Racial slur as man calls Welsh woman "English"

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Articulate and intelligent?

That is exactly what I was thinking when you started using the n-word on this forum.

I don't think we are getting anywhere with this are we?

Gimme a break?

I think we all need a break!

We all agree racism is wrong.

I put the right to punish racist abuse before the right to free speech.

You put the right to free speech before the right to punish racist abuse.

We differ on our views. We will probably never agree on that issue.

But no matter.

Thank you for sharing your views so honestly and passionately.

I respect your right to free speech even though I will never defend it.

[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

reply to post by skibtz


Are you saying that it's inappropriate to use the word n*gger when in a debate about racism?

I'm not sure I agree with that. If there were ever a time to use it, it would be in this debate, wouldn't you agree?

edit: I had to change the word itself otherwise the site sensors would have changed it to a more impotent form of the word.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Rasobasi420]

reply to post by Rasobasi420


I have already stated in a previous post that the use of the words being debating is acceptable. I wouldn't use them myself.

Intelligent and articulate Rasobasi.

Unlike most of your posting on this thread, your use of the n-word was neither.

I believe I used the word when referring to my childhood, and it's ample use against me.

The only other time I used it was when referring to its use in debate.

That aside, you still seem to be ignoring the fact that what is deemed offensive is subjective arbitrary. Being so, it's not the governments place to judge that for everyone.

reply to post by Rasobasi420


I made my position perfectly clear in my post before last.

I showed you respect and humbleness. You ignored all of it.

Now you choose to carry on your crusade.

Are you waiting for me to say 'Yeah. You know what Rasobasi? I have been blind all these years! You are so smart. And so right. And you know what else? I'm gonna join the BNP and spread the word cos the BNP aint racist. They just want free speech!'

You don't know when to quit. Let's do this this til the end of the world Rasobasi because you have just proven to me that I was absolutely right to stand up to people like you in the first place.

p.s. If you do visit london dont go shouting the n-word about you might get a surprise.

[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

You showed no such respect or humbleness. After I made the point to show the history, international law and perspective on this subject, you accused me of not having an original thought in my head.

Then, after what I perceived as a off the cuff insult by saying that using a specific word in the discussion of racism showed neither intelligence nor articulation, I attempted to bring the thread back to it's original topic.

I was looking for a response to a question, and it could be from anyone, but you happened to be the guy who posted just before me. If you feel that there's nothing to be gained by this discussion, then by all means stop posting. I think that there aside from myself, there may be others who feel that this thread continue on with differing viewpoints.

Good Day Sir!!!

And please point out where I went around shouting the n-word?

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Good Day Sir!!!

We have only just started Rasobasi420.

Now to the point (i have added the choice of answers to aid your speedy response)...

I know that this is going to be very difficult for you do Rasobasi420 but please try. Humour me. Stick to a Yes or No answer (although feel free to add comments as to why you selected your answers):

The man racially abused the woman in public? Yes/No

The woman felt she was racially abused? Yes/No

The man should have the right of free speech to racially abuse the woman in public? Yes/No

Everybody is entitled to claim the right to free speech when racially abusing another person in public? Yes/No

As an aside, could you please explain to me why you think that our society is entitled to free speech?

edit: added the 420 to your name. It was rude of me to miss it off even if it was unintentional.
[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
And please point out where I went around shouting the n-word?
[edit on 11-12-2007 by Rasobasi420]

I'm going to London next month and don't want to upset anyone with an offhand comment

I was simply offering you some words of advice.

Chill.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
it's not the governments place to judge that for everyone.

Oh. What are the government there for?

Quickly. Go wikipedia government and see what it actually means.

I do think that the government is there to represent the opinion of the majority of the public.

The fact that the government decrees racial abuse as a crime can be translated as the majority of the country believe racial abuse to be a crime.

The voice of the people.

It is beautiful is it not that a majority of the UK think racism is abhorent and the use of it is a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment.

It fills me with joy



[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by skibtz
The man racially abused the woman in public? Yes/No

Although I would personally define racism in another way, for the sake of this post Yes

The woman felt she was racially abused? Yes/No

Yes

The man should have the right of free speech to racially abuse the woman in public? Yes/No

Yes

Everybody is entitled to claim the right to free speech when racially abusing another person in public? Yes/No

Yes

I'll point out that if life were just yes and no, we'd all be in a lot of trouble. But since the world is many subtle shades we need to be careful not to think in such simple terms as black and white.

