Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

You are one of our targets now.

Have a nice day.

Oh yeah, it's Deity, not Diety.

[Jude]

Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.

There is something more important - protecting other people from the maniacs who hold these views.  It's never a big step from raw hatred to racist violence.

OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.

Also, seat belt laws are the government protecting people from themselves. Outlawing talking on a cell phone while driving (which hasn't happened yet but should, as it's more dangerous than drunk driving) is protecting everybody else from selfish idiots who endanger the lives of others. Just a little distinction.

[Vester]

"preemptive peacekeeping" happens often here in Denmark.

Usaly, when a big (well, big for Denmark) football match is up, things tendt to desolve into chaos, so they police go in, arrest 100-200 persons, then let 95% go after an hour or so.

the rest will be the ones in court within 24Hours, charged with "inciting violence".

It's a football match. Football matches don't follow the laws of the state, but some arcane pact featuring blood sacrifice and the tears of children.

[Leafsnail]

OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.

It's obviously impossible to outlaw viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that we should listen to them and let them be indulged.  The right of a black person too not be murdered outweighs the right of the KKK to hold and indulge their views.

Scientology also has a nasty habit of commiting crimes agaisnt "Fair game" targets, and is basically a massive scam, made up by a second rate science fiction writer.  Again, you can't stop people from holding views.  But we don't have to indulge them.

[LegoLord]

People stupid enough to break laws, kidnap, and commit traitorous acts in the name of their 'Diety'? Check

Actually, Islamic religion is against that sort of thing.

Every religion has that sort of believer at some time or another, no matter what the religion - more a problem with a type of person than a religion.  It's just that Scientology has had that sort of behavior made officially "appropriate" (I use the term lightly) by its rules, and since they turn people into this one, fanatic, unquestioning type of person, it can become very dangerous..

[Leafsnail]

It depends.  You can find verses to fit almost any viewpoint in Christianity or Islam.

[G-Flex]

People stupid enough to break laws, kidnap, and commit traitorous acts in the name of their 'Diety'? Check

Actually, Islamic religion is against that sort of thing.

Every religion has that sort of believer at some time or another, no matter what the religion - more a problem with a type of person than a religion.  It's just that Scientology has had that sort of behavior made officially "appropriate" (I use the term lightly) by its rules, and since they turn people into this one, fanatic, unquestioning type of person, it can become very dangerous..

Not even "appropriate". A lot of it is official policy.

[Tilla]

Only if they commit violence. You can't sanction opinions in a free society. Nothing is more important than government staying out of people's right to expression.

There is something more important - protecting other people from the maniacs who hold these views.  It's never a big step from raw hatred to racist violence.

OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.

Also, seat belt laws are the government protecting people from themselves. Outlawing talking on a cell phone while driving (which hasn't happened yet but should, as it's more dangerous than drunk driving) is protecting everybody else from selfish idiots who endanger the lives of others. Just a little distinction.

Your rights end where others begin. IE if your rights are being used to stomp all over the rights of others, your rights are going to have to be bent or broken. I'm really sick of strictly constitutional viewpoints where OMG EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH ALWAYS. Canada doesn't have that problem, and we're not suddenly some oppressed mindless government slaves. Plus we get to keep idiots like Reverend Fred Phelps out of the country as a very nice bonus.

The beliefs of the CoS inform the actions of the CoS. They go hand in hand. If one has the beliefs without the actions, that person is a hypocrite.

Not necessarily. The BASIC religious tenets of the CoS have nothing to do with the horrible things that the organization have done. Yeah, some church directives and documents do, but you can believe essentially the same stuff Scientologists believe in without liking the organization, in theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Free_Zone

These dudes run a non-CoS version of Scientology's teachings. They're fairly oppressed as 'squirrels' by the church proper, and are mostly ex-CoS members.

[Jude]

OK so you want to outlaw certain viewpoints? Hello thought police.

It's obviously impossible to outlaw viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that we should listen to them and let them be indulged. 

You don't have to listen to them or indulge them. But you can't stop people from expressing them. This is a foundation of a free society. Literally, without this right, you do not have a free society, you have a totalitarian one.

The right of a black person too not be murdered outweighs the right of the KKK to hold and indulge their views.

I agree, as would anybody. However that is utterly irrelevant to what I'm saying, which is that the right of a black person not to be offended or disturbed by the KKK does NOT outweigh the right of the KKK to express whatever viewpoints they want, however despicable.

Scientology also has a nasty habit of commiting crimes agaisnt "Fair game" targets, and is basically a massive scam, made up by a second rate science fiction writer.  Again, you can't stop people from holding views.  But we don't have to indulge them.

If by "indulge" you mean "allow the freedom of speech and press to the holders of" then you're wrong. Allowing people to express views is THE most crucial right to freedom and democracy.

I'm really sick of strictly constitutional viewpoints where OMG EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE FREE SPEECH ALWAYS

Well that sucks, because if you dont' let everyone have free speech always, then you have no business calling yourself a free society.

[Vester]

The problem being that no government has a true democracy. A true democracy would never work, the same way communism just doesn't work - people are too fickle to govern as a mass body, for which reason there are prime ministers and presidents, and on another level, the Congress and Senate, and the courts.

[LegoLord]

You actually don't have the right to threaten people in the U.S.  You can get in big trouble for it.  A viewpoint that is as good as a threat towards a group . . . tricky grounds there.

[G-Flex]

Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.

[Jackrabbit]

Scientology members should all quit the cult, start thinking for themselves and do something else. And Hubbard should spontaneously explode and his soul should be murdered repeatedly by the devil IN HELL.

Broken any laws?

[Vester]

It's the internet, I don't think it counts.

[Leafsnail]

Right. You can say you don't like people, or even that people should have something bad happen to them, but the line is drawn at actually threatening people or inciting violence against them.

But what is their viewpoint?  "All black people must die"?  How is that not going to become violent?