Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Tue 23/04/24 13:51:02 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 17011.1.1.1.1.1.2

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic

Date: Fri 08/07/05 07:51:30 GMT

Name: Waterspaniel

Email:

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

This will be my final response to this, because it's completely off topic here. I'm not saying any of those things: I recognize anyone's right to respond and express themselves in any legal fashion they see fit. The fact that I find something disturbing doesn't mean I object to anyone's right to legally express it. I don't think much of punks who burn the American flag, I find it disgusting and disturbing, but that doesn't mean I deny their right to do it under our free speech laws. My only and original point is, and perhaps I'm not expressing it well, is I'm seeing a creeping "believe what I do or else" mentality on the part of the U.S. citizenry and find it disturbing, that's all. Interesting discussion, even if off topic.

In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1.1.1)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic

By Paul - Fri 08/07/05 05:06:04 GMT

Website:

But you're making what amounts to a circular argument. Are you saying that once someone expresses their opinion, exercising their "free speech" rights, that no one else can respond or react to it because that would be "intolerant?" Suppose I feel that the statement or expression they make is itself "intolerant?" Don't I have an obligation to oppose it? Am I obligated to buy Dixie Chicks CD's, or, as a station owner, voluntarily play their music because not to do so makes me a Nazi?

Our soldiers are not only defending the right of the Dixie Chicks to be stupid, but my right to object to their views in any legal way I see fit. How is it intolerant of me to express what I believe, and not intolerant of them to say what they believe? I find no logic at all in your statements, merely emotion. To say "can't we all just get along" applies equally to both sides of the argument.

Paul

In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1.1)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic

By Waterspaniel - Fri 08/07/05 04:46:02 GMT

Website:

That's my point. I'm perfectly aware of all the points Paul has made, that these actions were taken by individuals, not the government, and they also had every right to do it. But as I noted, what I find disturbing is the total intolerance and animosity with which it was done. It seems to me that good American citizens would be following the principles of frre speech, freedom of religion, etc. Because once the citizens stop recognizing those rights, how long is it before the government also stops recognizing those rights as well, a la Iraq under Saddam Hussein or Nazi Germany? Hitler was able to rise to power because the masses supported him. Once a leader or principle (like free speech) loses support of the masses, it tends to fade away. That was my point, and that's what I find disturbing. As Voltaire said, I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And that was Voltaire, a good citizen speaking, not the government.

In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1)

Re: Re: Re: Way off topic

By waterjoe - Fri 08/07/05 00:08:07 GMT

Website:

But the way, how quite a lot of people in the U.S. are reacting on other opinions (like from the Dixie Chicks), is not good. It's hysterical, fanatic and even paranoic. And this shows a very big problem. It shows, how low is the education, the tolerance and the knowledge about other people.

In reply to Message (17011.1.1)

Re: Re: Way off topic

By Paul - Thu 07/07/05 19:55:53 GMT

Website:

It always amazes me how people, both in the US and elsewhere, simply do not understand the concept of "free speech." Free speech, in its simplest terms, means that the GOVERNMENT cannot prosecute you for your political speech, no matter how stupid, ignorant, relevant, etc. it might be. It does NOT mean that you are guaranteed not to suffer the consequences accorded by those outside the government, who, by the way, also choose to exercise their free speech by denouncing yours. All the reactions you site were taken, not by government entitities, but by commercial producers and distributors, or individuals exercising their right to purchase the material and destroy it. In a broader sense, the US Constitution is a delineation of the things the government CAN NOT do - it imposes no limitations on individuals (the laws passed by the various legislative bodies do that).

In the incidents mentioned, the Dixie Chicks made a perfectly legal, albeit studpid remark. They were not arrested, prosecuted or fined. However, they did suffer some consequences because many of those who would normally buy their music CHOSE NOT TO, or bought it and then destroyed it, in the same protected free speech manner that the band itself utilized. If you don't understand the difference, then perhaps you need to study up on history and government theory. Just remember, FREE is not the same as NO CONSEQUENCES.

Paul

In reply to Message (17011.1)

Re: Way off topic

By Waterspaniel - Thu 07/07/05 17:28:03 GMT

Website:

That's something that has bothered me for awhile here in the U.S. - increasing intolerance for opposing viewpoints. Some people get so caught up in their own rhetoric and ideas they forget what freedom of speech means. Look at the Dixie Chicks, for example. Granted, insulting the president at a music concert isn't the smartest PR move - people go to a music concert to hear music, not politics. But, they had the right to do it, even President Bush said they had the right to do it. So what happens when they do? Their CDs are crunched up, and they're banned from TV, radio, and awards shows. And I don't believe they've had a hit record since. Is that the freedom of speech the United States of America is about? I sure as hell hope not.

In reply to Message (17011)

Way off topic

By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Thu 07/07/05 16:55:38 GMT

Website:

I wasn't going to say anything on this subject, but after seeing all the other threads, here's my two cents...

Yes, it was a despicable act of indiscriminate violence committed against innocent civilians. And it was indiscriminate. London is very much a cosmopolitan city these days, making the bombings an act committed against people of every race, religion, and walk of life. Although on a smaller scale, it is reminiscent of 9/11. I feel for those who have been touched by this incident and am thankful that noone I know was in harm's way. It may only be a matter of time before such things happen on Canadian soil.

This has been a tragic day, and there are divided opinions as to who was responsible. It is reasonable to assume that Al Qaeda was behind it, but without some form of confirmation, it is only opinion and speculation. There are at least a few other possibilities besides Al Qaeda, even if that's where all the clues are currently pointing. Why shout down an opinion just because it differs from yours, especially when the facts aren't all in?

At what point will enough have been said on this topic within this forum? It's geopolitics and we come to this forum for other purposes... don't we?

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)