Quote by Ben_welshminx
OOh freedom of speech versus the police saying tehre will be a riot.
On balance I think freedom of speech wins for me.
:thumbup:
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Ban this?
Quote by Bear69
OOh freedom of speech versus the police saying tehre will be a riot.
On balance I think freedom of speech wins for me.
:thumbup:
How far does this " freedom of speech " go then?
Does it go as far as you believe it should, or are there boundaries?
IF you really believe that then why do so many people on here try and curtail that very same freedom of speech?
We do not have freedom of speech period, so on that basis the march should be banned.
IF it was to go ahead there will be trouble, maybe not a riot but not that far off....is freedom of speech really worth people getting possibly seriously injured, or a police officer having a brick thrown at his head?
When we really have freedom of speech for ALL then and only then would I say marches like this should go ahead.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
Kenny, having quoted me out of context, you've decided to pull me up on the whole 'violence is sometimes justified thing' have you? That's fair enough I suppose.
Are you quite sure you've properly thought through the argument you're seemingly trying to make though?
N x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
Kenny, having quoted me out of context, you've decided to pull me up on the whole 'violence is sometimes justified thing' have you? That's fair enough I suppose.
Are you quite sure you've properly thought through the argument you're seemingly trying to make though?
N x x x ;)
Neil you know people pull the smallest snippet of what sometimes people write, and then dissect it through a magnifying glass.
Not trying to make any arguement as I clearly stated above...." I will not argue with that point ".
Quote by kentswingers777
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
No-one's suggesting sinking to anyone else's level.
The willingness to take a stand against racist scum and make clear that they shall not get their own way is not sinking to anything - it's raising one's game when necessary. The French Resistance weren't sinking to the Nazi's level, or the International Brigaders to the level of Franco's fascist scum.
It's not about two wrongs don't make a right - if racist scum would take away someone's rights on the basis of the colour of their skin then taking away a few of the racist's teeth is a good thing.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
No-one's suggesting sinking to anyone else's level.
The willingness to take a stand against racist scum and make clear that they shall not get their own way is not sinking to anything - it's raising one's game when necessary. The French Resistance weren't sinking to the Nazi's level, or the International Brigaders to the level of Franco's fascist scum.
It's not about two wrongs don't make a right - if racist scum would take away someone's rights on the basis of the colour of their skin then taking away a few of the racist's teeth is a good thing.
That's a matter of view point, to the Nazi/German at the time, they would have been terrorists, particularly to the mother of a dead son!
Quote by Bluefish2009
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
No-one's suggesting sinking to anyone else's level.
The willingness to take a stand against racist scum and make clear that they shall not get their own way is not sinking to anything - it's raising one's game when necessary. The French Resistance weren't sinking to the Nazi's level, or the International Brigaders to the level of Franco's fascist scum.
It's not about two wrongs don't make a right - if racist scum would take away someone's rights on the basis of the colour of their skin then taking away a few of the racist's teeth is a good thing.
That's a matter of view point, to the Nazi/German at the time, they would have been terrorists, particularly to the mother of a dead son!
Yes, but they'd have been wrong, and that mother's grief would be the fault of Hitler, not the Resistance.
I don't do moral relativism; things are right or wrong, and you act on those judgements you make about what's right or wrong. Of course you've got to keep things in proportion, but the idea that the Nazi judgement that the Maquis were terrorists has to be given credence is anathema to me.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
No-one's suggesting sinking to anyone else's level.
The willingness to take a stand against racist scum and make clear that they shall not get their own way is not sinking to anything - it's raising one's game when necessary. The French Resistance weren't sinking to the Nazi's level, or the International Brigaders to the level of Franco's fascist scum.
It's not about two wrongs don't make a right - if racist scum would take away someone's rights on the basis of the colour of their skin then taking away a few of the racist's teeth is a good thing.
That's a matter of view point, to the Nazi/German at the time, they would have been terrorists, particularly to the mother of a dead son!
Yes, but they'd have been wrong, and that mother's grief would be the fault of Hitler, not the Resistance.
I don't do moral relativism; things are right or wrong, and you act on those judgements you make about what's right or wrong. Of course you've got to keep things in proportion, but the idea that the Nazi judgement that the Maquis were terrorists has to be given credence is anathema to me.
You think you are right, they thought they were right.....
