| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
CCVP 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
 Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:39 |
 The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
In the same way, the Nazi salute is offensive to Germans, they have the right to decide if they ban it or not, and nobody has the right to criticize them, it's the voice of the majority.
Iván |
|
Yes criticize was a wrong word, I should had said make mockery.
Iván. |
The difference is negligible. |
Stupid laws EVERYWHERE actually sometimes deserve mockery.
Legislators are not anything special you know? Last time I checked they are as able to be incredibly stupid as any common Joe... And probably even more so... |
That's why I get myself saying POST-POSITIVISM FTW, BITCH! 
|
|
|
 |
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:44 |
topographicbroadways wrote:
This has become a giant debate about Freedom Of Speech when the original post is about the consequence of someone deliberately being publicly insensitive and aggravating. That law isn't about denying history or censoring freedom of speech it is a perfectly rational rule set in place to stop people publicly using one of the signs of ultimate hate. And the right to full Freedom Of Speech is very much a grey area, theres a fine line between having the freedom to express yourself and total anarchy but because Americans have it in the constitution they feel the need to get all weepy eyed about any sort of violation to the point of someone in this thread calling it a "human rights violation." And yet on national broadcast television in America it is against the law to say cuss words, the ultimate hypocrisy. |
I didn't call it a human rights violation, I asked if Ivan thought it was a human rights violation. There exists a difference.
|
|
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:45 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
I was calling the law hypocritical not you, although i believe you were one of those dramatically over reacting to this story |
I'm not sure how a law can be hypocritical, but okay...
I'm also not sure how me responding that I find the law idiotic and Fascist on an internet forum after being asked my opinion of the law is overreacting.
|
I am saying that calling such law Fascist is a dramatic view to take when it is just preventing open demonstrations of one of the darkest times of it's history, it's sensitivity not oppression
|
|
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:47 |
thellama73 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
This has become a giant debate about Freedom Of Speech when the original post is about the consequence of someone deliberately being publicly insensitive and aggravating. That law isn't about denying history or censoring freedom of speech it is a perfectly rational rule set in place to stop people publicly using one of the signs of ultimate hate. And the right to full Freedom Of Speech is very much a grey area, theres a fine line between having the freedom to express yourself and total anarchy but because Americans have it in the constitution they feel the need to get all weepy eyed about any sort of violation to the point of someone in this thread calling it a "human rights violation." And yet on national broadcast television in America it is against the law to say cuss words, the ultimate hypocrisy. |
I didn't call it a human rights violation, I asked if Ivan thought it was a human rights violation. There exists a difference.
|
accept my apologies for passive reading of the 10 pages i missed
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:48 |
The T wrote:
Stupid laws EVERYWHERE actually sometimes deserve mockery.
Legislators are not anything special you know? Last time I checked they are as able to be incredibly stupid as any common Joe... And probably even more so... |
The question T is why you consider this law is stupid?
- Because you don't agree with it?
- Because is different to what you are used to?
I consider that saying the evidence not valid because you didn't read the Miranda rights is absurd, specially when you don't read the rights to a person that has been arrested several times
"Ignorantia Iuris Non Excusat" (The ignorance of he law is no excuse) [read Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).]
Plus everybody (even my 7 years old nephew who doesn't live in USA) knows the Miranda rights.
But I don't dare to make mockery, I simply don't agree...But I would never made mockery or call this law stupid..
Iván
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:52 |
topographicbroadways wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
I was calling the law hypocritical not you, although i believe you were one of those dramatically over reacting to this story |
I'm not sure how a law can be hypocritical, but okay...
I'm also not sure how me responding that I find the law idiotic and Fascist on an internet forum after being asked my opinion of the law is overreacting.
|
I am saying that calling such law Fascist is a dramatic view to take when it is just preventing open demonstrations of one of the darkest times of it's history, it's sensitivity not oppression |
I'm saying that the law accomplishes absolutely nothing. It will only amount to a swell of governmental power, arbitrary enforcement based on the definition of "sarcasm" and "education", oppress those who use symbols such as the swastika with its traditional message in mind, and be a nuisance to those mistaken for committing symbolic acts of hatred.
