The Liberalists

[BobKowalski]

No but that's flawed and completely unworkable. Not only is it not immature, the system you're talking about is a justification for intellectual laziness.

Let's take an extreme example and say that I post a Hitler quote where he gives the benefits of socialised medicine.

Somebody with my views would then take that and argue that he's right and that socialised medicine is a good thing.

Someone with your view would suggest that Hitler is a **** so don't listen to him. Which is a completely pointless thing to add. What your opinion is of the character of somebody is totally irrelevant to whether socialised medicine is a good idea or not.

There's a reason this is called the ad hominem logical fallacy - because that's what it is; completely fallacious thinking.

And you dressing this up as some sort of "trust relationship" is bollocks. I don't trust Adolf Hitler but that isn't to suggest that literally everything that Adolf Hitler says was wrong. That's as stupid as thinking that every single thing he said was correct, a sort of reversed type of demagoguery.

People you don't like can say things that you agree with. Their points are separate to their morality. It's amazing that you have to be told this.

Oh god. We’ve bought Hitler into this. Abandon all hope.

Look I get you are determined to prove that ‘bad’ people can say ‘good’ things but here’s the thing. I already know this. Everyone fucking knows it. Objectively I can agree with anyone who says ‘free speech’ is a good thing but I do not take that statement at face value if I distrust the source. I look for the catch. I look for what may not be as advertised.

But you mentioned Hitler and socialised medicine. So yeah big fan of socialised medicine. Health care for all. Yay. What could possibly be wrong with that. Except of course socialised medicine as defined by this particular gentleman doesn’t mean health care for all does it? It’s not health care for the Jews. It’s not health care for the physically disabled. It’s not health care for the mentally ill. No for the disabled ‘socialised medicine’ means ‘euthanasia’. It’s for the good of society right? We all want socialised medicine right? Well this is the price.

And there is always a price that’s going to bite someone in the arse if you are stupid enough to buy from an absolute c**t. And boy are you buying a lot of shite from a lot of c**ts.

Always and I mean always look at who you are buying from. Don’t just look at what they are selling.

The guys you quoted in your OP are selling you ‘free speech’. So what’s the fucking price?

 

[Damocles]

Oh god. We’ve bought Hitler into this. Abandon all hope.

Look I get you are determined to prove that ‘bad’ people can say ‘good’ things but here’s the thing. I already know this. Everyone fucking knows it. Objectively I can agree with anyone who says ‘free speech’ is a good thing but I do not take that statement at face value if I distrust the source. I look for the catch. I look for what may not be as advertised.

But you mentioned Hitler and socialised medicine. So yeah big fan of socialised medicine. Health care for all. Yay. What could possibly be wrong with that. Except of course socialised medicine as defined by this particular gentleman doesn’t mean health care for all does it? It’s not health care for the Jews. It’s not health care for the physically disabled. It’s not health care for the mentally ill. No for the disabled ‘socialised medicine’ means ‘euthanasia’. It’s for the good of society right? We all want socialised medicine right? Well this is the price.

And there is always a price that’s going to bite someone in the arse if you are stupid enough to buy from an absolute c**t. And boy are you buying a lot of shite from a lot of c**ts.

Always and I mean always look at who you are buying from. Don’t just look at what they are selling.

The guys you quoted in your OP are selling you ‘free speech’. So what’s the fucking price?

But here's the key difference. When I say "these guys have got good ideas", I don't mean "you should abandon everything and now vote for these guys". I'm saying "these guys have got some good ideas".

Voting is a fudge, ultimately and nobody on the planet will represent your viewpoint perfectly if you're not a moron who follows a trend. The discussion about whether they have a good idea or not is irrelevant to whether you personally find that idea good enough to sacrifice all the things that you disagree with them upon. That's a personal choice differs from person to person.

To mirror what you said everybody fucking knows that single issue parties don't exist. You pointing that out in every thread where you dislike the person saying it is boring and repetitive.

It's yet another fallacy of binary thinking. The idea that because you think some views from a person are worth discussing then ultimately you must support every view that person holds. That's ridiculous. Nobody is that stupid, why do you presume other people are?

 

[lust overlord]

The televised media have a lot to answer for in terms of giving people a proper platform to air their views.
I'm tired of interviewers,when faced with the likes of Robinson,immediately accuse him,more or less of being a **** because of the views he holds.

I know he's a **** but I want to hear the **** make a **** of himself when he articulates his views and the solutions he has.

Instead we get him backed into a corner from the off and his "supporters" pushed ever more behind him.

 

[BobKowalski]

But here's the key difference. When I say "these guys have got good ideas", I don't mean "you should abandon everything and now vote for these guys". I'm saying "these guys have got some good ideas".

Voting is a fudge, ultimately and nobody on the planet will represent your viewpoint perfectly if you're not a moron who follows a trend. The discussion about whether they have a good idea or not is irrelevant to whether you personally find that idea good enough to sacrifice all the things that you disagree with them upon. That's a personal choice differs from person to person.

To mirror what you said everybody fucking knows that single issue parties don't exist. You pointing that out in every thread where you dislike the person saying it is boring and repetitive.

It's yet another fallacy of binary thinking. The idea that because you think some views from a person are worth discussing then ultimately you must support every view that person holds. That's ridiculous. Nobody is that stupid, why do you presume other people are?

