Originally posted by Starhawk
LOL Don't tempt me. Religion is also one of the biggest problems of our time.Hate Speech can lead to mass violence, beatings, and killings.
So you agree that we should ban religion to keep 'violence, beatings, and killings' to happen over idealogical differences? Actually, we should outlaw every type of thinking but yours to avoid conflicts.
Originally posted by Starhawk
No, unfortunately religion is allowed to run free, huge mistake that it is.But as I have said time and again in Canada we've outlawed hate speech and suffered no ill effects to our society as a result. We are proof that it can work.
Religion and extremism are not the same thing. Religion does not preach hate it's extremists that do.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Religion breeds hate all the time. We've had wars because of Religion.
No we haven't had wars because of religion, religion has sometimes been a contributing factor.
I'm not talking as far back as the crusades by the way, which incidentally is one of the reasons extremists feel robbed. I'm also not sure what religions you are talking about because I'm certain no wars have happened due to Buddhist conflicts.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Christian and Islamic.
Not just the crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the Salem trials, it's the excuse for allot of terrorism in the world today, partly the reason for the IRA. The KKK is a christian organization.
The Spanish inquisition had ulterior motives such as more power, money and weakening the opposition. The Salem trials were not a war. I've already explained the fact of extremists to you, if all the Islam followers were terrorists the western world would be down the pan. The IRA were fighting for Ireland to become a republic. Also the KKK would find an excuse to to persecute and torment, Christianity or no.
My argument for religion not being all bad is that think of the positive effects of its teachings, a lot of people are that scared of going to hell that they abide a strict moral code, without this we could have less religious extremists and more psychopaths.
Originally posted by Devil King
Indeed. People who are against this legislation are pissed because it represents equal considerations of homosexuals under the law. So, what happens after that? The "slippery slope" on the other side of the argument is that this will eventually lead to gay marriage being legalized. They just don't have the balls to admit it.
I am all for gay marriage, and equal rights to gays, and still very much against this law.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The thing is, all this fuzzy commitment to free sppech evaporates pretty damn quick when people start to incite the mmurder of blacks or mass terrorism, and then these things happen. THEN people want to speakers silenced because people are dying as a result of their hate-filled vicious rhetoric.There is homophobic incitement that is killing homosexuals. Those who think the right to make this incitement is above the right for those beinbg targetted to be protected by stopping such incitement have entirely lost their moral compass.
People hold up Freedom of Speech as this ultimate, unquestionable good. Bolllocks. Speech can be used for heinous uses as bad as any crime we legislate against. It can be legislaatively prevented also.
In any case, total freedom of speech has never existed anywhere, and a good thing too.
There is of course a difference between being able to say whatever you want whenever you want including asking other people to kill some group of people for you and just saying that, that particular group is morally wrong. The last one you should definitely be able to do, no matter how ignorant it might be.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Our liberty is just fine, we simply realize that some limitations are necessary for public safety. Unlike you, I don't think in extremes, you can have limitations on freedom without losing your liberty.
Yes you can, limiting people's ability to ask others to start violent acts for instance. However saying that nobody should be able to say being Gay is wrong, or that homosexuality is a sin against god is limiting freedom of speech without a good reason and that should never happen.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Religion has caused much more suffering over the course of history. but as long as it does not teach hate speech there's nothing I can do about it.I am against organized religion, not all religion.
So you think we should ban religions like Christianity and the Muslim faith as both their holy books preach violence against none believers and woman...
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No we haven't had wars because of religion, religion has sometimes been a contributing factor.
I'm not talking as far back as the crusades by the way, which incidentally is one of the reasons extremists feel robbed. I'm also not sure what religions you are talking about because I'm certain no wars have happened due to Buddhist conflicts.
Look at Thailand, Muslims and Bhuddist are fighting there. Look at India and Pakistan a conflict started because of Muslim and Bhuddist population groups.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Actually, the IRA were also trying to drive out people who didn't share their religious beliefs as well.And I never said the Salem trials were a war, merely suffering caused by organized religion.
Extremists may not represent religion, but they are a by product of it.
By products can be a result of a lot. Politic groups have unwanted by products (sometimes wanted ones) such as lynching etc. There are many who argue that video games have violent by products.
We cannot outlaw something thats intention is initially to be good, no matter what the by products are. That in itself is extremism.
Originally posted by J-Beowulf
First of all, I never disclosed my opinions on homosexuality, and I do not plan to. I don't want to get involved.Second, I'll quote the article: "It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong."
To me (though I haven't read the actual legislation itself), that certianly sounds like they're telling people that they can't voice their distaste for homosexuality, does it not? Again, I'm not sure what the legislation itself says, bu the article certainly makes it seem as if it's banning any negative speech towards homosexuality.
Are you quoting the article, or the legislation?
Originally posted by Fishy
Look at Thailand, Muslims and Bhuddist are fighting there. Look at India and Pakistan a conflict started because of Muslim and Bhuddist population groups.
There is much more to those conflicts than that, such as countries boundaries etc.
This applies to the India and Pakistan conflict especially.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
By products can be a result of a lot. Politic groups have unwanted by products (sometimes wanted ones) such as lynching etc. There are many who argue that video games have violent by products.We cannot outlaw something thats intention is initially to be good, no matter what the by products are. That in itself is extremism.
I believe I already said, much to my disappointment that we can't outlaw religion.
Originally posted by Fishy
That is true of course, but that doesn't mean that the Bhuddist religion is one of complete peace, it simply isn't.
True, though it by no means teaches hatred. It really is a shame that religious teachings can be taken out of context and lives are lost as a result. But, I still believe that those who take the teachings as moral and spiritual, and not in-sighting violence deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Well we know it is a liberal thing and I doubt it if they are going to go through it.This not only takes our freedom of speech away but other stuff as well.
The goverment as way too much power as it is.And after I read the book I could see that happening in the nearby future so it is pretty scary stuff.
I wonder if the writter just got the date wrong?Maybe he met 2084 or something close to that/JM