|
|
 | Which right is more fundamental?
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 06-02-06 22:31 |
|
T.Liljeberg wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> >same opinion.
>
> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> the right to do it.
Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
| |
 Lars J. Helbo (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Lars J. Helbo |
Dato : 06-02-06 22:50 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
>> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
>> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
>> >same opinion.
>>
>> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
>> the right to do it.
>
>Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
no
>Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
no
| |
PeterL (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 06-02-06 22:50 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > >same opinion.
> >
> > No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > the right to do it.
>
> Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
Freedom to speak one's mind is a basic human right. If one wants to
insult another religion so be it.
With that said, I stronly disagree with the message of the cartoon.
Yet I support the newspaper's right to publish it.
> Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
No there is no such freedom. Who's to say what's "unprovoked" and
what's an "insult"?
Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
free speech, not less.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:25 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 05:49:48 +0800, PeterL wrote (in article
<1139262588.096415.167870@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> ... The way to counter bad speech is more free speech, not less.
Well said.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 04:46 |
|
T.Liljeberg wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006 11:35:17 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
> >from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
> >insult.
>
> People in general will never agree on what is insulting or unprovoked.
They could. Else no court and jury can decide anything.
| |
 Jim Walsh (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 09-02-06 09:14 |
|
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 11:46:15 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139456775.923826.201930@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2006 11:35:17 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
>> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
>>> from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
>>> insult.
>>
>> People in general will never agree on what is insulting or unprovoked.
>
> They could. Else no court and jury can decide anything.
Let's see:
A & B can not agree whether statements X, Y and Z are insults.
Therefore A & B can not agree that 2 + 2 = 4.
Naaa. That is a stupid argument.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
PeterL (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 09-02-06 18:27 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > On 8 Feb 2006 11:35:17 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
> > >from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
> > >insult.
> >
> > People in general will never agree on what is insulting or unprovoked.
>
> They could. Else no court and jury can decide anything.
That's exactly correct. No court and jury can decide on what's
provoked or unprovoked verbal or written insults. That's why courts
should never have to decide on speech.
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 18:34 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > On 8 Feb 2006 11:35:17 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
> > > >from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
> > > >insult.
> > >
> > > People in general will never agree on what is insulting or unprovoked.
> >
> > They could. Else no court and jury can decide anything.
>
> That's exactly correct. No court and jury can decide on what's
> provoked or unprovoked verbal or written insults. That's why courts
> should never have to decide on speech.
Sorry. You are quite wrong.
Many courts all over the world had decided on speech. This is a fact.
| |
PeterL (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 09-02-06 19:02 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > On 8 Feb 2006 11:35:17 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
> > > > >from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
> > > > >insult.
> > > >
> > > > People in general will never agree on what is insulting or unprovoked.
> > >
> > > They could. Else no court and jury can decide anything.
> >
> > That's exactly correct. No court and jury can decide on what's
> > provoked or unprovoked verbal or written insults. That's why courts
> > should never have to decide on speech.
>
> Sorry. You are quite wrong.
> Many courts all over the world had decided on speech. This is a fact.
I don't doubt that a bit. That's why I said the courts "should not"
decide on speech, not that they "do not" decide on speech.
Yes indeed many courts all over the world do decide on speech. Those
are courts in countries where there is no free speech. Mostly in those
countries whoever is in power decides on what is acceptable speech.
Those in power control the courts. Usually anyone who speaks out
against the current government is then deemed to have violated the
speech code. It's a convenient way to suppress political opponents.
That's why in a free and democratic country freedom of expressive is so
fundamental to the concept of a free country.
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 19:20 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > > On 8 Feb 2006 11:35:17 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > > > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
> > > > > >from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
> > > > > >insult.
> > > > >
> > > > > People in general will never agree on what is insulting or unprovoked.
> > > >
> > > > They could. Else no court and jury can decide anything.
> > >
> > > That's exactly correct. No court and jury can decide on what's
> > > provoked or unprovoked verbal or written insults. That's why courts
> > > should never have to decide on speech.
> >
> > Sorry. You are quite wrong.
> > Many courts all over the world had decided on speech. This is a fact.
>
> I don't doubt that a bit. That's why I said the courts "should not"
> decide on speech, not that they "do not" decide on speech.
>
> Yes indeed many courts all over the world do decide on speech. Those
> are courts in countries where there is no free speech. Mostly in those
> countries whoever is in power decides on what is acceptable speech.
SCOTUS had decided many first amendment cases. For example, the
doctrine of "fight words" had excluded fight words and insulting words
from protected speech had been reaffrimed several times. France, German
and Austria all considered "holocaust denial" as unlawful speech.
> Those in power control the courts. Usually anyone who speaks out
> against the current government is then deemed to have violated the
> speech code. It's a convenient way to suppress political opponents.
The difference I see is mainly the differences between proactive policy
and reactive policy.
For example, Timothy McVeigh was misled by certain
fundamentalist/militarist writings. Banning fundamentalist/militarist
writings would probably preclude the bombing. However, such proactive
policy is more likely to violate the free speech right.
>
> That's why in a free and democratic country freedom of expressive is so
> fundamental to the concept of a free country.
| |
Jim Walsh (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 10-02-06 05:21 |
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:20:11 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139509211.140519.163250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
> For example, Timothy McVeigh was misled by certain
> fundamentalist/militarist writings. Banning fundamentalist/militarist
> writings would probably preclude the bombing.
False. There is not the slightest evidence that such a censorship would have
been possible, let alone that it would have changed McVeigh's behavior.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
PeterL (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 09-02-06 20:24 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
>
>
> SCOTUS had decided many first amendment cases. For example, the
> doctrine of "fight words" had excluded fight words and insulting words
> from protected speech had been reaffrimed several times.
No it hasn't.
> France, German
> and Austria all considered "holocaust denial" as unlawful speech.
>
IMO the wrong decision. But considering the history of those countries
I can understand. Wrong still, but understandable.
> > Those in power control the courts. Usually anyone who speaks out
> > against the current government is then deemed to have violated the
> > speech code. It's a convenient way to suppress political opponents.
>
> The difference I see is mainly the differences between proactive policy
> and reactive policy.
>
> For example, Timothy McVeigh was misled by certain
> fundamentalist/militarist writings. Banning fundamentalist/militarist
> writings would probably preclude the bombing.
No it wouldn't have. You can't ban hate. Suicide bombing is illegal,
yet it dosen't stop.
> However, such proactive
> policy is more likely to violate the free speech right.
>
Yes it does.
> >
> > That's why in a free and democratic country freedom of expressive is so
> > fundamental to the concept of a free country.
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 21:02 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> >
> >
> > SCOTUS had decided many first amendment cases. For example, the
> > doctrine of "fight words" had excluded fight words and insulting words
> > from protected speech had been reaffrimed several times.
>
> No it hasn't.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/arts/topic.aspx?topic=fighting_words
------------------------
By David L. Hudson Jr.
First Amendment Center research attorney
An angry individual unleashes a torrent of profanity upon a police
officer. The officer tries to remain calm and ignore the clearly
enraged individual. But the profanity does not stop with one curse
word, and the officer arrests the person for disorderly conduct or
breach of the peace.
The individual contends that the officer violated his First Amendment
right to free speech, which includes the right to engage in offensive
expression. The individual asserts he has the right to criticize
government officials - one of the central rights the First Amendment
is designed to protect. The government counters that the individual has
no First Amendment protection because he has uttered "fighting
words" - an unprotected category of speech. Freedom of speech is
not advanced by a stream of profanities with little, if any,
intellectual backing, the government asserts.
Who should prevail in such a situation? Can the government
constitutionally punish an individual for expressing himself in an
offensive and uncivil manner? Does it matter whether the recipient of
the profane outburst is a police officer?
This hypothetical situation forms the basis for a surprisingly complex
area of First Amendment jurisprudence. The First Amendment protects a
wide range of expression that many people do not like. Former U.S.
Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in the Court's 1989
decision in Texas v. Johnson: "If there is a bedrock principle
underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit
the expression of an idea simply because it finds it offensive or
disagreeable."
But the Supreme Court has ruled that certain offensive words - called
"fighting words" - can be prohibited. The genesis of the high
court's fighting-words jurisprudence began with the 1942 decision
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
------------------------
>
> > France, German
> > and Austria all considered "holocaust denial" as unlawful speech.
> >
>
> IMO the wrong decision. But considering the history of those countries
> I can understand. Wrong still, but understandable.
>
> > > Those in power control the courts. Usually anyone who speaks out
> > > against the current government is then deemed to have violated the
> > > speech code. It's a convenient way to suppress political opponents.
> >
> > The difference I see is mainly the differences between proactive policy
> > and reactive policy.
> >
> > For example, Timothy McVeigh was misled by certain
> > fundamentalist/militarist writings. Banning fundamentalist/militarist
> > writings would probably preclude the bombing.
>
> No it wouldn't have. You can't ban hate.
If we cannot ban hate through government restrictions, similar
reasoning would suggest we cannot ban truth through governemnt
restrictions? Why do we need free speech?
> Suicide bombing is illegal,
> yet it dosen't stop.
This is what I think.
But it could be encouraged by insults such as the cartoons. No?
Hence, banning insults would reduce suicide bombing.
>
> > However, such proactive
> > policy is more likely to violate the free speech right.
> >
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > >
> > > That's why in a free and democratic country freedom of expressive is so
> > > fundamental to the concept of a free country.
| |
ThomasB (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ThomasB |
Dato : 09-02-06 22:06 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139515290.822590.190480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Why do we need free speech?
Because we're free individual people with different backgrounds and
thoughts.
| |
N/A (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : N/A |
Dato : 10-02-06 05:38 |
|
| |
Jim Walsh (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 10-02-06 05:38 |
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:15:45 +0800, Ace Sinica wrote (in article
<9tWdnZ8YAYLvjnHenZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@wideopenwest.com>):
> ltlee1,
>
> Your own beloved chairman Mao has said this:.... A good communist should
> humbly accept the criticism of others.
Not too many "good communists" in the "CCP" any more.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
humantenacity (15-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : humantenacity |
Dato : 15-02-06 17:03 |
|
I continue to read these posts with amazement. There seem to be alot of
people who are justifying these radical muslim groups violence and
destruction and saying that they have a right to be outraged to such an
extreme. Why is it so many are placating these radicals by siding with
them and acting as if their actions are justifiable because of a few
parodies? Where are the remaining 99% of the muslim population and why
aren't they crying out against these demonstrations and violent
attacks? Why aren't they calling for calm and reason? Why are the
majority of muslims silent today on this issue?
We wake up this morning to see video on CNN showing rampaging Muslims
around the world. In Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim ...
Muslim Mobs spreading mayhem. It seems that these mighty mad Muslims
are rioting and firing their ever-present AK-47s into the air because
of cartoons. This latest epidemic of Muslim outrage comes to us
because some newspapers in Norway and Denmark published some cartoons
depicting Mohammed.
Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just
some lowlights:
· Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York
City. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying
to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No
Muslim outrage.
· Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way
to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in
Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes
and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
· A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India.
Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan,
Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
· Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the
Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of
children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London
subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No
Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim
outrage.
· Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim
outrage
· Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every
one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their
shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
· Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting
Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and
nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of
Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting
Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.
Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning
flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening
innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any
outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the
Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a
reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying
property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning
outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what
tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not
represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they
become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their
outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of
worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of
these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As
their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical
reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male
supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not
screaming?"
Indeed. Why not?
| |
humantenacity (15-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : humantenacity |
Dato : 15-02-06 17:04 |
|
I continue to read these posts with amazement. There seem to be alot of
people who are justifying these radical muslim groups violence and
destruction and saying that they have a right to be outraged to such an
extreme. Why is it so many are placating these radicals by siding with
them and acting as if their actions are justifiable because of a few
parodies? Where are the remaining 99% of the muslim population and why
aren't they crying out against these demonstrations and violent
attacks? Why aren't they calling for calm and reason? Why are the
majority of muslims silent today on this issue?
We wake up this morning to see video on CNN showing rampaging Muslims
around the world. In Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim ...
Muslim Mobs spreading mayhem. It seems that these mighty mad Muslims
are rioting and firing their ever-present AK-47s into the air because
of cartoons. This latest epidemic of Muslim outrage comes to us
because some newspapers in Norway and Denmark published some cartoons
depicting Mohammed.
Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just
some lowlights:
· Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York
City. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying
to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No
Muslim outrage.
· Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way
to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in
Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes
and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
· A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India.
Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan,
Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
· Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the
Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of
children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London
subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No
Muslim outrage.
· Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim
outrage.
· Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim
outrage
· Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every
one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
· Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their
shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
· Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting
Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and
nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of
Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting
Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.
Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning
flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening
innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any
outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the
Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a
reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying
property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning
outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what
tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not
represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they
become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their
outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of
worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of
these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As
their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical
reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male
supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not
screaming?"
Indeed. Why not?
| |
ltlee1 (15-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 15-02-06 17:30 |
|
humantenacity wrote:
> I continue to read these posts with amazement. There seem to be alot of
> people who are justifying these radical muslim groups violence and
> destruction and saying that they have a right to be outraged to such an
> extreme. Why is it so many are placating these radicals by siding with
> them and acting as if their actions are justifiable because of a few
> parodies? Where are the remaining 99% of the muslim population and why
> aren't they crying out against these demonstrations and violent
> attacks? Why aren't they calling for calm and reason? Why are the
> majority of muslims silent today on this issue?
>
> We wake up this morning to see video on CNN showing rampaging Muslims
> around the world. In Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim ...
> Muslim Mobs spreading mayhem. It seems that these mighty mad Muslims
> are rioting and firing their ever-present AK-47s into the air because
> of cartoons. This latest epidemic of Muslim outrage comes to us
> because some newspapers in Norway and Denmark published some cartoons
> depicting Mohammed.
>
> Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just
> some lowlights:
>
> · Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York
> City. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying
> to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No
> Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way
> to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in
> Iraq. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes
> and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India.
> Kills six. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan,
> Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the
> Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of
> children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London
> subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No
> Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim
> outrage.
>
> · Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim
> outrage
>
> · Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every
> one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.
>
> · Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their
> shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.
What kind of nonsense is that?
You are confusing the news with reality.
There are hundreds of million of muslims. A large number of them, if
not all of them, are outraged on zillion of things everyday. Their
outrage not on the news does not mean that they are not outraged.
If you think they should be outraged on certain thing but did not,
please specify and elaborate.
>
> · Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting
> Mohammed. Muslims are outraged.
>
> Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and
> nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of
> Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting
> Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.
>
> Come on, is this really about cartoons?
It depends on how you want to attribute cause of events.
> They're rampaging and burning
> flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening
> innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any
> outrage over a cartoon. They're outraged because it is part of the
> Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged. You don't really need a
> reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying
> property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning
> outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what
> tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.
>
> I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not
> represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they
> become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their
> outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of
> worldwide hatred and ridicule? Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of
> these silent Muslims in a New York Times article three years ago. "As
> their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical
> reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male
> supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not
> screaming?"
>
> Indeed. Why not?
Why yes?
| |
ltlee1 (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 06-02-06 22:55 |
|
Lars J. Helbo wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> >> >same opinion.
> >>
> >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> >> the right to do it.
> >
> >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>
> no
Are you sure? Not even under the name of free speech?
>
> >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
>
> no
Why?
Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
| |
LR (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : LR |
Dato : 07-02-06 01:50 |
|
> Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
Unprovoked!?
For your information, once drawing shows countless blown up islamic suicide
bombers trying to enter heaven but they were so many that there wasn't space
for them. Another drawing symbolizes suicide bombings and attacks like 9/11,
London, Madrid, etc.
Some of the other drawings show how you must fear mentioning it.
All together I find that the 12 drawings form a brilliant unified picture of
islam.
And you call it "unprovoked"?
- Lasse
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:24 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 05:55:03 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139262903.882752.175210@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
Basic human rights were not established because someone enjoyed them. I have
the right to express my thoughts, even including those that insult others,
because (among other things):
1. Human societies work better if people are free to express their thoughts
(including insults), and
2. Concealing ones thoughts is unhealthy.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Lars J. Helbo (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Lars J. Helbo |
Dato : 07-02-06 09:30 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 13:55:03 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Lars J. Helbo wrote:
>> no
>Are you sure? Not even under the name of free speech?
Yes, I am sure. But you have a right to express your opinion - and of
course somebody might be insulted because of that. In this case fredom
of speech has priority.
| |
ltlee1 (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 06-02-06 23:08 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > > <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > > >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > > >same opinion.
> > >
> > > No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > > the right to do it.
> >
> > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>
> Freedom to speak one's mind is a basic human right. If one wants to
> insult another religion so be it.
>
> With that said, I stronly disagree with the message of the cartoon.
> Yet I support the newspaper's right to publish it.
>
> > Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
>
> No there is no such freedom. Who's to say what's "unprovoked" and
> what's an "insult"?
I admit that the boundary is difficult is to determine just like at
what moment day changes into night is difficult to determine. However,
difficulties in determining the boundary do not in general prevent us
from telling day from night. For the sake of discussion, we assume both
"unprovoked" and "insult" are clear.
With 20/20 hindsight, it is also clear the the muslims considered the
cartoons unprovoked insults.
>
> Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
> natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
> free speech, not less.
Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
right is more fundamental.
| |
Sirannon (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 06-02-06 23:21 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139263660.385699.304790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
> Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> right is more fundamental.
Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with the
cartoon. And btw who says it was unprovoked?
| |
Mikael Mortensen (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Mikael Mortensen |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:18 |
|
"Sirannon" <rune_nospammmingaagaard@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43e7cbc5$0$1849$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139263660.385699.304790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>
>> Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
>> from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
>> right is more fundamental.
>
> Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with the
> cartoon.
Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way they
do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
>And btw who says it was unprovoked?
The danes has been provoked several years by the muslims.
/Mikael
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:26 |
|
"Mikael Mortensen" <bugs@danbbs.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:43e7d920$0$2485$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Sirannon" <rune_nospammmingaagaard@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:43e7cbc5$0$1849$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>>
..
>>
>> Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with the
>> cartoon.
>
> Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way
> they do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
>
Well, as has been stated a number of times, there are 1,2 billion muslims in
the world, only a minimal fraction wants to kill anybody. So it is unfair to
paint them all and their religion as murderous in nature. However I will
vigorously defend anybodys right to say it.
| |
T.Liljeberg (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:30 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 14:07:40 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
>> natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
>> free speech, not less.
>
>Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
>from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
>right is more fundamental.
Absolutely, without a doubt.
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:54 |
|
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:07:40 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> right is more fundamental.
Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 12:20 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139319296.425593.171590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sirannon wrote:
> >> For some reason I don't have ltlee1's post on my newsserver. So I'll try
> >> to
> >> rebut in this post.
> >>
> >
> > I think you are talking about the relation between free speech and
> > sciences. Or free speech is the necessary condition of sciences. In
> > case you don't already know, sciences are about objective facts and
> > logic, not about view points. As a matter of fact, view points like
> > Christian creationism pretends to be sciences could actually be
> > harmful. This is why many school teachers do not want to teach
> > creationism in America as sciences. Is this an infringement on free
> > speech.
> > This is also answer one of your earlier point that free speech cannot
> > be censored. It is a fact that you cannot teach 2 + 2 = 5. This kind of
> > free speech get you no where.
>
> Sure you can teach it. Results wont be that good however.
> And creationism may be harmful, however it may also force scientist to
> become more public in their defence of evoulution, thereby increasing
> knowledge among other people.
Yeah. You can also make exactly the same arguement for teaching 2+2=4
in school.
> >> > 2. The Church/Science conflict was basically European in terms of
> >> > scope,
> >> > not universal. Islam preserved the knowledge while Europe was in the
> >> > dark
> >> > age. Without which Enlightment might not be possible.
> >>
> >> And this is not a European conflict or what? And whatever is the
> >> relevance
> >> of this.
> >
> > In case you forget, it cut and paste your own words:
> > "Without freedom of speach, there would be no basis for science."
> >
> > My answer to your assertion above.
> > Yes. But this is primarily an European problem with of its powerful
> > Christian Churches.
>
> You can hardly characterize the churches in Europe as powerful anymore.
No more. But the powerfula and infallable Church was what make free
speech a necessity.
>
>
> >> > 3. I would say you underestimate the human spirit and human creativity.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, I'm not really sure what you are answering here, so if you would
> >> clarify?
> >
> > I am refuting your claim that free speech is a necessary condition of
> > sciences and perhaps human advancement. That is simply not true.
>
> You have yet to make a postive argument for your case, all I see is
> handwaving.
Please tell when did the Danish people discover and accept free speech.
The Danish people must have a history of more than 200 years. How about
the history of free speech.
>
>
> >> > What kind of political freedom, religious freedom, or free expression
> >> > did
> >> > great scientist like Galileo have?
> >>
> >> Clearly not enough
> >
> > My point.Such lack of freedom did not prevent him from being great
> > scientist.
>
> Well the point is if he had his freedoms his message would have traveled a
> lot faster. And his theory wasn't exactly right you know.
Totally speculative.
As a matter of fact, free speech is not a human need.
Great people are great not because they have no internally and
externally imposed restriction. In comparison, what other can impose is
nothing in comparison to what one can imposed on his own self, on his
own mind.
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 22:03 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
>
> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
| |
T.Liljeberg (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 09-02-06 04:27 |
|
On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sirannon wrote:
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
>>
>> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
>
>We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
muslims.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 08-02-06 22:09 |
|
Syrian police using water cannon and tear gas fought pitched battles
with stone-throwing protestors into Saturday evening.
Witnesses said that groups of protestors broke into the Danish embassy
and used furniture from the offices to start fires which spread to the
entire three-storey building. The building also houses the Swedish and
Chilean embassies.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003256.html
Sirannon wrote:
> <abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139430780.939550.192400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The police could not stop the arsons. It's like recent Paris riots.
>
> Would you please qoute properly!
>
> It was obvious that they didn't even try.
| |
Sirannon (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 08-02-06 22:19 |
|
<abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139432937.562033.161550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Syrian police using water cannon and tear gas fought pitched battles
> with stone-throwing protestors into Saturday evening.