It's preventing the expression of an opinion which we view as inappropriate. This does not destroy the opinion. It does not hurt the opinion. It just results in us banning something because we find it distasteful. The law accomplishes nothing positive.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:53 |
topographicbroadways wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
This has become a giant debate about Freedom Of Speech when the original post is about the consequence of someone deliberately being publicly insensitive and aggravating. That law isn't about denying history or censoring freedom of speech it is a perfectly rational rule set in place to stop people publicly using one of the signs of ultimate hate. And the right to full Freedom Of Speech is very much a grey area, theres a fine line between having the freedom to express yourself and total anarchy but because Americans have it in the constitution they feel the need to get all weepy eyed about any sort of violation to the point of someone in this thread calling it a "human rights violation." And yet on national broadcast television in America it is against the law to say cuss words, the ultimate hypocrisy. |
I didn't call it a human rights violation, I asked if Ivan thought it was a human rights violation. There exists a difference.
|
accept my apologies for passive reading of the 10 pages i missed |
I'll think about it.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 19:53 |
|
REJECTED
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:01 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
I was calling the law hypocritical not you, although i believe you were one of those dramatically over reacting to this story |
I'm not sure how a law can be hypocritical, but okay...
I'm also not sure how me responding that I find the law idiotic and Fascist on an internet forum after being asked my opinion of the law is overreacting.
|
I am saying that calling such law Fascist is a dramatic view to take when it is just preventing open demonstrations of one of the darkest times of it's history, it's sensitivity not oppression |
I'm saying that the law accomplishes absolutely nothing. It will only amount to a swell of governmental power, arbitrary enforcement based on the definition of "sarcasm" and "education", oppress those who use symbols such as the swastika with its traditional message in mind, and be a nuisance to those mistaken for committing symbolic acts of hatred.
It's preventing the expression of an opinion which we view as inappropriate. This does not destroy the opinion. It does not hurt the opinion. It just results in us banning something because we find it distasteful. The law accomplishes nothing positive. |
I can't claim to know the inner goings on of German politics but it seems to be an accepted law that isn't a topic of any debate for change in the future, it is a regulation that is there which has been there for 60 years. If they don't want such a lesson from history to be promoted or romanticised then fair enough
|
|
|
|
CCVP
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 15 2007
Location: Vitória, Brasil
Status: Offline
Points: 7971
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:01 |
|
You know, although you keep ignoring me, post-positivism is one of the best ways there is to avoid authoritatian spasms by one of the Powers and came around during the post-war as a direct reaction to the nazi and facists.
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:05 |
topographicbroadways wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
topographicbroadways wrote:
I was calling the law hypocritical not you, although i believe you were one of those dramatically over reacting to this story |
I'm not sure how a law can be hypocritical, but okay...
I'm also not sure how me responding that I find the law idiotic and Fascist on an internet forum after being asked my opinion of the law is overreacting.
|
I am saying that calling such law Fascist is a dramatic view to take when it is just preventing open demonstrations of one of the darkest times of it's history, it's sensitivity not oppression |
I'm saying that the law accomplishes absolutely nothing. It will only amount to a swell of governmental power, arbitrary enforcement based on the definition of "sarcasm" and "education", oppress those who use symbols such as the swastika with its traditional message in mind, and be a nuisance to those mistaken for committing symbolic acts of hatred.
It's preventing the expression of an opinion which we view as inappropriate. This does not destroy the opinion. It does not hurt the opinion. It just results in us banning something because we find it distasteful. The law accomplishes nothing positive. |
I can't claim to know the inner goings on of German politics but it seems to be an accepted law that isn't a topic of any debate for change in the future, it is a regulation that is there which has been there for 60 years. If they don't want such a lesson from history to be promoted or romanticised then fair enough |
These things have no bearing on my opinion of it or my reasons for finding it to be a terrible law.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:08 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
Stupid laws EVERYWHERE actually sometimes deserve mockery.
Legislators are not anything special you know? Last time I checked they are as able to be incredibly stupid as any common Joe... And probably even more so... |
The question T is why you consider this law is stupid? I really don't think I have to justify my beliefs or my opinions, however idiotic they might seem, to you or anybody, in order to be able to express them. If they are idiotic, my punishment will be ridicule. That's it.
- Because you don't agree with it? Yes
- Because is different to what you are used to? Yes
Alo because it doesn't accomplish anything and because it imposes control on what people say, which is in my view disgusting.
