OT: The News Thread

[zeke]

Is bigotry and discrimination hate?

How broadly do you want to define it?

Because the broader you define it, the more it over-runs free speech.

I think suggesting that certain groups of adults don't deserve the same rights as others falls under any of my definitions.

With criminals being the lone exception, I guess.

 

[HabsAddict]

Just for the record....

I hate all leaf and booin fans. It's just a genetic Hab thing......

:drink

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]

If kb hypothetically made posts suggesting that gays should be thrown out of or prohibiting from holding public office, or should not be allowed to vote, or that they should be systematically rounded up and sent elsewhere, that would IMO cross the line into clear-cut hate speech.

As things stand though, he's free to express his beliefs. I certainly consider someone who holds a position that denies gays equal rights before the law and in society to be bigoted, but he's not trumpeting their elimination from the gene pool or from participation in our society. He's not suggesting that they are inferior or have "bad blood."

Therefore he has yet to cross the line into clear-cut dangerous territory. It's certainly a bigoted belief. It may even be somewhat hateful. But it's not inciting violence and it's not harming anyone.

When you clearly state that one adult isn't equal to another, it's hateful.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

You know what I meant.

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]

For the good of society, white people should only marry white people, black people should only marry black people. Less problems that way as interracial marriage tend to have a higher divorce rate.

But i'm only thinking of the good of society!

 

[HabsAddict]

I think suggesting that certain groups of adults don't deserve the same rights as others falls under any of my definitions.

Fundamental human rights......or social acceptable rights?

Is the right to free speech greater, lesser or equal the right to enter a social/religious construct?




(Just or the record, I don't care who marries whom other then it's not children, robots, animals or vegetables.)

 

[zeke]

Free speech rights should be unlimited only if my ability to punch you in the face is unlimited.

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

Free speech rights should be unlimited only if my ability to punch you in the face is unlimited.

or the recipient's ability to kick you in your sack is also unlimited?

 

[HabsAddict]

When you clearly state that one adult isn't equal to another, it's hateful.

if you define hateful that broadly, what do you do with billions who clearly state that under the cover of religion?

Do you ban the fundamental right of religious freedom?

 

[Leafovic]

The people who believe in unlimited free speech often don't accept the fact that there are also consequences for everything they say.

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]

if you define hateful that broadly, what do you do with billions who clearly state that under the cover of religion?

Do you ban the fundamental right of religious freedom?

You can believe what you want inside your own home.

But state sanctioned events like marriage are different story.

 

[HabsAddict]

Free speech rights should be unlimited only if my ability to punch you in the face is unlimited.

or the recipient's ability to kick you in your sack is also unlimited?

Touche...

Occasionally,like flowers in a desert, tiny tidbits of intelligence pops up. Good for you! LOL!

 

[TheCountofMonteCristo]

Touche...

Occasionally,like flowers in a desert, tiny tidbits of intelligence pops up. Good for you! LOL!

we are still waiting for yours.

 

[HabsAddict]

You can believe what you want inside your own home.

But state sanctioned events like marriage are different story.

State sanctioned?

So does that legitimize Russian state sanctioned restrictions?

 

[PlayerToBeNamedLater]

State sanctioned?

So does that legitimize Russian state sanctioned restrictions?

The state can be hateful.

 

[HabsAddict]

The people who believe in unlimited free speech often don't accept the fact that there are also consequences for everything they say.

Yes.

But do you not agree that in order not to trample all over the fundamental human right of freedom of speech, you need to define the fulcrum as hate and then see the if the balance the scale is actual, physical harm?

 

[MindzEye]

]I guess I'm just trying to figure out why it's such a big deal to you that a message board bans a poster that is posting something that offends most of the board.[/B] Most people don't want to have discussions with people who post links that are sympathetic to the Nazis.

Because I generally frown on hurt feelings mattering for a damn thing?

 

[MindzEye]

Is bigotry and discrimination hate?

How broadly do you want to define it?

Because the broader you define it, the more it over-runs free speech.

aaaand here is the meat and potatoes of the issue. You and I have always seen eye to eye on this particular issue so I'm not at all surprised that you get it.

 

[lecoqsportif]

I completely, utterly reject your labelling the defence of traditional marriage as "hate speech". it simply isn't, and the motivation behind doing that is to disparage your opponents to make your own argument look stronger. its one of the oldest, laziest tricks in the book, and I reject it.

No, the problem is you get bitchy when people call you on your views. You refuse to be accountable for your inane bile, which is pathetic.

But you're not guilty of hate speech (though some of your comments about Arabs were close to the bone). You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I'll certainly back you 100% on that. I was against any move to ban you.

But, if you talk shit (and you spew industrial quantities), then you must be willing to take the heat in response.

 

[Volcanologist]

"Begging to be bombed" sounds like hate speech to me.