Yes when they wanted to burn the French embassy, it was suddenly a different
thing.
> Witnesses said that groups of protestors broke into the Danish embassy
> and used furniture from the offices to start fires which spread to the
> entire three-storey building. The building also houses the Swedish and
> Chilean embassies.
>
> http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003256.html
>
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> <abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139430780.939550.192400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > The police could not stop the arsons. It's like recent Paris riots.
>>
>> Would you please qoute properly!
>>
>> It was obvious that they didn't even try.
>
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 08-02-06 22:24 |
|
I dont know. I can not speculate that. But Syrian police did use
water cannon and tear gas against the mobs.
Sirannon wrote:
> <abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139432937.562033.161550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Syrian police using water cannon and tear gas fought pitched battles
> > with stone-throwing protestors into Saturday evening.
>
> Yes when they wanted to burn the French embassy, it was suddenly a different
> thing.
>
>
> > Witnesses said that groups of protestors broke into the Danish embassy
> > and used furniture from the offices to start fires which spread to the
> > entire three-storey building. The building also houses the Swedish and
> > Chilean embassies.
> >
> > http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003256.html
> >
> >
> > Sirannon wrote:
> >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> news:1139430780.939550.192400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > The police could not stop the arsons. It's like recent Paris riots.
> >>
> >> Would you please qoute properly!
> >>
> >> It was obvious that they didn't even try.
> >
| |
PeterL (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 09-02-06 00:00 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
>
> >
> > > If there is no right not to be insulted, then there is no right to
> > > insult.
> >
> > That doesn't follow.
>
> Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
God is a human invention.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 09-02-06 10:12 |
|
"sort of" correct from Bill Moore means it's correct. And can you show
me in which one of your posts you have criticized those who said they
have every right to insult or said nothing wrong to link Mohammad to
terrorism, I went through all your posts but did not find any as you
claimed. You need to explain that. [prediction: Bill Moore will talk
someting irrelevant because he does not have any post to back up his
claim.] And if that is the case, in what position you can criticize LT
Lee has been so biased, eh?
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Read below... Syrian Foreign Ministry expressed regret and also said
> > embassy arsons have violated law and order in the country and the act
> > is unacceptable. That's condemnation.
>
> As usual, you are "sort of" correct. You said enough that someone would
> have to expend a lot of energy explaining why you are not really on
> target, as you always do.
>
> > Not only that, Syria religious leaders also condemned the arsons and I
> > have posted the link.
>
> > And you claimed you have criticized those who said they have every
> > right to insult or linked Mohammad to terrorism, I went through all
> > your posts but did not find any. You need to explain that.
>
> Geez, you have no idea how hard you are to have a conversation with.
>
> > -----
> > DAMASCUS, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Syria expressed regret on Sunday for
> > Saturday's violent protests in which angry demonstrators torched Danish
> >
> > and Norwegian embassies in Damascus over publication of cartoons of the
> >
> > Prophet Mohammad in the two countries.
> >
> > "Despite the big understanding of feelings of the popular anger
> > over publication of caricatures that insulted the Prophet Mohammad, it
> > is unacceptable to contradict law and order in the country," the
> > Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
> > -----
> >
> >
> > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=77893
> > > >
> > > > "On Sunday, Syria's foreign ministry expressed regret at the embassy
> > > > arsons and promised to step up security around foreign diplomatic
> > > > missions."
> > >
> > > Let's see. You said
> > >
> > > "As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > embassy"
> > >
> > > Now, "expresed regret" isn't really the same thing as "condemned". You
> > > used a strong word like "condemned" and it doesn't really convey what
> > > the Syrian Foreign Ministry actually said. In a rational discussion
> > > it's good to argue your points as accurately as possible.
> > >
> > > > Now provide us the evidence that Syria allowed burning of embassy
> > > > happen.
> > >
> > > First I will note that my mentioning the laxness of the Syrians in
> > > responding to the violence is an aside. You are jumping on this small
> > > aside and neglecting the big picture.
> > > You have a very irritating habit of demanding a lot from the people you
> > > converse with and offering little in return.
> > >
> > > Regarding the burning of the embassies,
> > >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682388.stm like
> > >
> > > "The government of Syria's failure to provide protection to diplomatic
> > > premises, in the face of warnings that violence was planned, is
> > > inexcusable."
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18046936%255E1702,00.html
> > >
> > > Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller told local television it was
> > > "completely unacceptable that the Syrian authorities did not protect
> > > the embassy, and I have told the Syrian foreign minister that".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
> > > > > protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
> > > > > discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
> > > > > I am wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
> > > > > destruction.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
> > > > > what you are replying to?
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > > > > > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > > > > > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > > > > > > to argue.
> > > > > > > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > > > > > > haven't picked up on that at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > > > > > > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > > > > > > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > > > > > > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > > > > > > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > > > > > > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > > > > > > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > > > > > > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > > > > > > violence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So how can you
> > > > > > > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're not really getting the point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > > > > > > embassy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > > > > > > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > > > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > > > > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > > > > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > > > > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > > > > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > > > > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > > > > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > > > > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > > > > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > > > > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > > > > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > > > > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > > > > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 09-02-06 19:41 |
|
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> "sort of" correct from Bill Moore means it's correct.
You are the only person in the world who says that.
You really don't understand where I am coming from, and you're pretty
annoying.
| |
PeterL (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 06-02-06 23:10 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> Lars J. Helbo wrote:
> > On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > >> >same opinion.
> > >>
> > >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > >> the right to do it.
> > >
> > >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> >
> > no
>
> Are you sure? Not even under the name of free speech?
>
> >
> > >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> >
> > no
>
> Why?
> Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
It has nothing to do with enjoying it. It has to do with the
alternative, restricted speech, which is much worse.
| |
PeterL (06-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 06-02-06 23:12 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > > > <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > > > >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > > > >same opinion.
> > > >
> > > > No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > > > the right to do it.
> > >
> > > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> >
> > Freedom to speak one's mind is a basic human right. If one wants to
> > insult another religion so be it.
> >
> > With that said, I stronly disagree with the message of the cartoon.
> > Yet I support the newspaper's right to publish it.
> >
> > > Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> >
> > No there is no such freedom. Who's to say what's "unprovoked" and
> > what's an "insult"?
>
> I admit that the boundary is difficult is to determine just like at
> what moment day changes into night is difficult to determine. However,
> difficulties in determining the boundary do not in general prevent us
> from telling day from night. For the sake of discussion, we assume both
> "unprovoked" and "insult" are clear.
>
Not a good assumption.
> With 20/20 hindsight, it is also clear the the muslims considered the
> cartoons unprovoked insults.
>
But the Danes don't. So who gets to say what is and what is not
unprovoked insults?
> >
> > Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
> > natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
> > free speech, not less.
>
> Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> right is more fundamental.
Yes it is. The right to free speech (including bad free speech) is
more important than the freedom from verbal insults.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 10-02-06 05:23 |
|
PoPoMaMa... Most of Chinese people only care about the economy,
salary, housing... more than anything else.
Ace Sinica wrote:
> ltlee1,
>
> Your own beloved chairman Mao has said this:
> "If you have shit, then shit it out, if you want to fart, then fart."
>
> "Let a hundred flowers bloom forth".....
>
> A good communist should humbly accept the criticism of others.
>
> The New China was supposed to break away from the feudal society of old
> China. What you are proposing, such as strong centralized authoritarian
> gov, strict control of speech, all these are from the old feudal
> society. The Chinese had two revolutions to let the citizen break free
> from gov control of thought, why should we go back?
>
> As thus, this is a betrayal of the revolution, be it Dr. Sun's
> revolution to overthrow autocracy, take power away from one single
> family, give to every citizen; or Mao's revolution of giving power to
> the proletariats.
>
> Those cartoons? Ha! Why should foreigners give concern over what a
> Danish cartoon published in a Danish newspaper, meant for Danish readers?
>
> If people don't like it, they are free to publish something similar in
> their own newspaper against the Danes. I'm sure the Danes wouldn't even
> bother to read it. Even if they do, they'll just laugh at it for a day,
> then tomorrow will bring another set of cartoons.
>
> You can live your life your way, not daring to speak out against your
> motherland's gov. Maybe you have family back there and you are afraid
> for their safety.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Ace
>
>
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > reasoning would suggest we cannot ban truth through governemnt
> > restrictions? Why do we need free speech?
> >
> >
> > This is what I think.
> > But it could be encouraged by insults such as the cartoons. No?
> > Hence, banning insults would reduce suicide bombing.
> >
> >
| |
ltlee1 (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 10-02-06 16:19 |
|
Ace Sinica wrote:
> ltlee1,
>
> Your own beloved chairman Mao has said this:
> "If you have shit, then shit it out, if you want to fart, then fart."
>
> "Let a hundred flowers bloom forth".....
>
> A good communist should humbly accept the criticism of others.
>
> The New China was supposed to break away from the feudal society of old
> China. What you are proposing, such as strong centralized authoritarian
> gov, strict control of speech, all these are from the old feudal
> society. The Chinese had two revolutions to let the citizen break free
> from gov control of thought, why should we go back?
>
> As thus, this is a betrayal of the revolution, be it Dr. Sun's
> revolution to overthrow autocracy, take power away from one single
> family, give to every citizen; or Mao's revolution of giving power to
> the proletariats.
>
> Those cartoons? Ha! Why should foreigners give concern over what a
> Danish cartoon published in a Danish newspaper, meant for Danish readers?
>
> If people don't like it, they are free to publish something similar in
> their own newspaper against the Danes. I'm sure the Danes wouldn't even
> bother to read it. Even if they do, they'll just laugh at it for a day,
> then tomorrow will bring another set of cartoons.
>
> You can live your life your way, not daring to speak out against your
> motherland's gov. Maybe you have family back there and you are afraid
> for their safety.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Ace
If you want to discuss the issue concerning the right to insult and the
right to be free from insult which is the subject of this thread,
please go ahead. Not interested in your off topic ranting.
>
>
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > reasoning would suggest we cannot ban truth through governemnt
> > restrictions? Why do we need free speech?
> >
> >
> > This is what I think.
> > But it could be encouraged by insults such as the cartoons. No?
> > Hence, banning insults would reduce suicide bombing.
> >
> >
| |
N/A (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : N/A |
Dato : 11-02-06 07:09 |
|
| |
humantenacity (15-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : humantenacity |
Dato : 15-02-06 17:43 |
|
All of the listed destruction caused by radical muslims are facts not
mysteries or fantasies and can be supported by clear documentation.
Show me anyone listed where anyone in the moderate sect of Islam spoke
out publically against them? Even in the USA when the World Trade
Towers were destroyed in 2001 no Islamic group spoke publically and
directly against those attacking the WTC. Oh they spoke against
violence and talked about how it wasn't at the heart of what most
muslims believe but none condemned the action directly in the states.
No mass rallys of protest flooded the streets. The fact is muslims are
generally afraid of those radical sects of their own faith and afraid
of reprisals and their own death at their hands if they speak out.
Take the bombings of innocent school children in Israel. Name ONE
muslim group publically condemning these actions? Why aren't the
muslims out in the streets condemning such violence? Why is there only
silence? Yet I can name a number of muslim groups publically supporting
these murders of children. Isn't that odd?