*In edit* If then, we use this same logic, and we take the solders currently being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by the use of roadside bombs, planted by the freedom fighter. Their deaths are not the fault of the freedom fighter but the fault of Tony Blair?
Quote by Bluefish2009
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
No-one's suggesting sinking to anyone else's level.
The willingness to take a stand against racist scum and make clear that they shall not get their own way is not sinking to anything - it's raising one's game when necessary. The French Resistance weren't sinking to the Nazi's level, or the International Brigaders to the level of Franco's fascist scum.
It's not about two wrongs don't make a right - if racist scum would take away someone's rights on the basis of the colour of their skin then taking away a few of the racist's teeth is a good thing.
That's a matter of view point, to the Nazi/German at the time, they would have been terrorists, particularly to the mother of a dead son!
Yes, but they'd have been wrong, and that mother's grief would be the fault of Hitler, not the Resistance.
I don't do moral relativism; things are right or wrong, and you act on those judgements you make about what's right or wrong. Of course you've got to keep things in proportion, but the idea that the Nazi judgement that the Maquis were terrorists has to be given credence is anathema to me.
You think you are right, they thought they were right.....
And? If I assume they might be right I can never act. That's the peril you put yourself into when yu start seeing too much form the other guy's point of view.
Saddam Hussein thought he was right. He wasn't. He was an evil thug who got away with it for years. I know he believed he was right, but I also know he wasn't.
Ditto General Galtieri, Pinochet, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Petain and all the other tinpot fascist scum.
You're free to believe such people may have their good points, or may have a point, or whatever the excuse de jour for appeasement and inaction is. I am otherwise inclined to have faith in my own understanding of the world.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
And? If I assume they might be right I can never act. That's the peril you put yourself into when yu start seeing too much form the other guy's point of view.
Saddam Hussein thought he was right. He wasn't. He was an evil thug who got away with it for years. I know he believed he was right, but I also know he wasn't.
Ditto General Galtieri, Pinochet, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Petain and all the other tinpot fascist scum.
You're free to believe such people may have their good points, or may have a point, or whatever the excuse de jour for appeasement and inaction is. I am otherwise inclined to have faith in my own understanding of the world.
As it happens I do not believe they have any good points, that was not my point. But the people that followed them did believe in them, and they just like you believed them selves to be right.
Not to ever see the other side is short sighted and if in a position of power, dangerous
If then, we use this same logic, and we take the solders currently being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by the use of roadside bombs, planted by the freedom fighter. Their deaths are not the fault of the freedom fighter but the fault of Tony Blair?
Orgasminator
Some things are absolutely worth protecting. Freedom to go where and when you like with who you like is worth protecting. The freedom to marcch to make a point is worth protecting. Whether you agree with the march or not, (and i dont) banning it would be an erosion of personal freedom and puts us on the road to even more of a nanny state than we're already in. That road is a much much darker road.
There are no laws that stop anyone walking down any street with anyone (yet). Common sense might not stop these people marching and the law can't stop them (yet) but take away the right to protest and march and thats one hell of a voice muted when its something you do want to stand up and be counted for!
How many of you who are in favour of the ban supported the Countyside Alliance marches? Or the Poll Tax marches? Or the Criminal Justice bill marches? Or the get our troups out of Iraq/Afghanistan marches? (That's a rhetorical question by the way). If one march is banned they all could be on exactly the same grounds.
It might be a bunch of racists voices that get muted this time but it wont always be theirs. Next time it might well be yours and as i said at the beginning, that voice is absolutely worth protecting.
There are no laws that stop anyone walking down any street with anyone (yet). Common sense might not stop these people marching and the law can't stop them (yet) but take away the right to protest and march and thats one hell of a voice muted when its something you do want to stand up and be counted for!
How many of you who are in favour of the ban supported the Countyside Alliance marches? Or the Poll Tax marches? Or the Criminal Justice bill marches? Or the get our troups out of Iraq/Afghanistan marches? (That's a rhetorical question by the way). If one march is banned they all could be on exactly the same grounds.
It might be a bunch of racists voices that get muted this time but it wont always be theirs. Next time it might well be yours and as i said at the beginning, that voice is absolutely worth protecting.
Sex God
well put vamp
:thumbup:
:thumbup:
Quote by vampanya
Some things are absolutely worth protecting. Freedom to go where and when you like with who you like is worth protecting. The freedom to marcch to make a point is worth protecting. Whether you agree with the march or not, (and i dont) banning it would be an erosion of personal freedom and puts us on the road to even more of a nanny state than we're already in. That road is a much much darker road.
