UK police warns those who post "hate crime" and threatens users with "criminal offences"

[MadMageKefka]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.

Yes, I do.... but we were currently talking about USA's "failed democratic system," remember? Stop grasping at straws to discredit me and actually post a valid argument, please.

 

[WeedZ]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.

But that never happens. Youre suggesting some sort of dystopian orwellian hell. I'm still baffled

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

And why should the government be responsible for what people are responsible for? Citizens should be responsible for what citizens do, government shouldn't be in control, they can't be trusted in any way, shape or form.

Isnt exactly what a government is meant to do? Unless of course, you're an anarchist.
Governments exist to keep society working. So it's a governments responsibility to not have hate within its borders.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Yes, I do.... but we were currently talking about USA's "failed democratic system," remember? Stop grasping at straws to discredit me and actually post a valid argument, please.

Maybe read my reply to randomizer regarding it.

 

[Pacheko17]

First, you have to take the latest which is 34."4" I believe. Then take sweden. 1.4 per 100,000. Then

100%/x%=1.4/34
(100/x)*x=(1.4/34)*x
100=0.041176470588235*x (0.041176470588235)
100/0.041176470588235=x
2428.5714285714=x

x=2428.5714285714

About 2400

Latest (2015) is 25.5 though.
It's still higher than Sweden, but as I said, stay away from dangerous areas and you'll suffer no danger.
It's like going to Siberia and complaining that Russia is too cold.

 

[the_randomizer]

Isnt exactly what a government is meant to do? Unless of course, you're an anarchist.
Governments exist to keep society working. So it's a governments responsibility to not have hate within its borders.

Yes, but there needs to be a line. They think they should control what we eat, what kind of drinks we consume, how much gas we use, etc. Micromanaging is too far for them to control. People need to be responsible for what they eat, drink, fuel they use, etc. If I want to eat a triple cheeseburger with a large drink, that's my prerogative, not the government's.

I'm not saying it's right to hate, no, but criminalizing people is vague, what is hate, really? Hate is subjective. By someone's definition of hate, someone can not agree with Obama or any POTUS and that can be defined as hate.


Edit: You know what, forget it, I'm too stressed and anxious to be part of this, I'm bailing.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

But that never happens. Youre suggesting some sort of dystopian orwellian hell. I'm still baffled

Then that's an issue with government. I'm not arguing that government is perfect. What I am arguing that if these laws are correctly followed there are no negatives.

 

[WeedZ]

Isnt exactly what a government is meant to do? Unless of course, you're an anarchist.
Governments exist to keep society working. So it's a governments responsibility to not have hate within its borders.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Maybe read my reply to randomizer regarding it.

But when governments overreach you have revolt. You have any idea how many people die in a civil war?

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

But when governments overreach you have revolt. You have any idea how many people die in a civil war?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

[WeedZ]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

This has been observed. My country went through a civil war relatively not long ago. One where relatives had to kill each other.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

This has been observed. My country went through a civil war relatively not long ago. One where relatives had to kill each other.

Still a logical fallacy. You can't know until you try as "overreaching" is very different based on what you are doing.

 

[WeedZ]

Still a logical fallacy. You can't know until you try as "overreaching" is very different based on what you are doing.

Well let's use a sample for experimentation. Next time you see someone irl saying something you don't like, go up to them and tell them they shouldnt have the right to say that. Then we'll look at the number of violent results compared to peaceful ones. Then we'll know with good evidence.

 

[Stephano]

I believe its everyone's right to be a douche bag. Although i may not like what they say, they can say it. I mean if you threatening the life of someone, that should not be aloud. But speech is speech. Protect it.

 

[TheDarkGreninja]

I believe its everyone's right to be a douche bag. Although i may not like what they say, they can say it. I mean if you threatening the life of someone, that should not be aloud. But speech is speech. Protect it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with someone being a douchebag. Just not a prejudiced one.

Well let's use a sample for experimentation. Next time you see someone irl saying something you don't like, go up to them and tell them they shouldnt have the right to say that. Then we'll look at the number of violent results compared to peaceful ones. Then we'll know with good evidence.

But that's not hate speech.