I think that all reasonable muslims and all people generally should be
outraged on all the events I listed in my previous post! And yet people
continue to publically outcry over these handful of offensive cartoons
while radical muslims continually maim destroy and murder and noone
seems bothered by these actions nearly as much as a few cartoons? Sad
isn't it?
If you seriously think a few cartoons should provoke such rage and
destruction then perhaps you should look inward and ask yourself why? I
cannot conceive of anything put into words or print that could remotely
justify the taking of another life!!!
| |
Jim Walsh (19-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 19-02-06 13:47 |
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:43:11 +0800, humantenacity wrote
(in article <1140021791.277266.318070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> All of the listed destruction caused by radical muslims are facts not
> mysteries or fantasies and can be supported by clear documentation.
> Show me anyone listed where anyone in the moderate sect of Islam spoke
> out publically against them?
Every important Muslim leader has spoken against the violent riots.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
J.Venning (19-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : J.Venning |
Dato : 19-02-06 14:15 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> wrote in message news:0001HW.C01E89AB0006B69AF0284550@family.alibis.com...
> Every important Muslim leader has spoken against the violent riots.
> Love, Jim
You must have been reading and listening to media which have been censored by the Muslims.
J.
| |
ltlee1 (15-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 15-02-06 18:00 |
|
humantenacity wrote:
> All of the listed destruction caused by radical muslims are facts not
> mysteries or fantasies and can be supported by clear documentation.
> Show me anyone listed where anyone in the moderate sect of Islam spoke
> out publically against them? Even in the USA when the World Trade
> Towers were destroyed in 2001 no Islamic group spoke publically and
> directly against those attacking the WTC.
May be they don't beleive the WTC bombings were the act of Al Qaeda. As
a matter of fact, not all Americans believe that either.
> Oh they spoke against
> violence and talked about how it wasn't at the heart of what most
> muslims believe but none condemned the action directly in the states.
> No mass rallys of protest flooded the streets. The fact is muslims are
> generally afraid of those radical sects of their own faith and afraid
> of reprisals and their own death at their hands if they speak out.
>
> Take the bombings of innocent school children in Israel. Name ONE
> muslim group publically condemning these actions? Why aren't the
> muslims out in the streets condemning such violence? Why is there only
> silence? Yet I can name a number of muslim groups publically supporting
> these murders of children. Isn't that odd?
If they see palestinians as under occupation, they would probably view
suicide bombing as the palestinians' only way to fight back. There are
reason to be sad, but not their rights to be outraged. At least not
before the Palestinians are outraged. In some sense, the Israelites and
the Palestinians are inside the ring. Others are all observing from the
outside.
>
> I think that all reasonable muslims and all people generally should be
> outraged on all the events I listed in my previous post! And yet people
> continue to publically outcry over these handful of offensive cartoons
> while radical muslims continually maim destroy and murder and noone
> seems bothered by these actions nearly as much as a few cartoons? Sad
> isn't it?
>
> If you seriously think a few cartoons should provoke such rage and
> destruction then perhaps you should look inward and ask yourself why? I
> cannot conceive of anything put into words or print that could remotely
> justify the taking of another life!!!
The cartoons had provoked rage and destruction. This is the reality.
What you think and what I think are irrelevant.
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:07 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > Lars J. Helbo wrote:
> > > On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > > >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > > >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > > >> >same opinion.
> > > >>
> > > >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > > >> the right to do it.
> > > >
> > > >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> > >
> > > no
> >
> > Are you sure? Not even under the name of free speech?
> >
> > >
> > > >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> > >
> > > no
> >
> > Why?
> > Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
>
>
> It has nothing to do with enjoying it. It has to do with the
> alternative, restricted speech, which is much worse.
How about the right to draw insulting cartoons? Won't you say both the
muslim protestors and the cartoonists who are now fearing for their
safetu as well as the safty of the family members are victims of such
right?
It is clear that human has learnt to thrive on restricted speech
including trying not to insult? I am not so sure that human has learnt
to thrive on the right to insult. Some posters already mention WMD.
| |
TS (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : TS |
Dato : 07-02-06 01:17 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139267243.692139.90050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> PeterL wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>> > Lars J. Helbo wrote:
>> > > On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> > > >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik
>> > > >> "abianchen@my-deja.com"
>> > > >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US
>> > > >> >government,
>> > > >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all
>> > > >> >expressed the
>> > > >> >same opinion.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not
>> > > >> have
>> > > >> the right to do it.
>> > > >
>> > > >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>> > >
>> > > no
>> >
>> > Are you sure? Not even under the name of free speech?
>> >
>> > >
>> > > >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
>> > >
>> > > no
>> >
>> > Why?
>> > Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
>>
>>
>> It has nothing to do with enjoying it. It has to do with the
>> alternative, restricted speech, which is much worse.
>
> How about the right to draw insulting cartoons?
it's satirical cartoons! get a grip on reality. If cartoons can shake your
world then your a dangerous person. Anyone with a brain can see that these
cartoons are just reflecting daily middle east news with suicide bombing,
jihad and women suppression
Won't you say both the
> muslim protestors and the cartoonists who are now fearing for their
> safetu as well as the safty of the family members are victims of such
> right?
That the cartoonists fear for their life only proves that there are too many
islamic lunitics and criticism of islam is well justified.
>
> It is clear that human has learnt to thrive on restricted speech
> including trying not to insult? I am not so sure that human has learnt
> to thrive on the right to insult. Some posters already mention WMD.
>
If you can't criticise or insult anybody you can't have a constructive
dialog. Newspapers should be able to publish anything within the laws which
dont include any weird religious taboos. and you have the right to have an
opinion about it - but dont force that opinion on anybody else...
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:41 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:07:23 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139267243.692139.90050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> It is clear that human has learnt to thrive on restricted speech...
False. Make a list of countries ordered according to the degree of free
speech. Compare it with a list ordered according to per capita income.
Absence of freedom of speech leads to poverty.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Erling Hansen (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Erling Hansen |
Dato : 07-02-06 23:51 |
|
ltlee1 <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about the right to draw insulting cartoons? Won't you say both the
> muslim protestors and the cartoonists who are now fearing for their
> safetu as well as the safty of the family members are victims of such
> right?
>
> It is clear that human has learnt to thrive on restricted speech
> including trying not to insult? I am not so sure that human has learnt
> to thrive on the right to insult. Some posters already mention WMD.
Which is most insulting to muslims in general?
1) A cartoon picturing Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, symbolising
the people who commit terror in his name,..... or
2) The people, among others Hizbollah, who train suicide-bombers to kill
innocent people, in the name of Mohammad.
I know which I find most insulting, but why do we rarely hear muslims
distance themselves from the crimes done in the name of their religion?
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:13 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > > On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > > > > <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > > > > >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > > > > >same opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > > > > the right to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> > >
> > > Freedom to speak one's mind is a basic human right. If one wants to
> > > insult another religion so be it.
> > >
> > > With that said, I stronly disagree with the message of the cartoon.
> > > Yet I support the newspaper's right to publish it.
> > >
> > > > Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> > >
> > > No there is no such freedom. Who's to say what's "unprovoked" and
> > > what's an "insult"?
> >
> > I admit that the boundary is difficult is to determine just like at
> > what moment day changes into night is difficult to determine. However,
> > difficulties in determining the boundary do not in general prevent us
> > from telling day from night. For the sake of discussion, we assume both
> > "unprovoked" and "insult" are clear.
> >
>
> Not a good assumption.
Are you saying unprovoked insults do not exist at all?
>
> > With 20/20 hindsight, it is also clear the the muslims considered the
> > cartoons unprovoked insults.
> >
>
> But the Danes don't. So who gets to say what is and what is not
> unprovoked insults?
So, what do you suggested? The muslims who feel they are unfairly
insulted should just turn the other cheek.
>
> > >
> > > Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
> > > natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
> > > free speech, not less.
> >
> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> > right is more fundamental.
>
> Yes it is. The right to free speech (including bad free speech) is
> more important than the freedom from verbal insults.
What is your advice to those who are unfairly targeted?
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:42 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:12:54 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139267574.478077.237140@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> PeterL wrote:
>> Yes it is. The right to free speech (including bad free speech) is
>> more important than the freedom from verbal insults.
>
> What is your advice to those who are unfairly targeted?
Get over it.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:20 |
|
Mikael Mortensen wrote:
> "Sirannon" <rune_nospammmingaagaard@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:43e7cbc5$0$1849$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> >
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:1139263660.385699.304790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>
> >> Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> >> from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> >> right is more fundamental.
> >
> > Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with the
> > cartoon.
>
> Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way they
> do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
Are all muslims killers?
>
> >And btw who says it was unprovoked?
>
> The danes has been provoked several years by the muslims.
How so?
>
>
> /Mikael
| |
Mikael Mortensen (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Mikael Mortensen |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:44 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139268021.823122.205440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mikael Mortensen wrote:
>> "Sirannon" <rune_nospammmingaagaard@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:43e7cbc5$0$1849$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>> >
>> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> > news:1139263660.385699.304790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >> Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
>> >> from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore
>> >> which
>> >> right is more fundamental.
>> >
>> > Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with
>> > the
>> > cartoon.
>>
>> Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way
>> they
>> do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
>
> Are all muslims killers?
Muslims has to follow the qouran (koran).
It states that all infidels must be killed.
>
>>
>> >And btw who says it was unprovoked?
>>
>> The danes has been provoked several years by the muslims.
>
> How so?
Crimes - Much higher than natives, and more violent.
Demands - like school children can not get pork and only halal meet
They want swimming pools for them selfes.
etc.
/Mikael
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:28 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:44:06 +0800, Mikael Mortensen wrote (in article
<43e7df59$0$2501$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
> Muslims has to follow the qouran (koran). It states that all infidels must
> be killed.
Nonsense. The Koran says no such thing. I live in peace with my Muslim
neighbors.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:43 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
meddelelse news:0001HW.C00E26980001CFC8F0284550@family.alibis.com...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:44:06 +0800, Mikael Mortensen wrote (in article
> <43e7df59$0$2501$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
>
>
>> Muslims has to follow the qouran (koran). It states that all infidels
>> must
>> be killed.
>
> Nonsense. The Koran says no such thing. I live in peace with my Muslim
> neighbors.
Well actually you can find passages that can be interpreted like that, just
as you can in the bible. Does't mean that anybody follows it, though. And
claiming that all muslims want to kill "infidels" is just pure unadultered
racism.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:21 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:42:51 +0800, Sirannon wrote
(in article <43e80915$0$1774$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>):
>
> "Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
> meddelelse news:0001HW.C00E26980001CFC8F0284550@family.alibis.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:44:06 +0800, Mikael Mortensen wrote (in article
>> <43e7df59$0$2501$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
>>
>>
>>> Muslims has to follow the qouran (koran). It states that all infidels
>>> must
>>> be killed.
>>
>> Nonsense. The Koran says no such thing. I live in peace with my Muslim
>> neighbors.
>
> Well actually you can find passages that can be interpreted like that, just
> as you can in the bible. Does't mean that anybody follows it, though. And
> claiming that all muslims want to kill "infidels" is just pure unadultered
> racism.
