about in his quote. You didn't satirize it. Niemoller was expressing regrets that he did not, in fact, die or risk death trying to stand up for those groups.

You made it quite clear that you would not, in fact, do so. So if the police came tomorrow and tried to haul off your neighbor for being a racist, bigot, or homophobe, you made it clear you would not care. You would stand back and let it happen. Now, your feelings for your neighbors notwithstanding as I have no idea whether they are or are not racists, bigots, or homophobes, would you try to stick up for them if they were about to be hauled off?

Maybe you would or maybe you wouldn't. The context of the Niemoller quote is that he knew his neighbors were innocent and hauled off and he stood by and let them go, and so when his turn came and he was wrongly hauled off, there was no one left who might have stood up for him.

So would you be Niemoller or would you stand up for them?

originally posted by: CranialSponge


And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...

(funny, I seem to be singing that song in my head alot while reading ATS lately)

Perhaps that's because some folks have the same silly complaints stored in their "cut and paste" file.

Doesn't matter what the topic is ... "despot" "tyrant" "Mao's Little Red Book" "Alinsky" bleech.

CTRL - V

LOL.

Oh look, a promising debate becomes a partisan jab-fest. I'll tally up the stars and let you know who wins.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

No, I responded to the flow of the thread.

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?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

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

Of course I will ..

a reply to: CranialSponge

I really hate to say this...not all of us are deep thinkers.
It is unfortunate that I have to include myself in that
category.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

So in that scenario you would not defend free speech right ?....

a reply to: Kali74

Lawsuits...my son was threatened with a lawsuit for something he said
on another site.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe he can answer my question first.

But hey, if you want to die for defending him, be my guest.

I sure won't be helping you when they come to kill you.........

a reply to: ketsuko

So would you be Niemoller or would you stand up for them?

I would be myself and do exactly as I said in the OP and subsequent posts.

That was clear on page one before Niemoller was quoted.

That you didn't get the satirical nature of my response is not my fault though.
British humour is far and above though. /sarc

a reply to: Kali74

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

Take Nobel Laureate Sir Timothy Hunt, who made a benign joke during one of his speeches, and was subsequently demonized to the point of losing his fellowship and job. Or the rocket scientist forced to tears because of the manufactured outrage at the shirt he wore. There was the case of the two men who were making "dongle" jokes behind a feminist, and one of them, a man with a wife and children, lost his job because of it. Ayan Hirsi Ali once made comments about Islam, and because of it, was a denied an honorary degree because a small outraged minority demanded it.

Why would anyone speak their mind if this is the consequence?

So now people who want others to be respectful toward them is somehow bad?

Let's conduct a survey, how many non-PC people would defend another person who walked up to a fat person and started ridiculing them for their weight in public.

Who in their right mind would defend the person ridiculing instead of the one who is being ridiculed?

Like I've said before, the non-PC movement was started by the MSM and their bull# rhetoric, I would hope a site such as ATS would recognize bull# when they see it. Not any more, we toe the line and hold up their rhetoric as just and true.

What an embarrassment this thread is. SMDH

You want me to answer your first question...

Here goes, again...

originally posted by: NeoSpartan
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

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.

What are you saying, who is going to die over "racist outburts" and "xenophobia"?

Who is going to do the killing while you look the other way? Anyone you are aligned with?

Is this a threat?

1) No I'm not saying that.

2) No one is.

3) No it is not.

a reply to: ketsuko

There was no implication what-so-ever on Charlie's part that he was calling for anyone's death. Is it really that hard to stick with the topic? Disagreeing with him on one issue means you're going to paint him with other brushes? It's not a complex notion he put forward.



Is it really impossible for some people to disagree without becoming bratty little children?

"Danny pulled my hair!!!
and then he took my gum
and then he kicked my shin
and then she said a swear!!!!!!"

COME ON!

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

So in that scenario you would not defend free speech right ?....

No. I would not defend someone trying to kill me or calling for my death.