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

TheDarkGreninja · Jul 27, 2017

MadMageKefka said:
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 Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people.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.

Quick thing to note: If you're going to quote me, do it once.

"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 Sorry, but religion is outdated and causes a lot of problems with a lot of really stupid people"

This is always the copy and paste argument.
It's ideology that leads people to blow themselves up. Not religion. Try to pull up a quranic/biblical verse that allows for violence under any circumstance.

MadMageKefka said:
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.

Then you'd know that I didnt mean the US is a failed state. I was merely discussing what I thought was a hypothetical rather than a real world example. So no you clearly did not.

MadMageKefka said:
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?

That's the thing though, if it fails because of the way your government works it doesnt make it a failed concept since we're discussing the UK not the USA.
So it is a logical fallacy, it doesnt need to be intentional.

"The sheer audacity of you linking this site to everyone here."

This is a good laugh. I've only done so twice and yet you claim I've been doing so all the time.

MadMageKefka said:
get over your own ego please.

And I'm arrogant because I pointed out something? I think you're the thin skinned person here seeing as how you're clearly flustered.

MadMageKefka said:
You don't even understand what you're linking.

I don't think you do.

WeedZ said:
. For that reason I believe we should ban 'organized' religion.

I thought you were against censorship?

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

Stephano said:
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.

But that's why protest exists, we're still the ones who put them in power are we not?
So they are here to serve us not the other way around. Simply put, all we have to do is protest and remove them from power.

WeedZ · Jul 27, 2017

TheDarkGreninja said:
I thought you were against censorship?

You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence you're on.

MadMageKefka · Jul 27, 2017

TheDarkGreninja said:
This is always the copy and paste argument.
It's ideology that leads people to blow themselves up. Not religion. Try to pull up a quranic/biblical verse that allows for violence under any circumstance.

http://www.alternet.org/30-most-violent-exhortations-bible-torah-and-quran 5 seconds on google. There are sooooooo many more. The bible is a pretty messed up book, my dude.

TheDarkGreninja said:
Then you'd know that I didnt mean the US is a failed state. I was merely discussing what I thought was a hypothetical rather than a real world example. So no you clearly did not.

We are a country, not a state.

TheDarkGreninja said:
That's the thing though, if it fails because of the way your government works it doesnt make it a failed concept since we're discussing the UK not the USA.
So it is a logical fallacy, it doesnt need to be intentional.

"The sheer audacity of you linking this site to everyone here."

This is a good laugh. I've only done so twice and yet you claim I've been doing so all the time.

You referenced it at least 3 or 4 times. I'm guessing you read this sometime recently so now you're an expert on debate? I can see what you mean with the original topic being in the UK, but even still that's not what you linked. I gave no options, no choices, no ultimatum, I based my opinion on "irrelevant" information (although, I still don't feel they are all that different, especially given the UK's recent track record with online privacy laws. I'd even say its an even worse threat). So even though I'm willing to admit you are right in this regard, you clearly still don't understand the information you are linking people.

TheDarkGreninja said:
And I'm arrogant because I pointed out something? I think you're the thin skinned person here seeing as how you're clearly flustered.

Anyone who knows me will get a good laugh from this one. I could give a fuck less about ANYTHING said on the internet. Me using a harsh tone does not mean I'm upset. My entire original point was exactly this, remember? Think what you will, though.

TheDarkGreninja said:
I don't think you do.

No u

I'm not discussing this with you here any further, its just a back-and-forth at this point and clearly pointless for both of us. I don't blame you for responding to what I said, either, just putting a stop to it. We just don't see each other's side of things, and that's clearly how its going to remain. Feel free to PM me if you wish to keep arguing.

TheDarkGreninja · Jul 27, 2017

WeedZ said:
You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence you're on.

Banning people from sharing beliefs is censorship.

the_randomizer · Jul 27, 2017

TheDarkGreninja said:
Banning people from sharing beliefs is censorship.

And we all know censorship is for pantywaists.

WeedZ · Jul 27, 2017

TheDarkGreninja said:
Banning people from sharing beliefs is censorship.

That's not why they organize together

TheDarkGreninja · Jul 27, 2017

MadMageKefka said:
http://www.alternet.org/30-most-violent-exhortations-bible-torah-and-quran 5 seconds on google. There are sooooooo many more. The bible is a pretty messed up book, my dude.

We are a country, not a state.

You referenced it at least 3 or 4 times. I'm guessing you read this sometime recently so now you're an expert on debate? I can see what you mean with the original topic being in the UK, but even still that's not what you linked. I gave no options, no choices, no ultimatum, I based my opinion on "irrelevant" information (although, I still don't feel they are all that different, especially given the UK's recent track record with online privacy laws. I'd even say its an even worse threat). So even though I'm willing to admit you are right in this regard, you clearly still don't understand the information you are linking people.