Agree that it is religious intolerance, which may have a racist component.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Mikael Mortensen (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Mikael Mortensen |
Dato : 07-02-06 10:55 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
meddelelse news:0001HW.C00E26980001CFC8F0284550@family.alibis.com...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:44:06 +0800, Mikael Mortensen wrote (in article
> <43e7df59$0$2501$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
>
>
>> Muslims has to follow the qouran (koran). It states that all infidels
>> must
>> be killed.
>
> Nonsense. The Koran says no such thing. I live in peace with my Muslim
> neighbors.
Sura: 9:73 - Fight the infidels
Sura: 8:15 - 8:17 - Muslims must fight the infidels , they may not escape
Sura: 5:52 - Muslims must not be friends with infidels
Sura: 5:34 - Crusify and mutilate those who figths against Allah
Sura: 47:36 - Muslims will only talk for peace when they are the weakest
And it goes on and on....
/Mikael
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 09:17 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:55:20 +0800, Mikael Mortensen wrote
(in article <43e86ea4$0$2515$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
>
> "Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
> meddelelse news:0001HW.C00E26980001CFC8F0284550@family.alibis.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:44:06 +0800, Mikael Mortensen wrote (in article
>> <43e7df59$0$2501$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
>>
>>
>>> Muslims has to follow the qouran (koran). It states that all infidels
>>> must
>>> be killed.
>>
>> Nonsense. The Koran says no such thing. I live in peace with my Muslim
>> neighbors.
>
> Sura: 9:73 - Fight the infidels
> Sura: 8:15 - 8:17 - Muslims must fight the infidels , they may not escape
> Sura: 5:52 - Muslims must not be friends with infidels
> Sura: 5:34 - Crusify and mutilate those who figths against Allah
> Sura: 47:36 - Muslims will only talk for peace when they are the weakest
> And it goes on and on....
There is gibberish in the Bible, too. Islam is as peaceful, no more no less
than Christianity.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:26 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:20:21 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139268021.823122.205440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Mikael Mortensen wrote:
>> Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way they
>> do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
>
> Are all muslims killers?
No.
Do all muslims object to the cartoons? No.
Would it matter if they did? No.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Mikael Mortensen (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Mikael Mortensen |
Dato : 07-02-06 11:11 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
meddelelse news:0001HW.C00E26520001BF90F0284550@family.alibis.com...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:20:21 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
> (in article <1139268021.823122.205440@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> Mikael Mortensen wrote:
>
>>> Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way
>>> they
>>> do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
>>
>> Are all muslims killers?
>
> No.
>
> Do all muslims object to the cartoons? No.
>
> Would it matter if they did? No.
Sura: 47:36 - Muslims will only talk for peace when they are the weakest
/Mikael
| |
T.Liljeberg (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:30 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
>> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
>> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
>> >same opinion.
>>
>> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
>> the right to do it.
>
>Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
Freedom of Speech is a basic, fundamental political right.
>Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
Absolutely not. Even if you prefer to not deal with the philosphical
and conceptual aspects, just consider the practical implications of
this "basic human right".
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:28 |
|
T. Liljeberg wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> >> >same opinion.
> >>
> >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> >> the right to do it.
> >
> >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>
> Freedom of Speech is a basic, fundamental political right.
>
> >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
>
> Absolutely not. Even if you prefer to not deal with the philosphical
> and conceptual aspects, just consider the practical implications of
> this "basic human right".
What practical aspect?
It is obvious that human thrives in its absence. It is also obvious
many tragedies were caused by verbal insults.
| |
T.Liljeberg (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 07-02-06 01:14 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>T. Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
>> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
>> >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
>> >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
>> >> >same opinion.
>> >>
>> >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
>> >> the right to do it.
>> >
>> >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>>
>> Freedom of Speech is a basic, fundamental political right.
>>
>> >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
>>
>> Absolutely not. Even if you prefer to not deal with the philosphical
>> and conceptual aspects, just consider the practical implications of
>> this "basic human right".
>
>What practical aspect?
There are thousands or millions of different views of what can be
considered insulting.There are an equal number of views of when the
insult is justified or necessary, vs. unprovoked and gratuitous. Now
consider the practical implications when you try to implement
protection from unprovoked insults as a universal human right.
In fact, I am insulted by your blatent attempts at restricting my
rights. You are violating my right to freedom from insults.
>It is obvious that human thrives in its absence.
Not at all.
>It is also obvious
>many tragedies were caused by verbal insults.
It is equally obvious that one man's justified condemnation of
reprehensible conditions or ideas is the next man's insult.
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:32 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "Mikael Mortensen" <bugs@danbbs.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:43e7d920$0$2485$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
> >
> > "Sirannon" <rune_nospammmingaagaard@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:43e7cbc5$0$1849$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> >>
> .
> >>
> >> Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with the
> >> cartoon.
> >
> > Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way
> > they do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
> >
> Well, as has been stated a number of times, there are 1,2 billion muslims in
> the world, only a minimal fraction wants to kill anybody. So it is unfair to
> paint them all and their religion as murderous in nature. However I will
> vigorously defend anybodys right to say it.
So? 1.2 billion muslims should just sallow the insults.
Would it be much better if the cartoonists target only the terrorists
and other murderous muslims and leave the rest alone?
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:56 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139268719.327618.315980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> "Mikael Mortensen" <bugs@danbbs.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:43e7d920$0$2485$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
>> >
>> > "Sirannon" <rune_nospammmingaagaard@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> > news:43e7cbc5$0$1849$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>> >>
>> .
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with
>> >> the
>> >> cartoon.
>> >
>> > Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way
>> > they do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
>> >
>> Well, as has been stated a number of times, there are 1,2 billion muslims
>> in
>> the world, only a minimal fraction wants to kill anybody. So it is unfair
>> to
>> paint them all and their religion as murderous in nature. However I will
>> vigorously defend anybodys right to say it.
>
> So? 1.2 billion muslims should just sallow the insults.
> Would it be much better if the cartoonists target only the terrorists
> and other murderous muslims and leave the rest alone?
Sure that would be better, but you are either too obtuse to understand what
we are writing or you just don't want to. I'm assuming the latter.
And they should not just swallow the insult. The normal democratic way would
be to counter an insult with arguments or a boycott of the paper or
whatever peaceful means they can come up with. If they believe the paper has
broken the law, they can take it to the court. What is not acceptable is if
the government interfeers!
| |
ThomasB (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ThomasB |
Dato : 07-02-06 01:11 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139268719.327618.315980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> So? 1.2 billion muslims should just sallow the insults.
> Would it be much better if the cartoonists target only the terrorists
> and other murderous muslims and leave the rest alone?
"Man" og "women"-jokes insults half the world.
Humor is (mostly) a matter dealing with fear and barriers.
If you can make a joke about it, you're about to accept it.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:29 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:31:59 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139268719.327618.315980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> So? 1.2 billion muslims should just sallow the insults.
Yes. swallow.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 00:34 |
|
T. Liljeberg wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 14:07:40 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
> >> natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
> >> free speech, not less.
> >
> >Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> >from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> >right is more fundamental.
>
> Absolutely, without a doubt.
What is the benefits of insulting the majority of muslims who 1. do not
do any bad things themselves and 2. wish to be leave alone?
| |
T.Liljeberg (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 07-02-06 01:08 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 15:33:50 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>T. Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 14:07:40 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
>> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
>> >> natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
>> >> free speech, not less.
>> >
>> >Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
>> >from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
>> >right is more fundamental.
>>
>> Absolutely, without a doubt.
>
>What is the benefits of insulting the majority of muslims who 1. do not
>do any bad things themselves and 2. wish to be leave alone?
Even if there is no benefit whatsoever, freedom of speech is still
more important.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:30 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 07:33:50 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139268830.084561.248980@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> What is the benefits of insulting the majority of muslims who 1. do not
> do any bad things themselves and 2. wish to be leave alone?
Protecting freedom of expression has enormous benefits.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
LR (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : LR |
Dato : 07-02-06 01:20 |
|
> Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
That's a BIG difference.
- Lasse
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:32 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 08:19:39 +0800, LR wrote
(in article <43e7e79c$0$2448$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
>> Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>
> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
>
> That's a BIG difference.
Irrelevant. The right to self-expression includes the right to insult.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
LR (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : LR |
Dato : 07-02-06 13:38 |
|
>> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
>>
>> That's a BIG difference.
>
> Irrelevant. The right to self-expression includes the right to insult.
Showing the connection between islam and terrorism is the difference that
could make something blasphemic legal because of free speech. Instead of
some stupid insult (like Buddah stabbing Jesus with a knife) with no
relation to real life.
- Lasse
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 09:17 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 20:38:11 +0800, LR wrote
(in article <43e894b5$0$2461$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk>):
>>> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
>>>
>>> That's a BIG difference.
>>
>> Irrelevant. The right to self-expression includes the right to insult.
>
> Showing the connection between islam and terrorism is the difference that
> could make something blasphemic legal because of free speech. Instead of
> some stupid insult (like Buddah stabbing Jesus with a knife) with no
> relation to real life.
Even such stupid insults serve a valuable purpose.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 01:33 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > >same opinion.
> >
> > No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > the right to do it.
>
> Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
No one has said that it is. You have set up a straw man.
> Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
If freedom from irritating disingenuous discussion were a basic human
right, some Usenet posters would have been censured many times over.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:20 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 05:31:16 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139261476.116002.156290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
>> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
>>> Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
>>> same opinion.
>>
>> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
>> the right to do it.
>
> Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
Yes.
> Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
No.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:26 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139268719.327618.315980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sirannon wrote:
> >> "Mikael Mortensen" <bugs@danbbs.dk> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> news:43e7d920$0$2485$edfadb0f@dread14.news.tele.dk...
> >> >
> >> > "Sirannon" <rune_nospammmingaagaard@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> > news:43e7cbc5$0$1849$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> >> >>
> >> .
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, that is what we are saying. FYI I do not in any way agree with
> >> >> the
> >> >> cartoon.
> >> >
> >> > Why not.. Its a fact that muslims kills in mohammeds name. And one way
> >> > they do it is with bombs - hense the bomb in the turban.
> >> >
> >> Well, as has been stated a number of times, there are 1,2 billion muslims
> >> in
> >> the world, only a minimal fraction wants to kill anybody. So it is unfair
> >> to
> >> paint them all and their religion as murderous in nature. However I will
> >> vigorously defend anybodys right to say it.
> >
> > So? 1.2 billion muslims should just sallow the insults.
> > Would it be much better if the cartoonists target only the terrorists
> > and other murderous muslims and leave the rest alone?
>
> Sure that would be better, but you are either too obtuse to understand what
> we are writing or you just don't want to. I'm assuming the latter.
If you are agreeing leaving the innocent muslims alone is better, then
aren't you agreeing people do have right not to be insulted?
> And they should not just swallow the insult. The normal democratic way would
> be to counter an insult with arguments or a boycott of the paper or
> whatever peaceful means they can come up with. If they believe the paper has
> broken the law, they can take it to the court. What is not acceptable is if
> the government interfeers!