There are no laws that stop anyone walking down any street with anyone (yet). Common sense might not stop these people marching and the law can't stop them (yet) but take away the right to protest and march and thats one hell of a voice muted when its something you do want to stand up and be counted for!
How many of you who are in favour of the ban supported the Countyside Alliance marches? Or the Poll Tax marches? Or the Criminal Justice bill marches? Or the get our troups out of Iraq/Afghanistan marches? (That's a rhetorical question by the way). If one march is banned they all could be on exactly the same grounds.
It might be a bunch of racists voices that get muted this time but it wont always be theirs. Next time it might well be yours and as i said at the beginning, that voice is absolutely worth protecting.
I had a good drink with some Countryside Alliance types after one of their demos, in a pub on the corner of Whitehall. Decent blokes, capable of arguing their case in a civilized and orderly way.
I don't approve of banning marches either; unfortunately history is full of unfortunate examples where the police have defended the rights of one group to march while suppressing counter demonstrations.
Sex God
Quote by awayman
Some things are absolutely worth protecting. Freedom to go where and when you like with who you like is worth protecting. The freedom to marcch to make a point is worth protecting. Whether you agree with the march or not, (and i dont) banning it would be an erosion of personal freedom and puts us on the road to even more of a nanny state than we're already in. That road is a much much darker road.
There are no laws that stop anyone walking down any street with anyone (yet). Common sense might not stop these people marching and the law can't stop them (yet) but take away the right to protest and march and thats one hell of a voice muted when its something you do want to stand up and be counted for!
How many of you who are in favour of the ban supported the Countyside Alliance marches? Or the Poll Tax marches? Or the Criminal Justice bill marches? Or the get our troups out of Iraq/Afghanistan marches? (That's a rhetorical question by the way). If one march is banned they all could be on exactly the same grounds.
It might be a bunch of racists voices that get muted this time but it wont always be theirs. Next time it might well be yours and as i said at the beginning, that voice is absolutely worth protecting.
I had a good drink with some Countryside Alliance types after one of their demos, in a pub on the corner of Whitehall. Decent blokes, capable of arguing their case in a civilized and orderly way.
I don't approve of banning marches either; unfortunately history is full of unfortunate examples where the police have defended the rights of one group to march while suppressing counter demonstrations.
Now I remember you! :cheers:
Sex God
Quote by vampanya
Some things are absolutely worth protecting. Freedom to go where and when you like with who you like is worth protecting. The freedom to marcch to make a point is worth protecting. Whether you agree with the march or not, (and i dont) banning it would be an erosion of personal freedom and puts us on the road to even more of a nanny state than we're already in. That road is a much much darker road.
There are no laws that stop anyone walking down any street with anyone (yet). Common sense might not stop these people marching and the law can't stop them (yet) but take away the right to protest and march and thats one hell of a voice muted when its something you do want to stand up and be counted for!
How many of you who are in favour of the ban supported the Countyside Alliance marches? Or the Poll Tax marches? Or the Criminal Justice bill marches? Or the get our troups out of Iraq/Afghanistan marches? (That's a rhetorical question by the way). If one march is banned they all could be on exactly the same grounds.
It might be a bunch of racists voices that get muted this time but it wont always be theirs. Next time it might well be yours and as i said at the beginning, that voice is absolutely worth protecting.
:thumbup:
Quote by awayman
or otherwise descend to their level, but I accept absolutely that sometimes violence is justified
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Mrs777 would say that to sink to anothers level to prove ones point, is no different at all.
I will not argue with that point.
No-one's suggesting sinking to anyone else's level.
The willingness to take a stand against racist scum and make clear that they shall not get their own way is not sinking to anything - it's raising one's game when necessary. The French Resistance weren't sinking to the Nazi's level, or the International Brigaders to the level of Franco's fascist scum.
It's not about two wrongs don't make a right - if racist scum would take away someone's rights on the basis of the colour of their skin then taking away a few of the racist's teeth is a good thing.
You are of course quite right... the French Resistance were actually attacking the corrupt and racist Petain Vichy Government which was sending honourable French Jews to the German's gas chambers and executing others on behalf of the Germans all over France - effectively doing Germany's will by proxy! The call for ordinary citizens to come to arms to fight for a free France came from General de Gaulle who was exiled in London as an enemy of the State.
