Society/Culture I support free speech, unless it offends me

[telsor]

It's really simple: if a man contributes to a pregnancy, he should accept the woman's opinion whether he likes it or not.

It affects her life a lot more than his.

Why does a woman have a choice on it affecting her life, but a man doesn't?

 

[wandering123]

Why does a woman have a choice on it affecting her life, but a man doesn't?

The man chose to stick it in there in the first place. He has to live with the consequences of that choice.

 

[telsor]

The man chose to stick it in there in the first place. He has to live with the consequences of that choice.

The woman chose to let him stick it in there in the first place. Why doesn't she have to live with the consequences?

 

[wandering123]

The woman chose to let him stick it in there in the first place. Why doesn't she have to live with the consequences?

She does live with the consequences. Do you forget that she is the one is pregnant? The one whose life is irrevocably changed whatever she chooses?

 

[AM]

The feminazi's are part of the five per centers. That is the 5% who have been sent to make out lives a misery.

Freedom of expression is a primary value. It should be protected except it rare circumstances such as vilification.

Unfortunately there are zealots who feel it's their life's work to ensure freedom of expression is limited to what they believe is acceptable.

I find it in the dying with dignity conversations where religious zealots ( mainly from the extreme right of the Catholic church) seek to control the agenda.

I would fight for the right of those who have a view regarding end of life decisions to follow their chosen path if it didn't accord with mine. Yet those very same zealots would fight to deny me my choice should it not accord with theirs.

We have to expose the five per centers and fight with every fibre in our bodies their intimidation and efforts to deny us our right to freedom of choice both in terms of speech and action.

All power to the arm of Brendan O'Neill and all who feel aggrieved by the five per centers.

 

[telsor]

She does live with the consequences. Do you forget that she is the one is pregnant? The one whose life is irrevocably changed whatever she chooses?

She has the choice of an abortion.

 

[telsor]

The feminazi's are part of the five per centers. That is the 5% who have been sent to make out lives a misery.

Freedom of expression is a primary value. It should be protected except it rare circumstances such as vilification.

I'd cover vilification in slander laws, just as I'd cover incitement to commit crimes under incitement laws.

Unfortunately there are zealots who feel it's their life's work to ensure freedom of expression is limited to what they believe is acceptable.

One thing I'd absolutely stomp on is people getting offended 'on behalf of' others. At best it's patronising, at worst it instills a victim mentality.

I find it in the dying with dignity conversations where religious zealots (mainly from the extreme right of the Catholic church) seek to control the agenda.

I think you'll find most charged debates have people like this on both sides. We just tend to notice it more when it's on the other side.

I would fight for the right of those who have a view regarding end of life decisions to follow their chosen path if it didn't accord with mine. Yet those very same zealots would fight to deny me my choice should it not accord with theirs.

It's the nature of the beast. Zealots on both sides think everyone should agree with them and will abuse/belittle those who don't because of a genuine belief that anyone who doesn't agree must be somehow mentally/ethically/morally inferior. You see it on these boards frequently.

 

[kfc1]

Wandering123's posts read like a who's who of anti-abortion catch phrases lol

 

[SpuriousPea]

You do know Adam Thrasher totally disowned those?

I think you mean Mustafa Al-Habib.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

...It's the nature of the beast. Zealots on both sides think everyone should agree with them and will abuse/belittle those who don't because of a genuine belief that anyone who doesn't agree must be somehow mentally/ethically/morally inferior. You see it on these boards frequently.

You see it EVERYWHERE, telsor. I try to be as fair-minded as I can be, but even I tend to think that my egalitarian views are far, far superior to those of the Far Right. I have a 'superiority complex' when it comes to certain political issues, and I think I can freely admit this. In truth, even though it goes so much against the spirit of free speech, I'd support resolutions that would take away the ability of the Racist/Nationalist Right to operate in the political sphere.

In a coldly intellectual sense, void of emotion, I know I'm not a complete advocate of free speech. I admit I fit right into the "I support free speech, unless it offends me" scope of this thread. The Far Right and its politics of exclusion offend me. The Religious Right and their politics of moral dictatorship do the same.

Of course, in a purely intellectual sense I'm almost as bad as these others as I'm seeking to exclude the politics of exclusion from the national agenda. But you know what?
I'm human. I have emotions. Even more than that, I have EMPATHY - the ability to share or recognize emotions experienced by others. Of course, empathy can only extend so far. I can understand and empathise with someone who goes to rallies and votes for an anti-immigration party because his brother was beaten and robbed by a Sudanese gang. I wouldn't like his chosen set of political values, but I at least would know how he arrived there.

You can deal with ignorance through education.

I can't empathise with someone who hates just on skin colour though. Or difference of religion. In my experience, that kind of thought process is very, very hard to undo. So my empathy only goes so far.

So yeah - I'm not a total free speech advocate. I never will be.

 

[GW982014]

You see it EVERYWHERE, telsor. I try to be as fair-minded as I can be, but even I tend to think that my egalitarian views are far, far superior to those of the Far Right. I have a 'superiority complex' when it comes to certain political issues, and I think I can freely admit this. In truth, even though it goes so much against the spirit of free speech, I'd support resolutions that would take away the ability of the Racist/Nationalist Right to operate in the political sphere.

In a coldly intellectual sense, void of emotion, I know I'm not a complete advocate of free speech. I admit I fit right into the "I support free speech, unless it offends me" scope of this thread. The Far Right and its politics of exclusion offend me. The Religious Right and their politics of moral dictatorship do the same.

Of course, in a purely intellectual sense I'm almost as bad as these others as I'm seeking to exclude the politics of exclusion from the national agenda. But you know what?
I'm human. I have emotions. Even more than that, I have EMPATHY - the ability to share or recognize emotions experienced by others. Of course, empathy can only extend so far. I can understand and empathise with someone who goes to rallies and votes for an anti-immigration party because his brother was beaten and robbed by a Sudanese gang. I wouldn't like his chosen set of political values, but I at least would know how he arrived there.

You can deal with ignorance through education.

I can't empathise with someone who hates just on skin colour though. Or difference of religion. In my experience, that kind of thought process is very, very hard to undo. So my empathy only goes so far.

So yeah - I'm not a total free speech advocate. I never will be.

I really appreciate this post. Well done.

 

[smokingjacket]

All power to the arm of Brendan O'Neill and all who feel aggrieved by the five per centers.

I'll put my faith in Brendan O'Neill's arm when he stops giving useless hypocrites like George Brandis a forum to batter the Labor Party on free speech when he's been part of two governments now that have curtailed our REAL freedoms. Not the freedom to call someone a non-Aboriginal welfare queen based on their white-ish skin, but the freedom from a totalitarian police state. Freedom for journalists to report on our governments work and intellectual freedom.

That interview with the Pol Pot and Stalin references made want to burl and I haven't seen an apology or criticism from Mr O'Neill yet for throwing his lot in with that half baked intellectual grub.

 

[scon]

wandering123 said: ↑
She does live with the consequences. Do you forget that she is the one is pregnant? The one whose life is irrevocably changed whatever she chooses?

She has the choice of an abortion.

Like which bread you choose at the supermarket eh mate??

 

[Contra Mundum]

Appeal to authority fail.

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”

Sounds like Utopia to me!!

 

[Collingwoodity]

This thread is hilarious.

The kid comes first. Kids need a father. If you do your load and become a father, you're responsible for it. Deal with it, the mother does.

You mean centrelink and the welfare system does.

 

[randyzany]

This thread is hilarious.

The kid comes first. Kids need a father. If you do your load and become a father, you're responsible for it. Deal with it, the mother does.

The kid comes first. Kids need a father.

Slightly off topic but given how gay couples are often touted as 'superior' to the traditional hetero model by some in the left, I just find it interesting that the father is essential in this situation.

If you point out the lack of a father figure for a child reared in a lesbian relationship for example, you're immediate labeled a small minded homophobe. lol

 

[Pie eyed]

Slightly off topic but given how gay couples are often touted as 'superior' to the traditional hetero model by some in the left, I just find it interesting that the father is essential in this situation.

If you point out the lack of a father figure for a child reared in a lesbian relationship for example, you're immediate labeled a small minded homophobe. lol

The line "a kid needs a father" is no less a throw away line of convenience than the meaningless "god given right" and no less wrong either.
Many, many millions of children have been raised by just a mother or just a father without any negative effects.
Many millions have been scarred for life, if the lived, by both mothers and fathers, or both.

These old wives tales which some put forward as "over arching truths" are nothing but bunkum.
Two parents are better than one in every instance whether they be Mum and Dad, Mum and Mum or Dad and Dad simply by weight of numbers.
More attention, more resources, more time, more love.

People say it's better to have christian parents..blah blah...well not if you are the kid getting fiddled by the priest.
It's all relative...to the facts.

 

[Geelong_Bisons_#36]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/ex...ooked-cops-rams-players-punished-free-speech/

 

[Long Live HFC]

Why does a woman have a choice on it affecting her life, but a man doesn't?

are you for real?