If the right to be free from unprovoked insults are violated, then it
is obvious that they would have to respond. I understand your "normal
democratic way" ideal. But it should be obvious that the reality is
never ideal, and the world is not necessarily a world of "normal
democratic way."
OK. Let us agree that the right to insult is more fundamental than the
right not to be insulted in an ideal world in which people counter
insult with normal democratic way.
However, the question remains, should the right to insult more
fundamental than the right not to be insulted in the real world?
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:39 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139279140.950140.238900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> If you are agreeing leaving the innocent muslims alone is better, then
> aren't you agreeing people do have right not to be insulted?
Nope. I'm saying that the cartoons weren't really helpful in establishing
dialogue between the two cultures and that the caricatures weren't really
that well done. However I support the newspapers right to publish the
cartoons. And I will defend this right with whatever means necessecairy. If
this right is taken away we will not be living in a democracy. I don't
belive in any god, but the democratic freedoms are as close to being sacred
for me as they can come. Do you understand that? That if people impugn my
democratic rights it is an equal insult to me as a depiction ofMuhammad
would be to a muslim.
> If the right to be free from unprovoked insults are violated, then it
> is obvious that they would have to respond. I understand your "normal
> democratic way" ideal. But it should be obvious that the reality is
> never ideal, and the world is not necessarily a world of "normal
> democratic way."
>
> OK. Let us agree that the right to insult is more fundamental than the
> right not to be insulted in an ideal world in which people counter
> insult with normal democratic way.
> However, the question remains, should the right to insult more
> fundamental than the right not to be insulted in the real world?
You don't think we should strive for the ideal? Or you don't think we
should, a priori, expect an ideal reaction?
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:23 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:39:00 +0800, Sirannon wrote (in article
<43e8082e$0$1785$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>):
> .... I'm saying that the cartoons weren't really helpful in establishing
> dialogue between the two cultures and that the caricatures weren't really
> that well done. However I support the newspapers right to publish the
> cartoons. ....
Well said.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:22 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:25:40 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139279140.950140.238900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> However, the question remains, should the right to insult be more
> fundamental than the right not to be insulted in the real world?
Yes, of course.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:28 |
|
LR wrote:
> > Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
>
> Unprovoked!?
>
> For your information, once drawing shows countless blown up islamic suicide
> bombers trying to enter heaven but they were so many that there wasn't space
> for them. Another drawing symbolizes suicide bombings and attacks like 9/11,
> London, Madrid, etc.
>
> Some of the other drawings show how you must fear mentioning it.
>
> All together I find that the 12 drawings form a brilliant unified picture of
> islam.
>
> And you call it "unprovoked"?
When did Malaysian muslims provoke you?
>
> - Lasse
| |
LR (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : LR |
Dato : 07-02-06 13:43 |
|
> When did Malaysian muslims provoke you?
Why should Malaysia be insulted? Malaysia is so far away geographically and
the drawings had Denmark as its target audience because it was a national
news paper, not an international one. (allthough it has gone world wide now)
We didn't go to Istanbul to print the pictures. They have their rules, we
have our rules (free speech). Accept it.
Lasse
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:32 |
|
Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:07:40 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>
> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> > right is more fundamental.
>
> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
insult?
If you latter and if you represent the authority, I will shut up.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:29 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:31:30 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139279490.140159.273470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> If you latter and if you represent the authority, I will shut up.
Liar. Nothing except obedience to the butchers of TAM would lead you to be
quiet.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 07-02-06 09:13 |
|
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:31:30 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
>> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
>> > right is more fundamental.
>>
>> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
>
> What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
> insult?
You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
should stop being insulted?
Freedom of insult can not exist in the human world.
> If you latter and if you represent the authority, I will shut up.
Why should i represent any form of authority for you to stop from
insulting me? Are you saying that the authorities shold decide when people
are insulted?
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 09-02-06 23:41 |
|
Can you show me in which posts of yours you have criticized those who
said they
have every right to insult or said nothing wrong to link Mohammad to
terrorism, I went through all your posts but did not find any as you
claimed. You need to explain that. [prediction: Bill Moore will talk
someting irrelevant because he does not have any post to back up his
claim.] And if that is the case, in what position you can criticize LT
Lee has been so biased, eh?
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "sort of" correct from Bill Moore means it's correct.
>
> You are the only person in the world who says that.
>
> You really don't understand where I am coming from, and you're pretty
> annoying.
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:39 |
|
T.Liljeberg wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >T. Liljeberg wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> >> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> >> >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> >> >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> >> >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> >> >> >same opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> >> >> the right to do it.
> >> >
> >> >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> >>
> >> Freedom of Speech is a basic, fundamental political right.
> >>
> >> >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> >>
> >> Absolutely not. Even if you prefer to not deal with the philosphical
> >> and conceptual aspects, just consider the practical implications of
> >> this "basic human right".
> >
> >What practical aspect?
>
> There are thousands or millions of different views of what can be
> considered insulting.There are an equal number of views of when the
> insult is justified or necessary, vs. unprovoked and gratuitous. Now
> consider the practical implications when you try to implement
> protection from unprovoked insults as a universal human right.
>
> In fact, I am insulted by your blatent attempts at restricting my
> rights. You are violating my right to freedom from insults.
Alright, get the authority to inform me that my behavior is insulting.
And I will quit.
Fair enough?
>
> >It is obvious that human thrives in its absence.
>
> Not at all.
Which came first? For instance, did the Danish people come first or
freedom of speech/freedom to insult come first?
Sorry to inform you that freedom of speech is a new kid on the block.
>
> >It is also obvious
> >many tragedies were caused by verbal insults.
>
> It is equally obvious that one man's justified condemnation of
> reprehensible conditions or ideas is the next man's insult.
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:50 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139279918.684084.39230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
> Which came first? For instance, did the Danish people come first or
> freedom of speech/freedom to insult come first?
>
> Sorry to inform you that freedom of speech is a new kid on the block.
>
Well anybody with a bit of knowledge about history would tell you that the
notion of the national state is a rather new invention. Actually it is a
concept that found poularity right around the time of the enlightenment,
perhaps even a litlle later.
| |
T.Liljeberg (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:07 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 18:38:38 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 6 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
>> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >T. Liljeberg wrote:
>> >> On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
>> >> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
>> >>
>> >> Absolutely not. Even if you prefer to not deal with the philosphical
>> >> and conceptual aspects, just consider the practical implications of
>> >> this "basic human right".
>> >
>> >What practical aspect?
>>
>> There are thousands or millions of different views of what can be
>> considered insulting.There are an equal number of views of when the
>> insult is justified or necessary, vs. unprovoked and gratuitous. Now
>> consider the practical implications when you try to implement
>> protection from unprovoked insults as a universal human right.
See the practical implications of your idea?
>> In fact, I am insulted by your blatent attempts at restricting my
>> rights. You are violating my right to freedom from insults.
>
>Alright, get the authority to inform me that my behavior is insulting.
>And I will quit.
>Fair enough?
Not at all. You are completely missing the point.
But since you frame it is in this manner, let me point out to you that
the authorities have found the cartoons to be entirely within what is
legally allowed under danish law.
>> >It is obvious that human thrives in its absence.
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>Which came first? For instance, did the Danish people come first or
>freedom of speech/freedom to insult come first?
>
>Sorry to inform you that freedom of speech is a new kid on the block.
And? So are antibiotics and women's right to vote. What is your point?
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 03:47 |
|
TS wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1139267243.692139.90050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > PeterL wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >> > Lars J. Helbo wrote:
> >> > > On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> >> > > >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik
> >> > > >> "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> >> > > >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US
> >> > > >> >government,
> >> > > >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all
> >> > > >> >expressed the
> >> > > >> >same opinion.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not
> >> > > >> have
> >> > > >> the right to do it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> >> > >
> >> > > no
> >> >
> >> > Are you sure? Not even under the name of free speech?
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> >> > >
> >> > > no
> >> >
> >> > Why?
> >> > Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
> >>
> >>
> >> It has nothing to do with enjoying it. It has to do with the
> >> alternative, restricted speech, which is much worse.
> >
> > How about the right to draw insulting cartoons?
> it's satirical cartoons! get a grip on reality. If cartoons can shake your
> world then your a dangerous person. Anyone with a brain can see that these
> cartoons are just reflecting daily middle east news with suicide bombing,
> jihad and women suppression
Sounds like you don't know the biggest muslim country is Indonesia.
>
> Won't you say both the
> > muslim protestors and the cartoonists who are now fearing for their
> > safetu as well as the safty of the family members are victims of such
> > right?
> That the cartoonists fear for their life only proves that there are too many
> islamic lunitics and criticism of islam is well justified.
>
> >
> > It is clear that human has learnt to thrive on restricted speech
> > including trying not to insult? I am not so sure that human has learnt
> > to thrive on the right to insult. Some posters already mention WMD.
> >
> If you can't criticise or insult anybody you can't have a constructive
> dialog.
> Newspapers should be able to publish anything within the laws which
> dont include any weird religious taboos. and you have the right to have an
> opinion about it - but dont force that opinion on anybody else...
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:04 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139279140.950140.238900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > If you are agreeing leaving the innocent muslims alone is better, then
> > aren't you agreeing people do have right not to be insulted?
>
> Nope. I'm saying that the cartoons weren't really helpful in establishing
> dialogue between the two cultures and that the caricatures weren't really
> that well done. However I support the newspapers right to publish the
> cartoons. And I will defend this right with whatever means necessecairy. If
> this right is taken away we will not be living in a democracy. I don't
> belive in any god, but the democratic freedoms are as close to being sacred
> for me as they can come. Do you understand that? That if people impugn my
> democratic rights it is an equal insult to me as a depiction ofMuhammad
> would be to a muslim.
If your democratic right includes free speech/freedom to insult, then
you cannot accuse me of insulting you. If you renounce free
speech/freedom to insult, then your accusation is valid.
> > If the right to be free from unprovoked insults are violated, then it
> > is obvious that they would have to respond. I understand your "normal
> > democratic way" ideal. But it should be obvious that the reality is
> > never ideal, and the world is not necessarily a world of "normal
> > democratic way."
> >
> > OK. Let us agree that the right to insult is more fundamental than the
> > right not to be insulted in an ideal world in which people counter
> > insult with normal democratic way.
> > However, the question remains, should the right to insult more
> > fundamental than the right not to be insulted in the real world?
>
> You don't think we should strive for the ideal?
Do you enjoy being inulted?
If not, I would suggest that the right not to be insulted is also an
ideal.
> Or you don't think we
> should, a priori, expect an ideal reaction?
The question is what to do when these rights, the right to insult and
the right not to be insulted, are in conflict.
Let us think one step further:
Should we see the free speech right or the right o insult as a
all-or-none right or is it relative. Let me explain.
Suppose a cartoonist can draw 12 cartoons to insult 100 million
muslims. Or he can
draw 11 cartoons to insult 100 muslims. If the government then tell him
may be he should do the latter, how much of his right is stripped. All
of his free speech right or part of his free speech right?
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:18 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139281428.329448.140540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139279140.950140.238900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > If you are agreeing leaving the innocent muslims alone is better, then
>> > aren't you agreeing people do have right not to be insulted?
>>
>> Nope. I'm saying that the cartoons weren't really helpful in establishing
>> dialogue between the two cultures and that the caricatures weren't really
>> that well done. However I support the newspapers right to publish the
>> cartoons. And I will defend this right with whatever means necessecairy.
>> If
>> this right is taken away we will not be living in a democracy. I don't
>> belive in any god, but the democratic freedoms are as close to being
>> sacred
>> for me as they can come. Do you understand that? That if people impugn my
>> democratic rights it is an equal insult to me as a depiction ofMuhammad
>> would be to a muslim.
>
> If your democratic right includes free speech/freedom to insult, then
> you cannot accuse me of insulting you. If you renounce free
> speech/freedom to insult, then your accusation is valid.
1) Of course I can accuse you of insulting me. However I can't expect mine
or your government to punish you.
2) I was trying to make a point by adopting your view of the world. If you
have to limit your speach to what you know nobody will be insulted by, then
you can't say a thing.
> Do you enjoy being inulted?
Not really, but since I'm a grown man, I understand that usually the insult
says more about the perpetrator than me. If there however is truth to the
statement it isn't really an insult is it?
> If not, I would suggest that the right not to be insulted is also an
> ideal.
It may/may not be an ideal, however it is undeniably not as important as the
right of freedom of speech.
> The question is what to do when these rights, the right to insult and
> the right not to be insulted, are in conflict.
>
> Let us think one step further:
> Should we see the free speech right or the right o insult as a
> all-or-none right or is it relative. Let me explain.
>
> Suppose a cartoonist can draw 12 cartoons to insult 100 million
> muslims. Or he can
> draw 11 cartoons to insult 100 muslims. If the government then tell him
> may be he should do the latter, how much of his right is stripped. All
> of his free speech right or part of his free speech right?
All of his right. Free speech cannot exist under censure.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:25 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:03:48 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
<1139281428.329448.140540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> If your democratic right includes free speech/freedom to insult, then you
> cannot accuse me of insulting you.
Nonsense. If you insult me, I can certainly say so. What I can't do is use
force to prevent you from insulting me.
> If you renounce free speech/freedom to insult, then your accusation is
> valid.
Gibberish.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 09-02-06 16:46 |
|
T.Liljeberg wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sirannon wrote:
> >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> >>
> >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> >
> >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
>
> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> muslims.
Indeed. You're seeing LT Lee's ongoing crusade against things the
Chinese government doesn't like, like free speech and a free press.
There are many misuses of free speech, and IMO the newspaper publishing
those cartoons is one of them.
But there's something really perverted about arguing against free
speech on *Usenet*, of all places. It's a contradiction.
It's kind of like putting out a newspaper that says newspapers are bad,
or selling bumper stickers that proclaim the evils of capitalism.
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 19:48 |
|
T.Liljeberg wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Sirannon wrote:
> >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> >>
> >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> >
> >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
>
> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> muslims.
Time is a factor.
The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
comparison will make more sense.
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 09-02-06 21:40 |
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:48:22 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
>> muslims.
>
> Time is a factor.
> The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> comparison will make more sense.
Are you saying that in about 600 years, the islamic world will have free
speech?
| |
Jim Walsh (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 10-02-06 05:16 |
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:40:12 +0800, Frank E. N. Stein wrote
(in article <pan.2006.02.09.20.40.10.659122@mail.is>):
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:48:22 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>
>>> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
>>> muslims.
>>
>> Time is a factor.
>> The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
>> history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
>> new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
>> comparison will make more sense.
>
> Are you saying that in about 600 years, the islamic world will have free
> speech?
Free speech is a part of Islam. Always has been. True that there are nations
where all sorts of free speech have been denied, and the majority religion of
some of these oppressive states is Islam.
But you can find just as many oppressive states where Roman Catholicism is
the predominant religion. That is not evidence that Christianity is
inconsistent with freedom of speech.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Jim Walsh (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 10-02-06 05:13 |
|
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:48:22 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139510902.292011.211030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
>> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sirannon wrote:
>>>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
>>>>
>>>> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
>>>
>>> We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
>>
>> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
>> muslims.
>
> Time is a factor.
> The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> comparison will make more sense.
Nonsense. Free speech is older than Islam. It pre-dates written culture.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
T.Liljeberg (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 11-02-06 06:13 |
|
On 9 Feb 2006 10:48:22 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>T.Liljeberg wrote:
>> On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
>> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Sirannon wrote:
>> >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
>> >>
>> >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
>> >
>> >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
>>
>> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
>> muslims.
>
>Time is a factor.
>The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
>history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
>new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
>comparison will make more sense.
Bullshit argument. Do you reject all things new, if they are in
opposition to or mutually exclusive with old things? Should the new
kid on the block, communism, yield to the feudalism that passed the
test of time? Utter nonsense.
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 09-02-06 20:44 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Sirannon wrote:
> > >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> > >>
> > >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> > >
> > >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
> >
> > To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> > muslims.
>
> Time is a factor.
> The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> comparison will make more sense.
Yes, and slavery has been around for thousands of years. Those crazy
abolitionists have only been at it for a few hundred years at best.
BTW, The use of "Islam" in the argument above is suspiciously similar
to the way some on this newsgroup argue that whatever the CCP does must
be accepted.
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 22:15 |
|
Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 10:48:22 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>
> >> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> >> muslims.
> >
> > Time is a factor.
> > The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> > history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> > new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> > comparison will make more sense.
>
> Are you saying that in about 600 years, the islamic world will have free
> speech?
Possible.
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 09-02-06 22:36 |
|
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:15:28 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
>> >> muslims.
>> >
>> > Time is a factor.
>> > The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
>> > history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
>> > new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
>> > comparison will make more sense.
>>
>> Are you saying that in about 600 years, the islamic world will have free
>> speech?
>
> Possible.
Then there is no reason for us to degenerate. Christianity is older than
Islam and have evolved into free speech and have by that served the people
far better than Islam have.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 09-02-06 23:45 |
|
He is talking about Islam and you are talking about China. Did you
read his post before you replied?
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Sirannon wrote:
> > > >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> > > >>
> > > >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> > > >
> > > >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
> > >
> > > To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> > > muslims.
> >
> > Time is a factor.
> > The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> > history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> > new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> > comparison will make more sense.
>
> Yes, and slavery has been around for thousands of years. Those crazy
> abolitionists have only been at it for a few hundred years at best.
>
> BTW, The use of "Islam" in the argument above is suspiciously similar
> to the way some on this newsgroup argue that whatever the CCP does must
> be accepted.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 09-02-06 23:47 |
|
Another one. He is talking about Mohamed and you are talking about
Chinese government. Did you read his post before you replied?
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Sirannon wrote:
> > >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> > >>
> > >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> > >
> > >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
> >
> > To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> > muslims.
>
> Indeed. You're seeing LT Lee's ongoing crusade against things the
> Chinese government doesn't like, like free speech and a free press.
>
> There are many misuses of free speech, and IMO the newspaper publishing
> those cartoons is one of them.
>
> But there's something really perverted about arguing against free
> speech on *Usenet*, of all places. It's a contradiction.
>
> It's kind of like putting out a newspaper that says newspapers are bad,
> or selling bumper stickers that proclaim the evils of capitalism.
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 10-02-06 07:31 |
|
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> He is talking about Islam and you are talking about China. Did you
> read his post before you replied?
Are you on some kind of jihad to post an ignorant response to like,
*everything* I post?
>
> bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Sirannon wrote:
> > > > >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > > >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> > > > >
> > > > >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
> > > >
> > > > To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> > > > muslims.
> > >
> > > Time is a factor.
> > > The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> > > history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> > > new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> > > comparison will make more sense.
> >
> > Yes, and slavery has been around for thousands of years. Those crazy
> > abolitionists have only been at it for a few hundred years at best.
> >
> > BTW, The use of "Islam" in the argument above is suspiciously similar
> > to the way some on this newsgroup argue that whatever the CCP does must
> > be accepted.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 10-02-06 12:09 |
|
Your jihad is to follow LT Lee everywhere until you can beat him to
death.
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > He is talking about Islam and you are talking about China. Did you
> > read his post before you replied?
>
> Are you on some kind of jihad to post an ignorant response to like,
> *everything* I post?
>
> >
> > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > > On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> > > > > <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Sirannon wrote:
> > > > > >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > > > > >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
> > > > >
> > > > > To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> > > > > muslims.
> > > >
> > > > Time is a factor.
> > > > The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> > > > history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> > > > new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> > > > comparison will make more sense.
> > >
> > > Yes, and slavery has been around for thousands of years. Those crazy
> > > abolitionists have only been at it for a few hundred years at best.
> > >
> > > BTW, The use of "Islam" in the argument above is suspiciously similar
> > > to the way some on this newsgroup argue that whatever the CCP does must
> > > be accepted.
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:07 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139279918.684084.39230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> > Which came first? For instance, did the Danish people come first or
> > freedom of speech/freedom to insult come first?
> >
> > Sorry to inform you that freedom of speech is a new kid on the block.
> >
> Well anybody with a bit of knowledge about history would tell you that the
> notion of the national state is a rather new invention. Actually it is a
> concept that found poularity right around the time of the enlightenment,
> perhaps even a litlle later.
I am talking about the Danish poeple.
China has a history far older than enlgihtment.
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:26 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139281619.035528.143830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139279918.684084.39230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> > Which came first? For instance, did the Danish people come first or
>> > freedom of speech/freedom to insult come first?
>> >
>> > Sorry to inform you that freedom of speech is a new kid on the block.
>> >
>> Well anybody with a bit of knowledge about history would tell you that
>> the
>> notion of the national state is a rather new invention. Actually it is a
>> concept that found poularity right around the time of the enlightenment,
>> perhaps even a litlle later.
>
> I am talking about the Danish poeple.
> China has a history far older than enlgihtment.
I was also talking about Denmark. Basically the concept on Denmark as an
ethnic nation is a rather new invention, relatively speaking.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:31 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:25:42 +0800, Sirannon wrote (in article
<43e81320$0$1841$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>):
>
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139281619.035528.143830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I am talking about the Danish poeple. China has a history far older than
>> enlightenment.
>
> I was also talking about Denmark. Basically the concept on Denmark as an
> ethnic nation is a rather new invention, relatively speaking.
Freedom is older than any nation or culture.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:38 |
|
"Jim Walsh" <jim_S_N_P_O_AM_walsh_iii@operamail.NO.com> skrev i en
meddelelse news:0001HW.C00E43790001ED22F0284550@family.alibis.com...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:25:42 +0800, Sirannon wrote (in article
> <43e81320$0$1841$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>):
>
>>
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139281619.035528.143830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>> I am talking about the Danish poeple. China has a history far older than
>>> enlightenment.
>>
>> I was also talking about Denmark. Basically the concept on Denmark as an
>> ethnic nation is a rather new invention, relatively speaking.
>
> Freedom is older than any nation or culture.
>
Well that is more of a philosphical question, which I am inclined to agree
with. However I don't know if I really see the relevance of the discussion.
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:12 |
|
T. Liljeberg wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2006 18:38:38 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> >> On 6 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> >> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >T. Liljeberg wrote:
> >> >> On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> >> >> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> >> >>
> >> >> Absolutely not. Even if you prefer to not deal with the philosphical
> >> >> and conceptual aspects, just consider the practical implications of
> >> >> this "basic human right".