Anyone who knows me will get a good laugh from this one. I could give a fuck less about ANYTHING said on the internet. Me using a harsh tone does not mean I'm upset. My entire original point was exactly this, remember? Think what you will, though.

No u

I'm not discussing this with you here any further, its just a back-and-forth at this point and clearly pointless for both of us. I don't blame you for responding to what I said, either, just putting a stop to it. We just don't see each other's side of things, and that's clearly how its going to remain. Feel free to PM me if you wish to keep arguing.

I can't be bothered right now to debunk that source, maybe later.

MadMageKefka said:
We are a country, not a state.

Speaking of ignorance:
State:

a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

MadMageKefka said:
You referenced it at least 3 or 4 times. I'm guessing you read this sometime recently so now you're an expert on debate?

You're new, right? I've been in a number of these arguments, anyone who's been here as long as I have will tell you that.

MadMageKefka said:
So even though I'm willing to admit you are right in this regard, you clearly still don't understand the information you are linking people.

Show me one place I have not understood?

MadMageKefka said:
I'm not discussing this with you here any further, its just a back-and-forth at this point and clearly pointless for both of us. I don't blame you for responding to what I said, either, just putting a stop to it. We just don't see each other's side of things, and that's clearly how its going to remain. Feel free to PM me if you wish to keep arguing.

One thing to note, I don't hate you or anything. To me, the thing I care about most is debate, sorry if I came off a bit harsh.

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

WeedZ said:
That's not why they organize together

Enlighten me.

TotalInsanity4 · Jul 27, 2017

WeedZ said:
You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence you're on.

I thought we had... like... a Constitutional amendment that... protects that right

I'm actually pretty sure it's the first one even

WeedZ · Jul 27, 2017

TotalInsanity4 said:
I thought we had... like... a Constitutional amendment that... protects that right

I'm actually pretty sure it's the first one even

It protects peaceful assembly. I would argue that's it's harmful.

TotalInsanity4 · Jul 27, 2017

WeedZ said:
It protects peaceful assembly. I would argue that's it's harmful.

Assembling for a church/mass/synagogue/temple/mosque service is literally one of the most peaceful things you can do. It's when you get extremist, fundamentalist whackos leading the services that things become an issue

But then we get into the issue of banning hate speech

WeedZ · Jul 27, 2017

TotalInsanity4 said:
Assembling for a church/mass/synagogue/temple/mosque service is literally one of the most peaceful things you can do. It's when you get extremist, fundamentalist whackos leading the services that things become an issue

But then we get into the issue of banning hate speech

It's all connected. Typically church services revolve around telling people how to live in accordance with the moral standards set in place by the dogma. It's also not uncommon for these services to encourage it's members to recruit others as their lifestyles are seen as heathenistic. It's a machine built on control -> recruit -> control. I could agree with Dino and say that banning religion would stop hate speech. When I think of peaceful assembly I think of people starting soup kitchens to feed the needy, or those that occupy Wallstreet to oppose poverty. Not a bunch of cultists colluding to enforce their morals.

I would argue that no religious gathering contributes positively to their respective communities. Btw, those amendments are among documents, among which, one that declares our freedom from religious persecution. 'Organized' religion has already been detrimental to the point that another nation spawned to get away from it.

rileysrjay · Jul 27, 2017

WeedZ said:
It's all connected. Typically church services revolve around telling people how to live in accordance with the moral standards set in place by the dogma. It's also not uncommon for these services to encourage it's members to recruit others as their lifestyles are seen as heathenistic. It's a machine built on control -> recruit -> control. I could agree with Dino and say that banning religion would stop hate speech. When I think of peaceful assembly I think of people starting soup kitchens to feed the needy, or those that occupy Wallstreet to oppose poverty. Not a bunch of cultists colluding to enforce their morals.

I would argue that no religious gathering contributes positively to their respective communities. Btw, those amendments are among documents, among which, one that declares our freedom from religious persecution. 'Organized' religion has already been detrimental to the point that another nation spawned to get away from it.

I see your logic, but Most church or religious gatherings here in America are, for the most part, pretty peaceful. But just because a few people start cults, brainwash a bunch of people, and have them kill themselves or others doesn't mean every religious gathering is going to be harmful. In a way it's the same logic train as saying you should ban not only knifes but forks and whatever else could be used as a weapon. Most churches around my house actually help the community by holding food drives and whatnot. And also I still think there would be hate crimes here in America anyways if religion was banned because of race and even politics. Idiots are still going to do idiotic things just because others don't agree with them.

DarthDub · Jul 27, 2017

It'd be nice if they took care of the REAL terrorists..