 

[The Coup]

Slightly off topic but given how gay couples are often touted as 'superior' to the traditional hetero model by some in the left, I just find it interesting that the father is essential in this situation.

If you point out the lack of a father figure for a child reared in a lesbian relationship for example, you're immediate labeled a small minded homophobe. lol

Who says lesbian couples can't provide father figures to their children?

 

[The Coup]

And I'm in favour of free speech as long as its followed by free response and free recognition.

i.e. if you say something dumb publicly, and someone points out you're a dumb campaigner through a scientific/academic response, then you should be forced to publicly admit it and perhaps pay a fine.

We'd have no racists and no capitalists in about 6 months.

 

[AM]

I'll put my faith in Brendan O'Neill's arm when he stops giving useless hypocrites like George Brandis a forum to batter the Labor Party on free speech when he's been part of two governments now that have curtailed our REAL freedoms. Not the freedom to call someone a non-Aboriginal welfare queen based on their white-ish skin, but the freedom from a totalitarian police state. Freedom for journalists to report on our governments work and intellectual freedom.

That interview with the Pol Pot and Stalin references made want to burl and I haven't seen an apology or criticism from Mr O'Neill yet for throwing his lot in with that half baked intellectual grub.

Perhaps you might address your attention to the piece rather than an ad hominem rant.

And just in case you plan on another rant accusing me of being an O'Neill fan. I am not. However, people with whom one disagrees (even can't abide) occasionally come up with a comment that is worthwhile considering. I'm waiting for yours. I'm sure it will come one day. I look forward to that day.

 

[smokingjacket]

Perhaps you might address your attention to the piece rather than an ad hominem rant.

And just in case you plan on another rant accusing me of being an O'Neill fan. I am not. However, people with whom one disagrees (even can't abide) occasionally come up with a comment that is worthwhile considering. I'm waiting for yours. I'm sure it will come one day. I look forward to that day.

Eh? That wasn't a rant accusing you of being a Brendan O'Neill fan nor an ad hominem attack on your post. That was a rant against Brendan O'Neill and his hypocrisy. That's why I took that selective quote.

The rest of your post made a large amount of sense. I'll even give it a like if it makes you feel better.

 

[Power Raid]

The feminazi's are part of the five per centers. That is the 5% who have been sent to make out lives a misery.

Freedom of expression is a primary value. It should be protected except it rare circumstances such as vilification.

Unfortunately there are zealots who feel it's their life's work to ensure freedom of expression is limited to what they believe is acceptable.

I find it in the dying with dignity conversations where religious zealots ( mainly from the extreme right of the Catholic church) seek to control the agenda.

I would fight for the right of those who have a view regarding end of life decisions to follow their chosen path if it didn't accord with mine. Yet those very same zealots would fight to deny me my choice should it not accord with theirs.

We have to expose the five per centers and fight with every fibre in our bodies their intimidation and efforts to deny us our right to freedom of choice both in terms of speech and action.

All power to the arm of Brendan O'Neill and all who feel aggrieved by the five per centers.

I would go with vilification but higher hurdles than offensive and insulting. humiliate is a reasonable hurdle.

 

[Old Spice]

The Spectator published a well timed article earlier this week:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...ys-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/.

Read it if you have the time, but his general point is that people are more and more concerned these days about being comfortable in their groupthink than upholding free speech. He relies on two personal examples:

1. He and another journalist were recently banned from debating abortion at Christ Church, Oxford because they weren't women. A group of students protested against the debate on the grounds that the debators ‘do not have uteruses’ and it would threaten the "mental safety" of Oxford students.
2. He participated in a debate at Cambridge on religious schools. However he was shouted down because he had the audacity to suggest that 'lad culture’ will not turn men into rapists.

As he later points out, "I ... spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal". This reminded me of a recent spate of articles about where RedFoo was publicly harrassed by the PC crew for apparently calling somebody a **** in a song (shock horror), after which he ended up issuing a public apology. Obviously these people never grew up listening to gangster rap.

Whinging about other's opinions and demanding censorship of them used to be domain of old bored conservative curmudgeons. Now, however, I'm concerned that the silencing of debate seems to be becoming a more widespread tactic used in society to push an agenda. I open the floor to you.

Reading the article I suspect people protested over this actual guy who sounds like a massive ****.

Among his articles are 'Do adults really need to be taught about the moment of "consent" in sex?', 'In praise of big coal', 'Why interns don't deserve pay', 'A dark day for Australia' (re Brandis' move to make racist remarks legal) etc etc.

Sounds like a grade A ****wit.