As an aside, could you please explain to me why you think that our society is entitled to free speech?

I consider freedom of speech and expression to be one of those fundamental rights that is beyond government control. It's basic communication. It gives the people a means to know and learn more than what is allowed by any empowered government.

Once said government has the ability to control which words are allowed and which words aren't we open ourselves up to a whole onslaught of precedent, and legal leeway that can lead to the complete degradation of the right that we started off with.

I start to see the cracks when the term 'offensive' starts to be thrown around. I'm sure she was offended. I know that I'd be offended if I were called English. But once it's illegal to offend someone we have music taken off the shelves and paintings pulled down from walls.

Hell, the US has attempted to use the 'clear and present danger' exception to free speech to stop protesters from handing out anti war flyer's. I know there's a problem with yelling fire in a crowded theater, but I'd almost be willing to let that slide if it meant there was no chance of another one of those politicians taking it a step further.

And that's the hit I'm willing to take for it. Toughen up, they're just words.

It was rude of me to miss it off even if it was unintentional.

No worries, people call me Rasobasi all the time. Or you could call me Ras.

reply to post by skibtz


Well, Oscar Wilde once said
“Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.”

And I'd tend to agree

Originally posted by Beachcoma
I notice people take offence to being called their neighbour. For example, Canadians don't like to be called American, Australians don't like to be called Kiwis and the French don't like to be called Germans.

Amusing, isn't it?

V. Late in this thread, but just had to point out that the French have most issue with the Belgians, not the Germans.

Still, I doubt the French like being called Germans either, or any other race for that matter. I'm sure the french minister of culture would have a few things to say about it

Well I just got done reading this thread and it was a very entertaining 2 hours

It seems some 'Roast Beef' is upset that some 'Yank' or maybe a 'Cnut' is defending some 'Paddie's' right to call some 'sheep shagger' English in public.

How f'in ridiculous can you get. Good job the 'frogs', 'krauts' and 'spics' didn't sign up for this thread.

I'd suggest that national tribalism is the route of all the world's problems or at least those that religion doesn't account for!

As for governments legislating what words are hateful and which aren't, hello 1984, goodbye common sense and society regulated by basic human decency.

Originally posted by RogerT

It seems some 'Roast Beef' is upset that some 'Yank' or maybe a 'Cnut' is defending some 'Paddie's' right to call some 'sheep shagger' English in public.

That about sums it up. But lets specify that Yank (me) as a jiggaboo (most ridiculous slur I could find) to round it out nicely.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Rasobasi420]

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Sorry to break it to you, but in the Westminster-derived legal systems of this world both "thought" and "action" are required for a crime to have been committed.

actually not a fair assessment, a hallmark of our system has been to deal with people's actions, not thoughts

Actually, an exact assessment. Any high school kid can tell you that for a crime to be committed both intention and action are needed.

Which is why we have "manslaughter"...

I knew the manslaughter reference would be made by some- it is a mute point

The word you're looking for is "moot", mute means something very different. Besides which, the point is neither moot nor nonsense, you have just failed to understand it. There is no such thing as SUPER MURDERS.

This is the problem when people take the logical manslaughter/murder distinction and pervert it to this new "hate crime" agenda.

Only for those who don't understand the original point.

So, all those people bleating about Eric Arthur Blair's "Thought Crimes" becoming a reality can take a deep breath and get down off their soapboxes.

odd, when you have just admitted the sentencing involved a thought crime

Way to completely misunderstand the point.

Thought crimes have always existed. Whether they are "conspiracy to commit" or "incitement" or "racial abuse".

This is a quantative difference- people can THINK that the English are lower than the Welsh (they would never have been prosecuted for such thoughts), but if they were to INCITE hatred by saying "I CALL FOR ALL WELSH PEOPLE TO ATTACK ENGLISH PEOPLE", then this isnt "thought" but incitement- totally different

And what is incitement but the criminalisation of thought? I'm pretty sure that Hitler didn't personally physically assault any Jews on Kristalnacht. All he did was express a thought. Much as King Henry did about the Archbishop of Canterbury, was it his fault that three eager-to-please young men decided to "rid him of that turbulent priest"?

Not so long ago the majority of peole resident below the Mason-Dixon Line thought it was no crime to murder blacks and their "Yankee" white supporters. Not so long ago Aborigines weren't even Australian citizens and the citizens never gave it a second thought. Not so long ago it was official government policy in Rwanda for "cockroaches" to be exterminated and the Interahamwe thought they were doing their patriotic duty.