Stephano · Jul 27, 2017

TheDarkGreninja said:
But that's why protest exists, we're still the ones who put them in power are we not?
So they are here to serve us not the other way around. Simply put, all we have to do is protest and remove them from power.

Yes we are the ones who put people in office, but there are cases where a politician does not fulfil their constituents wishes. And that's what protest is for. But the act of protesting does not remove someone from office. If they do something illegal or do something that causes them to resign will kick them out, but protesting exists to shed light on an issue.

Now, with that being said, I'm not sure how the pertains to speech. Now while people can freely protests "hate speech" and what not, I would disagree with those protesters. I view them as trying to invoke politicians to silence speech. I don't like the idea of giving politicians that power.

You can freely disagree with me, but I want to uphold our bill of rights as much as possible, despite its controversial nature and my own views of, "don't be rude to others." Although you can freely be mean and rude. It's your right.

TheDarkGreninja · Jul 27, 2017

Stephano said:
Yes we are the ones who put people in office, but there are cases where a politician does not fulfil their constituents wishes. And that's what protest is for. But the act of protesting does not remove someone from office. If they do something illegal or do something that causes them to resign will kick them out, but protesting exists to shed light on an issue.

Now, with that being said, I'm not sure how the pertains to speech. Now while people can freely protests "hate speech" and what not, I would disagree with those protesters. I view them as trying to invoke politicians to silence speech. I don't like the idea of giving politicians that power.

You can freely disagree with me, but I want to uphold our bill of rights as much as possible, despite its controversial nature and my own views of, "don't be rude to others." Although you can freely be mean and rude. It's your right.

That's the thing though, once you've protested there are a few things the corrupt individual can do, either:
1. Resign avoiding the controversy all together.
2. Try to quash protests through violence
3. Stay, although in most political systems they person can be removed from their position

Of course the possibilities are not limited to just these three, I just think these are the most likely.

Stephano · Jul 28, 2017

TheDarkGreninja said:
That's the thing though, once you've protested there are a few things the corrupt individual can do, either:
1. Resign avoiding the controversy all together.
2. Try to quash protests through violence
3. Stay, although in most political systems they person can be removed from their position

Of course the possibilities are not limited to just these three, I just think these are the most likely.

Of course they can do more... although i can't think of anything either. lol

1. Sometimes that happens. People fight for certain things fora long time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If you believe in something, you shouldn't just quit believing in it or quit protesting. Fight for the change you want to see in the world. I might call someone an idiot for fighting for a certain cause, but i'd never tell them to stop.
3. This should never be done. This would be silencing someone's right to speech. Unless the protesters are violent or disturbing the peace. If that's the case, then I would have a lot of fun with a taser and pepper spray. (Only if i'm provoked though. I don't advocate the start of any violence)
3. How exactly would they be removed? If they do something illegal, than that's obvious. But I can't think of any reason a politician would be impeached. Typically, if a politician does not satisfy his constituents, then they wouldn't get a second term.

Any ways, i think we got off topic of the subject of "Speech."

grossaffe · Jul 28, 2017

StarTrekVoyager said:
If free speech is being able to send death threats and insult people, I don't want of free speech.

Yes, these two things are equivalents.

Maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet if you're so worried about *gasp* insults. Or maybe we can find you a safe space somewhere.

StarTrekVoyager · Jul 28, 2017

Did I even only talk about the Internet lol?

Stephano · Jul 28, 2017

WeedZ said:
You cut out the part where I said personal beliefs should be protected. When any group organizes they seek to impose on others. That's the side of the fence you're on.

Define "impose." I don't think there is anything wrong with someone sharing their believes with others (Whether political, moral, or religious). People can talk about or share anything they want with someone. If you do not care about it, then respectfully decline. Or if they are being awful like the West burro Baptist church, then tell them to Piss off. Just because i'm a christian, i would never want a Mormon to stop sharing their believes. Its all just a form of speech that's protected. They same goes for people who don't believe in anything. I wouldn't want to silence those individuals, even though i may disagree with them. It's all just a form of speech that has to be protected.

StarTrekVoyager · Jul 28, 2017

Discrimination is illegal anyways, so of course discrimination speech is illegal too. That's logic.

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

Listening to a song ad nauseam

Possibly an Enlightened Being

Well-Known Member

Listening to a song ad nauseam

The Temp's official fox whisperer

Possibly an Enlightened Being

Listening to a song ad nauseam

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

Possibly an Enlightened Being

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

Possibly an Enlightened Being

Connoisseur of all things Morshu

Amateur Hacker

pessimism = Realism

Listening to a song ad nauseam

pessimism = Realism

Well-Known Member

Back?

pessimism = Realism

Back?

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum