OFFICIAL Election Thread

6xks0Ubbvfwwjb9dDu0PROnAo1_500.png

 
So you think everyone should be coerced into thinking a certain way? Everyone should be forced to fully accept all the lifestyles that others lead? We might as well throw freedom of thought and expression right out the window. Hell, we might as well put a torch to the Bill of Rights while we're at it. Who made you the decider of what the right and wrong way to think are? You're so quick to call bigotry on anyone who doesn't fully accept the gay lifestyle, yet you fail to understand the basic definition, Bigot:

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Notice how its says utterly intolerant and how it does not say unaccepting. In the same way that religious people should tolerate gays, gays should tolerate the views of those who are religious. No one should be coerced into fully accepting the lifestyles or views of another. Everyone is free to think as they like, if you don't like that, take it up with the Supreme Court. We don't need thought police like you, you're only perpetuating the same ignorance you're trying to fight.

 
See, the fatal flaw in all reasoning like the bullshit you just spewed is that it extends to the most heinous, deplorable "perspectives" imaginable. Racism, sexism, religious discrimination, discrimination against people from certain regions, people who speak certain dialects, all of it is open season. No, there are some modes of thought that decent human beings are willing to say, "If you believe this, if this is your perspective on how things are and how they ought to be, you are a poor excuse for a person." That is not bigotry, and to try to imply that it is, that somehow the persecutors of groups of people subject to oppression for centuries are somehow the victims, is despicable. I have lost count of the times on this forum that you should be ashamed of yourself.

Bigotry is not an "opinion" worthy of anyone's protection. And if you took it up with the Supreme Court where I live, they'd agree... R. v. Keegstra.
 
You just love to twist around everything I say that you don't agree with. As I've said on here in the past, its everyone's right to think as they like. Acting upon those thoughts in a manner that causes harm to others, however, is completely unacceptable and should be dealt with harshly. And to compare someone who believes in the traditional view of marriage, to someone who actively persecutes those who are oppressed, is completely wrong. Granted, there are bigots in the extremes of that camp. However, more often than not thats the exception and not the rule.

I personally think communists and communism are deplorable. Does that mean I should force them to think as I do? The answer is no. People should have free access to information, and from there be able to make up their own minds as to what they think. We as a society can denounce people with heinous perspectives, make them look like fools, and make them the outcasts that they are. However, it is not within our rights to deny their freedom of thought if they do not act upon causing direct harm to others. Taking that right is denial of the universal rights provided by the First Amendment. Or are we to say that not all people are given that right?

According to the Supreme Court decision of the National Socialist Party of America vs. the Village of Skokie, "The First Amendment makes possible what Justice Holmes called "a marketplace of ideas" where all views can be expressed whether they were popular or not."

 
no you've lost me, whats wrong with making sure that you're doing honest journalism, (which i think Mathews is saying). He want's to make sure that this administration works, i don't think he's talking about being overtly deceptive as a journalist in the manner of hiding the wrong that a President does. He's just saying that the media has tremendous influence on the population of the United States, and that the way the media does its job will impact the success of the new presidency.

I'm confused by Scarborough's last point, do you really think that we ought to believe that the Obama presidency is going to be just as corrupt and vile as the Bush presidency is, and that we should be just as skeptical of him as we are of Bush?

I think that you need to cede some sort of charity to the new guy, and not apply the same stereotypes that the previous administration earned for themselves.
 
Just want to get this out of the way: communism is deplorable? In the context of the discussion we're having, re: persecution of minorities, you bring up communism? Seriously? It's an economic theory that doesn't work, but there's nothing inherently moral about it on a theoretical level, nothing "right" or "wrong", unless you consider it fundamentally immoral to collectively agree to pool resources, which is fairly ludicrous... even more ludicrous if you not only hold that principle of morality but equate it to depriving an identifiable group of basic human dignity. Don't be a nutjob, this is an ethical problem, not a monetary one, stop thinking about your damned bank account for ten seconds.

On to substantive matters.

Of course people are free to think as they like, and even if they weren't, thought isn't something government has unfettered access to, so you're being dramatic and nonsensical simultaneously. However, people who hold and express certain beliefs should be castigated. Racism is an example. If we can come to common ground on that point, the only argument is what set of beliefs falls within that category. I see no difference between hating someone, or rejecting someone, or thinking less of someone for their sexual orientation than for the colour of their skin. If the latter makes you a bad person, and I'm not even going to leave it open for discussion that it does, then the former should as well.