This sideshow has nothing to do with the sensible debate at hand, if you want to get ridiculous fire away

I don't think any of these situations are acceptable.

I don't think rape is acceptable, nor murder, now back to "hate " crimes and "thought crime

Yes, let's have a look at "hate crimes"...

Not so long ago it was official government policy in Rwanda for "cockroaches" to be exterminated and the Interahamwe thought they were doing their patriotic duty.

Now, how did you put it, ahh that's right

This sideshow has nothing to do with the sensible debate at hand, if you want to get ridiculous fire away

So, exactly which part of the Interahamwe is not a hate crime and which part is ridiculous?

I also don't have a problem with racial vilification laws in a system of free speech.

I do, I defend the right of someone to have the most idiotic views

Don't remember saying they couldn't.

, but I dont think that airport girl should have been jailed for her idiotic poems

Really, I could have sworn you said something about

this isnt "thought" but incitement- totally different

Should she be foolish enough to use the word "Yuon" on the streets of Australia, she could well end up in a similar situation to our foolish truckie.

they should be permitted to have idiotic thoughts and use words which offend you- people should get over it

When you know what the word means, then discuss it. It is of zero offence to me, except for my intelligence. But say it to a Vietnamese and see what the reaction is.

Unless you happen to see a former camp guard walking down the street. He/she doesn't get to leave their past behind...

Whether one can leave their past behind or not is no business of yours, and nor should it of the state, too many nosey people playing God

Uh, huh. Okay, then you have no problem with former Totenkopf living next door? Engage brain, then post.

See many "camp guards" walking down the street btw? How do you spot them?

Usual method has been for survivors to see their former captor/torturers walking down the street and then phone the cops.

Such laws will ultimately be repealed, as people get fed up with such oppressive state intrusion-

Somehow I don't think the Geneva Convention will be repealed.

As for "nosey people playing God" and not letting people leave their pasts behind, the ECCC is currently holding five suspects, all charged with Crimes Against Humanity, some charged with War Crimes and at a future date some may even be charged with Genocide.

As for "walking down the street", that's exactly what they were doing...

www.expat-advisory.com...

He was arrested on November 12, 2007 at his home in Phnom Penh

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by skibtz


The kind of cliched sh*t you do not have an answer for obviously.

Popsy?

Is that a typo?

[edit on 11/12/2007 by skibtz]

ironic, given that you made no effort to respond to my points, but just resorted to debate surpressing "wah wah racist" crying

Good work popsy!

[edit on 12-12-2007 by blueorder]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Actually, an exact assessment. Any high school kid can tell you that for a crime to be committed both intention and action are needed.

An exact assessment in the sense that that phrase means "not exact"- the only "intention" really relevant is that one is of sound mind (and in the case of murder premeditation)

The word you're looking for is "moot", mute means something very different. Besides which, the point is neither moot nor nonsense, you have just failed to understand it. There is no such thing as SUPER MURDERS.

you knew the meaning, so cease your pretentious waffling, okey doke.

You are advocating "SUPER MURDER"- man murdered on bus because he asks some piece of vermin to stop throwing chips around receives less justice than some man kicked to death by thugs on a rampage who used the word "faggot"- elevation of victims is EXACTLY what you bring to the legal table

Only for those who don't understand the original point.

you mean those who shine a light on the idiocy of the original "point"

Way to completely misunderstand the point.

black is white now yes

And what is incitement but the criminalisation of thought? I'm pretty sure that Hitler didn't personally physically assault any Jews on Kristalnacht. All he did was express a thought. Much as King Henry did about the Archbishop of Canterbury, was it his fault that three eager-to-please young men decided to "rid him of that turbulent priest"?

Again you simply do not understand- more cretinous Hitler references. Your Hitler reference is particularly idiotic as he incited Jews to be murdered- if he was joe bloggs who made a comment "I hate Jews", however idiotic, he should not be punished, if joe bloggs said "I hate Jews and call upon people to gas them", then that would be incitement.

Referencing Hitler in your crude attempts to justify thought crimes is an insult to those gassed in concentration camps, well played Sir

Yes, let's have a look at "hate crimes"...

Not so long ago it was official government policy in Rwanda for "cockroaches" to be exterminated and the Interahamwe thought they were doing their patriotic duty.

Now, how did you put it, ahh that's right

This sideshow has nothing to do with the sensible debate at hand, if you want to get ridiculous fire away

So, exactly which part of the Interahamwe is not a hate crime and which part is ridiculous?