I consider that saying the evidence not valid because you didn't read the Miranda rights is absurd, specially when you don't read the rights to a person that has been arrested several times
"Ignorantia Iuris Non Excusat" (The ignorance of he law is no excuse) [read Ratzlaf v. U.S., 510 U.S. 135, 149 (1994); U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 612 (1971) (Brennan, J., concurring); Minnesota v. King, 257 N.W.2d 693, 697 (1977).]
Plus everybody (even my 7 years old nephew who doesn't live in USA) knows the Miranda rights.
But I don't dare to make mockery, I simply don't agree...But I would never made mockery or call this law stupid..
Iván |
Ivan as a lawyer you probably believe the law and lawmakers are sacrosanct. Sorry I don't. I didn't when I was in Ecuador (even studying law, one of the reasons I never liked it), and I don't now that I live in the US. Laws are human products and therefore they can be extremely wrong, absurd, unjust, unfair, ridiculous, etc.... AND, sometimes, they are fair. (Though lately I've been warming up to the idea of private law between individuals...)
|
|
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:10 |
fine  (imagine sterner smiles  )
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:11 |
|
Anyway, if a law is, in my view, bad for people, it has to be bad for people EVERYWHERE, regardless of countries or arbitrary lines on a map... If I'm to say people are humans all the same and have basic rights all the same, I better be ready to attack laws that, no matter where they are applied, go contrary to my principles and beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Triceratopsoil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 03 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18016
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:14 |
|
have you hugged a German today?
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:15 |
JJLehto wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
OK
I only bring it up because Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers."
Because I was a little appalled at what you said. We do not have to dare to criticize any country, we do not even need a justification, we just can. Anyone.
And apparently the idea is not that insane.
|
It seems to me that the only people who seek protection under such so-called 'rights' are those who know full well that their utterances or actions are completely indefensible.
|
There are those
But....that means it should not be the case at all?
X wants to say terrible things, claiming freedom of speech as an excuse.
Yeah! So, no freedom of speech then?
I'll say it one more time, (and yes you are open to disagree this is how I feel)
Freedom of Speech should be a universal human right.
That means for all, it won't always be pretty.
|
Why would a sane rational person want to say things that they believe are terrible/indefensible? Ain't that a mental health issue? (and since when did 'rights' become 'excuses'?)
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:18 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
OK
I only bring it up because Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and
to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers."
Because I was a little appalled at what you said. We do not have to dare to criticize any country, we do not even need a justification, we just can. Anyone.
And apparently the idea is not that insane.
|
It seems to me that the only people who seek protection under such so-called 'rights' are those who know full well that their utterances or actions are completely indefensible.
|
There are those
But....that means it should not be the case at all?
X wants to say terrible things, claiming freedom of speech as an excuse.
Yeah! So, no freedom of speech then?
I'll say it one more time, (and yes you are open to disagree this is how I feel)
Freedom of Speech should be a universal human right.
That means for all, it won't always be pretty.
|
Why would a sane rational person want to say things that they believe are terrible/indefensible?
Ain't that a mental health issue? (and since when did 'rights' become 'excuses'?)
|
Who are you to judge who is sane and who isn't anyway? And why should (according to you) "insane" people be forbid of saying whatever they want?
If a man says "I hate (...)" it's his right to say it and think it. Remember, no matter what you tell him not to say, you won't be able to rule his thinking
If a man kills someone and then says "I did because I hate (...)" then it's an excuse. But what's wrong is not what he said, but what he DID (kill).
If a third man kills someone and says "because X said he hates (...)" then it's an excuse, but still, it's the action what should be penalized.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:19 |
Triceratopsoil wrote:
have you hugged a German today?
|
By the way my sister lives in Germany (has been for the past 18 years) and I've been there. I studied in a german school and have german friends. I'm not a total ignorant of the country and I actually love it.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:22 |
The T wrote:
Triceratopsoil wrote:
have you hugged a German today?
|
By the way my sister lives in Germany (has been for the past 18 years) and I've been there. I studied in a german school and have german friends. I'm not a total ignorant of the country and I actually love it. |
They also have good pretzels and sausages, although their beer is overrated.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 01 2011 at 20:23 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Triceratopsoil wrote:
have you hugged a German today?
|
By the way my sister lives in Germany (has been for the past 18 years) and I've been there. I studied in a german school and have german friends. I'm not a total ignorant of the country and I actually love it. |
They also have good pretzels and sausages, although their beer is overrated.
|
Sauerkraut absolutely SUCKS though...
|
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Nazi Salute.
