squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
But some feel the level of risk was a tad greater than the 'genuine' offence takenPrestwich_Blue said:
I'd also like to know who's going to decide what is genuine and non genuine offence
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Shootings in Paris
- Thread starter Wio Gumflapdinand
- Start date
I'd also like to know who's going to decide what is genuine and non genuine offence
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
Rascal sounds like scargillRascal said:foetus said:Goalmole rhymes with troll. Coincidence?
Foetus sounds almost like Facist
JoeMercer'sWay
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:That's NOT the argument though. We all pretty well agree, I think, that we have no intention of going back to the days of condemning people to death for blasphemy. The argument is about whether one person's right to say what they want doesn't over-ride the responsibility to ensure it doesn't cause genuine offence to others. And that they recognise there might be an element of risk in saying it.JoeMercer'sWay said:goalmole said:After following this thread for a while, I have come to the sudden realisation that the argument for unlimited free speech is less about free speech and more about "how dare these Muslamics tell us what to do".
no it isn't.
It's about people having to the right to think and say what they want, and not be murdered for it.
Hardly a difficult or controversial concept.
Well, some people have hardly been convincing on the issue of retaliatory measures....
plus, there's a difference between calling people deliberately offensive names to their face about things they have no control over, and publishing a cartoon about something you might believe in.
In terms of religion, it's a very slippery slope in terms of being seen to prefer/condone 1 religion over another in a political sense, plus, beliefs are not a direct attack on anything a person cannot do about (i.e. physical characteristics), so again it's a different level and issue entirely.
If you can't accept people poking fun at your beliefs, then rather than getting moody and murdering people you should perhaps seriously question and analyse what they really are and what they mean, and thus understand and accept why people can poke them.
You choose to believe in things, therefore you should be prepared to defend them, prepared to debate them, prepared to accept other people don't agree, think you're stupid and would like to poke fun at them.
TCIB
Well-Known Member
Rascal said:foetus said:Goalmole rhymes with troll. Coincidence?
Foetus sounds almost like Facist
Rascal sounds like "conglomerate neo nazi loving advocate with extreme right wing views and a penchant for mugging old ladies".
Bit to much of a coincidence for my liking boss.
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Rascal said:foetus said:Goalmole rhymes with troll. Coincidence?
Foetus sounds almost like Facist
Makes a change from you calling someone a racist I suppose.
Still boring as fuck mind!
D
D
dronefromsector7g
Guest
Sounds more like Pastille. He's a bit fruity.worsleyweb said:Rascal sounds like scargillRascal said:foetus said:Goalmole rhymes with troll. Coincidence?
Foetus sounds almost like Facist
foetus
Well-Known Member
I find this offensive! Does this mean I can go out and kill people? Or is it only acceptable if I'm religious?Rascal said:foetus said:Goalmole rhymes with troll. Coincidence?
Foetus sounds almost like Facist
Rascal
El Presidente
blueinsa said:Rascal said:foetus said:Goalmole rhymes with troll. Coincidence?
Foetus sounds almost like Facist
Makes a change from you calling someone a racist I suppose.
Still boring as fuck mind!
Please show me the evidence of where i call somebody a racist.
Boring is as boring does.