 

[MadMageKefka]

Maybe read my reply to randomizer regarding it.

Ok, let me explain to you how posting on a forum works. In order for me to quote and reply to what you said, I have to read it first (that includes the quote in your post too). This is how language works, we don't just shout random words and assume they will fit. So yea, I did read it, thanks for the tip.

 

[kingtut]

How is the UK doing economically?

 

[WeedZ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with someone being a douchebag. Just not a prejudiced one.



But that's not hate speech.

Do you like hate speech?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

you know, you say that as a joke but there are people who would love enforcing that sort of thing. I do not like it when religious people censor other non religious people, I do not like it the other way around either.

Any religion that organizes does so to enforce their policies or cultural standards. For that reason I believe we should ban 'organized' religion. Personal beliefs should be protected

 

[MadMageKefka]

you know, you say that as a joke but there are people who would love enforcing that sort of thing. I do not like it when religious people censor other non religious people, I do not like it the other way around either.

Bring the hate on, but I'm ok with that. I'm saying my point then shutting up to keep this thread from derailing, so PM me or start a blog if you wanna discuss this... Ever hear of an atheist running into a crowded area, blowing himself up and screaming "FOR SCIENCE!!!!" Did atheists ever have a crusade? Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people. Ever hear of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fun group of people they are...

I'm not saying religion in inherently bad, I was giving extreme examples, but you have to admit that believing has caused infinitely more problems than NOT believing. Just saying.

 

[kingtut]

Bring the hate on, but I'm ok with that. I'm saying my point then shutting up to keep this thread from derailing, so PM me or start a blog if you wanna discuss this... Ever hear of an atheist running into a crowded area, blowing himself up and screaming "FOR SCIENCE!!!!" Did atheists ever have a crusade? Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people. Ever hear of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fun group of people they are...

I'm not saying religion in inherently bad, I was giving extreme examples, but you have to admit that believing has caused infinitely more problems than NOT believing. Just saying.

Just to clarify, when you say your ok with that, do you mean banning religions?

Also correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Oregon shooter anti religion, like I remember reading an article saying he would ask people about their religion before he shoots them and he would shoot religious people. This is from two years ago so I do not remember all the details. but if it is true, I will classify that as an atheist extremist.

but regardless, I do not think religions should be banned even if I disagree with parts of it. I mean wouldn't it be extreme censorship right there?

 

[MadMageKefka]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

You do know there are other political systems other than America's, right?
Simply put, stopping hate speech requires a government that sticks to only stopping that one thing and not trying to over reach.

Can you stop linking this to everyone who replies to you like its the friggin bible please? The link you gave me in this quote is about black and white, giving only 2 options when there are, in fact, more possibilities. I was not doing that in the least. I gave an example of a government I'm familiar with (you know, where I freaking live). Me mentioning my own government doing exactly what I said was the risk of something like your suggestion in no way, shape, or form says anything about any other country. Just because I don't specifically give examples about them and call them by name does NOT mean that I'm acting like they don't exist, its just hard to give an example about a government you know nothing about, right?

The sheer audacity of you linking this site to everyone here.... get over your own ego please. You don't even understand what you're linking.

Just to clarify, when you say your ok with that, do you mean banning religions?

Also correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the Oregon shooter anti religion, like I remember reading an article saying he would ask people about their religion before he shoots them and he would shoot religious people. This is from two years ago so I do not remember all the details. but if it is true, I will classify that as an atheist extremist.

but regardless, I do not think religions should be banned even if I disagree with parts of it. I mean wouldn't it be extreme censorship right there?

Yes, but I'm also not saying its a GOOD solution, just that I, personally, would be okay with it. You bring up some very good points and I'd be happy to discuss them elsewhere if you'd like, but I'm trying not to further derail this thread.

 

[Stephano]

Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with someone being a douchebag. Just not a prejudiced one.

I think people who are prejudice are scum, but if they say, I hate "x" people, they can say it. Although if they got shanked in an alieway for it, it's there own fault.

The reason why I'm defending it is because it's a slippery slope. If the government takes away something from someone, they will have more power and use that power to take more. I will protect whatever rights the people have, even if I disagree.