Your jurisprudence on freedom of expression is hopelessly inadequate in the USA, the product of an outdated constitutional framework that allows for abominations like RAV v. City of St. Paul.
 
You have no idea what a slippery-slope policy it is you're arguing for. I've seen it first-hand, when at 14 I was charged with a hate crime I never committed based only on what the "victim" said.
 
Argument by anecdote is completely irrelevant... particularly this anecdote, which reveals an evidentiary problem and not a problem with the law itself, unless it was drafted in such a way as to a) remove the requirement for reasonable and probable grounds before charging someone with an offense or b) places the onus on you to prove that you didn't commit said hate crime. In either of those cases, that law's unconstitutional too. See, that fun little piece of paper prevents slippery slopes, too!

By the way, "slippery slope" is, it's universally agreed, a fallacious mode of argument.
 
If only it did, such policies like the one you argue for can be hijacked and used by the ever increasing number of activist judges(who are increasingly left-wing). Thats exactly what happened to me, I had to prove I was innocent because I was being "castigated".
 
(\That is once again not a problem with my position, nor any theory, but

with specific judges who may or may not actually exist (I do not have a

difficult time imagining that your perspective on your particular

situation might be just a little bit biased). Up here, ss. 318-319 of

the Criminal Code of Canada works just fine, thanks, and has for

decades now...

Hate Propaganda







Advocating genocide



318.



(1)

Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable

offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[...]

Public incitement of hatred



319.



(1)

Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites

hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely

to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2)

Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private

conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group

is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(Defences and definitions omitted)
 
I'll have you know my position is not biased. Even with witness testimony saying that I was innocent, I was told at the probation office that it would be a really bad idea to try and defend myself. In addition to that, the school district was being sued by this same "victim" for being discriminatory. Its dangerous what judges can do when they have the power to interpret and implement these laws in the way that they see fit.
 
what it boils down to is that the only permissible bigot you can be or the only hate you ought to have is to be a bigot of bigotry or a hater of hate.

 
Right, look, I don't know what happened in your situation, all I have is the defendant telling me his side of the story (and yes, whether you're right or wrong, you're as biased as anyone else who's charged with a crime is), so I'd just as soon ignore your anecdote and repeat what I said before: if you had a judge who failed to perform his duty, that's a problem with him, not with anti-hate speech laws, which work fine in many jurisdictions. If your system gives rise to untrustworthy judges, that again is a problem with the system. I'm not going to claim Canadian judges have a perfect track record either, but generally when a judge screws up the superior courts manage to fix it...
 
^I don't know how someone with 12 posts could form an opinion on that unless you're an alias, so this is your callout: post that shit under your normal user name and stand behind your words. Like this:

Drew you're the most arrogant person on this website. You know how I know? Because I know everything.
 
The T-word occupies a special niche in

literary history, however, thanks to a horrible mistake by Robert

Browning, who included it in 'Pippa Passes' (1841) without knowing its

true meaning. 'The owls and bats,/Cowls and twats,/Monks and nuns,/In a

cloister's moods.' Poor Robert! He had been misled into thinking the

word meant 'hat' by its appearance in 'Vanity of Vanities,' a poem of

1660, containing the treacherous lines: 'They'd talk't of his having a

Cardinalls Hat,/They'd send him as soon an Old Nuns Twat.' (There is a

lesson here about not using words unless one is very sure of their

meaning.)
 
we dont see eye to eye on this.

IMO the job of a journalist is NOT to make this administration successful.

his job is to report the god dam news, if the rain is fucking red, tell it like it is. hahahaha

unless he is a commentator or something along the lines of that.
 
when was the last time the news REALLY reported the news though...

its all so goddamn sensationalized
 
Please.

There's a difference between telling it like it is, and being a dishonest partisan hack.

I agree with you, you tell it as it is, but how is Scarborough's point valid? Bush and Obama are two completely different people, the skepticism we have of the Bush administration should have no bearing on how we interpret the decisions of the Obama administration. As i said, Bush earned that sort of doubt, all for himself.

 
yes.

if obama does something to warrant that same doubt, then he deserves it. but until he does such....
 
Yeah, I hate it when people talk about the conservative or liberal "slant" of the media - that gives them way too much credit. They're ideological whores; they'll sell whatever we'll buy.
 
what sort of bias do you think that Fox news correspondent Karl Rove has? I bet he's pretty much in between
 


The Dead Fish Wrapper Watch

Exposing Liberal Bias In The Oregonian

seems legit to me. no spin at all. no agenda. none
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top