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: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Was he arrested?

No.

End of...




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   


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 a lie. There have been countless books on the subject by respected authors.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So ... you'd like to silence all these "PC People" then ... ?

They shouldn't say these things or disagree with accepted dogma?

What's the solution?

(Notice the "?")



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74



Was he arrested?

No.

End of...


That's not free speech. End of...



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes it is.

Period.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



So ... you'd like to silence all these "PC People" then ... ?

They shouldn't say these things or disagree with accepted dogma?

What's the solution?

(Notice the "?")



I'd only show them how tyrannical and oppressive it is, and that it goes against fundamental liberal principles. Gulags, book burnings, heresy, blasphemy—free speech is the only defence against these tyrannies, and to throw that in the mud because someone made racist remarks, is the height of stupidity.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




Yes it is.

Period.


You're wrong. I'm sorry.
edit on 26-1-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: NeoSpartan
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.........



Yes, because you don't agree with what I'm saying ... you find it ... despotic or tyranical perhaps? No matter.

Your sentiment is EXACTLY what Charlie was remarking on in his OP!

He says it, it's a threat, yet, when you say the same thing, it's a proclamation of your independence?

The cognitive dissonance is at maximum here.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

This is not the question you didn't answer yet.....

But ok,




1) No I'm not saying that.


Well, you are suggesting someone is going to die over comments made.




2) No one is.


But you are suggesting someone is going to die over comments made, so there must be a killer.




3) No it is not.


It sure looks like a veiled threat or at least some form of vindication.

This is the question I requested you to answer;

Why come up with this "hypothetical" scenario involving the death of a racist or xenophobe? What is the function of it in relation to your OP. From what context did this idea originate?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And if that's what anyone was advocating for here ... I'd absolutely agree with you.

It's not. Charlie is stating that he will not die for homophobes, racists and pedophiles.

To contradict that, to diminish it ... to imply that such a statement is dangerous somehow ... is that not the actions of the very PC you're condemning?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




He says it, it's a threat, yet, when you say the same thing, it's a proclamation of your independence?


I never threatened or suggested the death of people because of an opinion they had, so, how is there any relation or comparison?

And so now it actually is a threat?




The cognitive dissonance is at maximum here.


Yes, and easy to see from which corner, or rather nook, it is coming.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: NeoSpartan
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

This is not the question you didn't answer yet.....

But ok,




1) No I'm not saying that.


Well, you are suggesting someone is going to die over comments made.




2) No one is.


But you are suggesting someone is going to die over comments made, so there must be a killer.




3) No it is not.


It sure looks like a veiled threat or at least some form of vindication.

This is the question I requested you to answer;

Why come up with this "hypothetical" scenario involving the death of a racist or xenophobe? What is the function of it in relation to your OP. From what context did this idea originate?








Here's a question before I answer yours...

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth when you've asked me a question that received a sincere answer?
Riddle me that.




Why did you...


Why does anyone post in the Political Ideologies Forum?

Boredom.
Something thought provoking.
Hoping to hear what others believe.

All of the above.


I need to go and eat now.

I'll be back later.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How am I wrong? What is free speech protected from according to the Constitution?



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




And if that's what anyone was advocating for here ... I'd absolutely agree with you.

It's not. Charlie is stating that he will not die for homophobes, racists and pedophiles.

To contradict that, to diminish it ... to imply that such a statement is dangerous somehow ... is that not the actions of the very PC you're condemning?


I am still unable to see how we should let people die for saying anything. The only justifiable punishment for words is more words. Take Charlie Hebdo, for instance. Yes, I think we should defend free speech with our lives. I think we should defend holocaust deniers even, as Noam Chomsky and Chris Hitchens did, at great cost to their careers.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74




How am I wrong? What is free speech protected from according to the Constitution?


Free speech has been around and argued long before the constitution.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: mamabeth

You seem highly ignorant, you ignore the OP and project your own ill will and issues upon the thread. I would also not stand up for those that oppose my view, admit they have the right, yes, but die for murderers, terrorists, paedophiles and hooligans? No chance. Get your head out of the sand and stop being such a predictable person, use your head, not what buzzwords you are taught to spin. Someone of your age should know better than to cause division for the sake of it, shame on you and yours.
edit on 26/1/2016 by Learningman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I see, you didn't, and are not going to answer that because you know I had you pegged straight away and there is no way to talk yourself out of it.

Just admit that you wrote this thread out of spite, and that you felt all vindicated, dreaming up this scenario in which your enemies are killed by others, likeminded folks, while you point and laugh.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I feel like a kid from divorced parents, mommy daddy could you stop fighting over dumb crap please



But in reality i don't give a crap anymore and perhaps society just need a purge day, meh



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Sometimes is just easier to let people say what they want or it ends up like this



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




And if that's what anyone was advocating for here ... I'd absolutely agree with you.

It's not. Charlie is stating that he will not die for homophobes, racists and pedophiles.

To contradict that, to diminish it ... to imply that such a statement is dangerous somehow ... is that not the actions of the very PC you're condemning?


I am still unable to see how we should let people die for saying anything. The only justifiable punishment for words is more words. Take Charlie Hebdo, for instance. Yes, I think we should defend free speech with our lives. I think we should defend holocaust deniers even, as Noam Chomsky and Chris Hitchens did, at great cost to their careers.


And yet, essentially you're condemning my stance not to run into the Chrlie Hebdo building and die with them...
Shouldn't that be my choice alone?

Not to mention that drawing a cartoon and overt hatred are not at all the same thing...
Do you still not see the direction the thread was intended for instead of the direction it was pushed by the perpetual victim card?




top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join