But the question is. Why those guys and ‘their good ideas’? In the words of Mrs Merton ‘What attracted you to reactionary wingnut Paul Watson?

You see my sceptism of Paul Watson et al and their motives also applies to you. You are keen to dismiss the back catalogue of Paul and his chums yet you are quite keen to rag on say Senator Elizabeth Warren whose back catalogue of misdeeds seem to mainly consist of over egging her heritage.

It doesn’t stack. You don’t stack. To repeat. I ain’t buying what you are selling and no amount of rent a quote guff about the ‘fallacy of binary thinking’ is changing that especially as all you fucking do is display binary thinking. You might as well post using 1’s and 0’s it’s so fucking binary.

 

[BobKowalski]

The televised media have a lot to answer for in terms of giving people a proper platform to air their views.
I'm tired of interviewers,when faced with the likes of Robinson,immediately accuse him,more or less of being a **** because of the views he holds.

I know he's a **** but I want to hear the **** make a **** of himself when he articulates his views and the solutions he has.

Instead we get him backed into a corner from the off and his "supporters" pushed ever more behind him.

I just like the moments when we get the whining self pity about being silenced. You’re on fucking telly mate. You’re on so fucking often you might as well have a fucking series. Strictly Come Racist on a Saturday night. Fun for all the fucking family.

 

[Damocles]

But the question is. Why those guys and ‘their good ideas’? In the words of Mrs Merton ‘What attracted you to reactionary wingnut Paul Watson?

You see my sceptism of Paul Watson et al and their motives also applies to you. You are keen to dismiss the back catalogue of Paul and his chums yet you are quite keen to rag on say Senator Elizabeth Warren whose back catalogue of misdeeds seem to mainly consist of over egging her heritage.

It doesn’t stack. You don’t stack. To repeat. I ain’t buying what you are selling and no amount of rent a quote guff about the ‘fallacy of binary thinking’ is changing that especially as all you fucking do is display binary thinking. You might as well post using 1’s and 0’s it’s so fucking binary.

Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage and I mentioned that in a post asking why Trump was attacking Elizabeth Warren. You've blown that put of proportion again and make a crap point.

But you've nailed it accidentally. You are "suspicious" of my views because I don't fit cleanly into one of your boxes in what a left or right wing person should say. It confuses that I'm taking widespread left wing positions on some issues and widespread right wing position on others. Because my views are determined by independently looking at something and judging it on its merits rather than blindly following "where I should be".

It fucks with your worldview. And makes you think that I'm secretly right wing or something, because as you've admitted a few posts up in this thread, you don't take people at their word and instead are looking for angles that they're playing.

What a depressing world you must live in.

 

[Damocles]

Oh good.

The return of blasphemy laws.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1036685/european-court-human-rights-religion-insult-crime-islam

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the woman, known only as Mrs S, was convicted by a lower court in Vienna for disparaging religious doctrines and was ordered to pay a 480 euros fine plus legal fees.

She appealed the decision and her case as thrown out by the Court of Appeal in the Austrian capital as well as the country’s Supreme Court.

The 47-year-old from Vienna was reported to have held seminars in which she made the blasphemous comments while debating the marriage between Mohammed and Aisha, a six-year-old girl.

The girl, who was one of the Prophet’s 13 wives, became an important figure in Islam but was only six-years-old when they married.

The marriage is said to have been consummated when the girl was aged just nine.

In one of her seminars, Mrs S is reported to have said: “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”

She also said Mohammed “liked to do it with children”.

She was convicted for insulting the religion in February 2011 by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court and yesterday the ECHR upheld their decision.

Man, I sure missed them.

 

[squirtyflower]

Oh good.

The return of blasphemy laws.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1036685/european-court-human-rights-religion-insult-crime-islam



Man, I sure missed them.

Fucking ridiculous
The insane have truly taken over the asylum

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Oh good.

The return of blasphemy laws.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1036685/european-court-human-rights-religion-insult-crime-islam



Man, I sure missed them.

Whatever ones view is on the subject, I did think it was interesting that the Express have chosen to make it into a story about Europe in general and the the ECHR in particular. On the one hand, we are constantly being told that ‘Europe’, in all its forms (ECHR, ECJ, EU) is busy interfering in everything and it is a disgrace. They then uphold a judgement made in three separate Austrian courts, including the appeal court and the Supreme Court, which had convicted the woman of disparaging religion.

"The ECHR recognized that freedom of religion did not exempt people from expecting criticism or denial of their religion.However, it found that the woman's comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate."

 

[Henkeman]

Whatever ones view is on the subject, I did think it was interesting that the Express have chosen to make it into a story about Europe in general and the the ECHR in particular. On the one hand, we are constantly being told that ‘Europe’, in all its forms (ECHR, ECJ, EU) is busy interfering in everything and it is a disgrace. They then uphold a judgement made in three separate Austrian courts, including the appeal court and the Supreme Court, which had convicted the woman of disparaging religion.

"The ECHR recognized that freedom of religion did not exempt people from expecting criticism or denial of their religion.However, it found that the woman's comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate."

Well, the point there is that it's for the Austrians to decide what laws apply in Austria. But the ECHR judgements have force across Europe and outside Austria. But specifically for this one, I'd reserve judgement until there was more than a Daily Express article about it.