Because you simply do not understand the difference between having and saying a bigoted/stupid thought/comment and incitement- the Rwanda case was incitement and action, someone saying "i think hutus are twats" is a thought, however idiotic, but not a crime. Again, shame on you for referencing the butchered rwanda million in an attempt to shore up your thought crime agenda, again top marks Sir

I do, I defend the right of someone to have the most idiotic views

Don't remember saying they couldn't.


in defending these "hate" laws you are, people are investigated for saying racial, religious, sexual offensive comments, even though they are not incitement.

Really, I could have sworn you said something about

this isnt "thought" but incitement- totally different

err what, the airport girl had stupid thoughts, and toe cringingly bad poetry, but there was no incitement

Should she be foolish enough to use the word "Yuon" on the streets of Australia, she could well end up in a similar situation to our foolish truckie.

they should be permitted to have idiotic thoughts and use words which offend you- people should get over it

When you know what the word means, then discuss it. It is of zero offence to me, except for my intelligence. But say it to a Vietnamese and see what the reaction is.



I don't give a # if it means the same as "'n-word'" or "fag"- and I dont treat a vietnamese any different from another human, they get the f uck over it

Uh, huh. Okay, then you have no problem with former Totenkopf living next door? Engage brain, then post.

Firstly, an odd and unlikely example, and secondly, sod all I can do about it, nor you, if he/she abides by the law- some ex communists are in positions of power in the UK govt, but hey ho, have to move on eh

Usual method has been for survivors to see their former captor/torturers walking down the street and then phone the cops.

so not you, goodo

Somehow I don't think the Geneva Convention will be repealed.

Our hate laws are nothing to do with the Geneva convention, they are recent laws, do keep up there

As for "nosey people playing God" and not letting people leave their pasts behind, the ECCC is currently holding five suspects, all charged with Crimes Against Humanity, some charged with War Crimes and at a future date some may even be charged with Genocide.

Excellent, I hope all abusers, be they communist, nazi, islamist whatever get the due process of law- I am referring to hate crime (thought crime) laws in the UK

As for "walking down the street", that's exactly what they were doing...

www.expat-advisory.com...

He was arrested on November 12, 2007 at his home in Phnom Penh

en.wikipedia.org...

focus, this is about hate laws / thought crimes- recent introductions to the UK legislation

[edit on 12-12-2007 by blueorder]

Originally posted by blueorder
ironic, given that you made no effort to respond to my points

You made some points?

debate surpressing

Are you tidying up with 'phrase of the day' loo roll?

A good debate, plenty of questions, many answers. Debate surpressing?

You are paranoid my friend.

popsy

There it is again. Does that word actually mean anything?

[edit on 12/12/2007 by skibtz]

reply to post by blueorder


Why do you consider the verbal abuse of a person a public a thought crime?

Does this mean that you consider all racial attacks to be thought crimes?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I consider freedom of speech and expression to be one of those fundamental rights

That's fair enough. Sometimes I do wonder whether the human race is entitled to something so powerful.

When I look at the current state of affairs, war for oil, governments murdering their own people, third world countries left to die et al, I don't see how we can ask for anything when most of us should probably be looking at ourselves to start giving more to the people who need and giving up things that have a detrimental effect on our environment, both immeidate and global.

As far as I can see, all that would happen if free speech was introduced tomorrow would be an increase in 'hate/thought' crimes and no real, tangible benefit to humanity.

Some of the greatest thinkers, writers, scholars, artisits and other enlightened individuals, and indeed groups of people, have been born in to a world of harshness, tyranny, repression and control. It did not stop them becoming great, influential people whose lives have been an inspiration to millions of people.

Everybody should be accountable for their actions as well as their words. Indeed, we do live in a society where we can, in actual fact, say anything we wish. Although the fact is that you will be held accountable for your words and actions. Just because you have the right to offend someone does not mean that you should. And, indeed, if you do offend someone then you should expect retribution.

What is the worth of free speech if it can't be questioned. If it can't be held accountable for consequences of it's actions?

Anarchy is unacceptable considering the current global, war-mongering climate that we live in.

Unfortunately total freedom is a million miles away while the hate continues to spreads like a cancer.

I appreciate I sound hypocritical when I say I hate hate but hey ho, it's a sometimes confusing world we live in.

[edit on 12/12/2007 by skibtz]

[edit on 12/12/2007 by skibtz]