> >> >
> >> >What practical aspect?
> >>
> >> There are thousands or millions of different views of what can be
> >> considered insulting.There are an equal number of views of when the
> >> insult is justified or necessary, vs. unprovoked and gratuitous. Now
> >> consider the practical implications when you try to implement
> >> protection from unprovoked insults as a universal human right.
>
> See the practical implications of your idea?
>
> >> In fact, I am insulted by your blatent attempts at restricting my
> >> rights. You are violating my right to freedom from insults.
> >
> >Alright, get the authority to inform me that my behavior is insulting.
> >And I will quit.
> >Fair enough?
>
> Not at all. You are completely missing the point.
>
> But since you frame it is in this manner, let me point out to you that
> the authorities have found the cartoons to be entirely within what is
> legally allowed under danish law.
I understand what you mean.
My posting through the internet is legal AFAIK. However, if you feel
you are insulted, I am willing to defer. I don't want to be insulted
and I don't assume you will enjoy insult.
>
> >> >It is obvious that human thrives in its absence.
> >>
> >> Not at all.
> >
> >Which came first? For instance, did the Danish people come first or
> >freedom of speech/freedom to insult come first?
> >
> >Sorry to inform you that freedom of speech is a new kid on the block.
>
> And? So are antibiotics and women's right to vote. What is your point?
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:18 |
|
LR wrote:
> > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>
> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
>
> That's a BIG difference.
Not according to the protestors.
Anyway, the cartoons are just a examples. May be they are not good
examples.
My question, however, is the same.
>
> - Lasse
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:29 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139282292.966767.158750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> LR wrote:
>> > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>>
>> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
>>
>> That's a BIG difference.
>
> Not according to the protestors.
> Anyway, the cartoons are just a examples. May be they are not good
> examples.
> My question, however, is the same.
What makes the protestors right?
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:34 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139281428.329448.140540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Sirannon wrote:
> >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> news:1139279140.950140.238900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> > If you are agreeing leaving the innocent muslims alone is better, then
> >> > aren't you agreeing people do have right not to be insulted?
> >>
> >> Nope. I'm saying that the cartoons weren't really helpful in establishing
> >> dialogue between the two cultures and that the caricatures weren't really
> >> that well done. However I support the newspapers right to publish the
> >> cartoons. And I will defend this right with whatever means necessecairy.
> >> If
> >> this right is taken away we will not be living in a democracy. I don't
> >> belive in any god, but the democratic freedoms are as close to being
> >> sacred
> >> for me as they can come. Do you understand that? That if people impugn my
> >> democratic rights it is an equal insult to me as a depiction ofMuhammad
> >> would be to a muslim.
> >
> > If your democratic right includes free speech/freedom to insult, then
> > you cannot accuse me of insulting you. If you renounce free
> > speech/freedom to insult, then your accusation is valid.
>
> 1) Of course I can accuse you of insulting me. However I can't expect mine
> or your government to punish you.
> 2) I was trying to make a point by adopting your view of the world. If you
> have to limit your speach to what you know nobody will be insulted by, then
> you can't say a thing.
>
>
> > Do you enjoy being inulted?
>
> Not really, but since I'm a grown man, I understand that usually the insult
> says more about the perpetrator than me. If there however is truth to the
> statement it isn't really an insult is it?
>
> > If not, I would suggest that the right not to be insulted is also an
> > ideal.
>
> It may/may not be an ideal, however it is undeniably not as important as the
> right of freedom of speech.
How so?
What are you supporting evidences that one right is more important than
the other?
What is you cost benefit analysis?
People believe in Islam and depend on the teaching of the Quran because
the religion and the teaching provide them a lot of comfort. Unlike
wealthy westerners, the majority of these muslims are poor and their
future are bleak. Their faith is probably the only thing which gives
them strength and allow them to ike out a meek existence.
Yes, I understand drawing the cartoons cost close nothing to the
cartoonists as well as the Danish people. How about the cost to the
muslim faithful? No, one single attempt probably would not lead them
away from their faith. But repeated attempts would certainly exact a
price.
On the benefit side. What benefit do the cartoons bring to the Danes?
What else but a good laugh and self-congradulations concerning the
virtue and hlolier-then-thou of free speech.
>
>
>
>
> > The question is what to do when these rights, the right to insult and
> > the right not to be insulted, are in conflict.
> >
> > Let us think one step further:
> > Should we see the free speech right or the right o insult as a
> > all-or-none right or is it relative. Let me explain.
> >
> > Suppose a cartoonist can draw 12 cartoons to insult 100 million
> > muslims. Or he can
> > draw 11 cartoons to insult 100 muslims. If the government then tell him
> > may be he should do the latter, how much of his right is stripped. All
> > of his free speech right or part of his free speech right?
>
> All of his right. Free speech cannot exist under censure.
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:56 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> How so?
> What are you supporting evidences that one right is more important than
> the other?
> What is you cost benefit analysis?
Freedom of speach is what drives a society forward. Freedom of speach is one
of the reasons, why we are so wealthy, as you note further below. Without
freedom of speach, there would be no basis for science. Freedom of speach is
what widens your intelectual horisont. Freedom of speech saves you from
oppression. Freedom of speach opens for real dialogue.
You can directly attribute your governments disgraceful handling of SARS to
lack of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression means that women have
rights and are considered equal.
>
> People believe in Islam and depend on the teaching of the Quran because
> the religion and the teaching provide them a lot of comfort. Unlike
> wealthy westerners, the majority of these muslims are poor and their
> future are bleak. Their faith is probably the only thing which gives
> them strength and allow them to ike out a meek existence.
Well it is hardly my problem that the muslim nations as a whole lack the
moral fortitude to cast away the yoke of spiritual and physical oppression.
Which is the a cause of their poverty and despair.
> Yes, I understand drawing the cartoons cost close nothing to the
> cartoonists as well as the Danish people. How about the cost to the
> muslim faithful? No, one single attempt probably would not lead them
> away from their faith. But repeated attempts would certainly exact a
> price.
Well if they learned to take their religion less seriously, it would
certainly be a benefit to the world.
> On the benefit side. What benefit do the cartoons bring to the Danes?
> What else but a good laugh and self-congradulations concerning the
> virtue and hlolier-then-thou of free speech.
Well many would argue that we have had a fairly good debate about the
issues, if we only talk about DK. And that many now won't have as much of a
stereotypical view of the Danish muslims as before, since many Danish
muslims have been forced to speak out agaist their extremist fellows.
> The question is what to do when these rights, the right to insult and
> the right not to be insulted, are in conflict.
You are the only one who makes this false dichotomy. There is no right not
to be insulted.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:28 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:33:40 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Sirannon wrote:
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139281428.329448.140540@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> If not, I would suggest that the right not to be insulted is also an
>>> ideal.
There is no "right" not to be insulted. A world in which no one was insulted
would be boring. There is nothing "ideal" about it.
>> It may/may not be an ideal, however it is undeniably not as important as the
>> right of freedom of speech.
Undeniably.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
T.Liljeberg (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 07-02-06 06:50 |
|
On 6 Feb 2006 19:33:40 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about the cost to the
>muslim faithful?
The cost is zero. They are free to ignore the cartoons and drawings,no
one is forcing anything down their throats.
>No, one single attempt probably would not lead them
>away from their faith.
That is the risk? Are you serious?
| |
ltlee1 (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 11-02-06 13:18 |
|
T.Liljeberg wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2006 10:48:22 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> >> On 8 Feb 2006 13:03:10 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
> >> <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sirannon wrote:
> >> >> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> >> news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
> >> >>
> >> >> What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
> >> >
> >> >We can discuss when you can drop the "what if."
> >>
> >> To me and many others, free speech is as sacred as Mohamed is to
> >> muslims.
> >
> >Time is a factor.
> >The Islamic faith had passed the test of time. It persists through
> >history because it served the people. In contrast, free speech is the
> >new kid on the block. Come back after 1000 thousand year and the
> >comparison will make more sense.
>
> Bullshit argument. Do you reject all things new, if they are in
> opposition to or mutually exclusive with old things? Should the new
> kid on the block, communism, yield to the feudalism that passed the
> test of time? Utter nonsense.
No. I don't reject all things new. No reason to.
But we need to see things objectively. At present, feudalism hadn't
passed the test of time. Islam and Christinanity have. Maoist communism
is still an active factor in different parts of the world.
How about tomorrow? Human and human cultures are changing all the time.
Muslims don't accept free speech today. But they may see it your way
tomorrow if the right to insult is indeed more fundamental than the
right not to be insulted.
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 04:45 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139282292.966767.158750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > LR wrote:
> >> > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> >>
> >> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
> >>
> >> That's a BIG difference.
> >
> > Not according to the protestors.
> > Anyway, the cartoons are just a examples. May be they are not good
> > examples.
> > My question, however, is the same.
>
> What makes the protestors right?
The posters are not alone.
America's official position:
----------------
"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State
Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question.
"We all fully recognise and respect freedom of the press and
expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting
religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."
---------------
German Chancellor Angela Merkel
"I can understand that religious feelings of Muslims have been injured
and violated," Merkel said at an international security conference.
---------------
British Foreign Secertary Jack Straw:
"There is freedom of speech, we all respect that, but there is not any
obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory... I believe
that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has
been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong."
-----------------
How about you?
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:03 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139283925.626284.224640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139282292.966767.158750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > LR wrote:
>> >> > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
>> >>
>> >> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
>> >>
>> >> That's a BIG difference.
>> >
>> > Not according to the protestors.
>> > Anyway, the cartoons are just a examples. May be they are not good
>> > examples.
>> > My question, however, is the same.
>>
>> What makes the protestors right?
>
> The posters are not alone.
These are old comments. All these countries have since strongly condemned
the burning of the embassies and have made stronger pledges to the freedom
of speach. That is includimg USA. They are unequivocal in their support for
freedom of expression
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 05:22 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> How so?
> > What are you supporting evidences that one right is more important than
> > the other?
> > What is you cost benefit analysis?
>
> Freedom of speach is what drives a society forward. Freedom of speach is one
> of the reasons, why we are so wealthy, as you note further below. Without
> freedom of speach, there would be no basis for science. Freedom of speach is
> what widens your intelectual horisont. Freedom of speech saves you from
> oppression. Freedom of speach opens for real dialogue.
1. Please tell in what way the cartoons contribute advancement of
sciences or the results of great creativity.
2. The Church/Science conflict was basically European in terms of
scope, not universal. Islam preserved the knowledge while Europe was in
the dark age. Without which Enlightment might not be possible.
3. I would say you underestimate the human spirit and human creativity.
What kind of political freedom, religious freedom, or free expression
did great scientist like Galileo have?
What kind of political freedom, religious freedom did great writer like
Dostoyevsky have?
The rest later.
| |
Jim Walsh (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 07-02-06 07:27 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:21:30 +0800, ltlee1 wrote (in article
<1139286090.322332.93600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> How so?
>>> What are you supporting evidences that one right is more important than
>>> the other? What is you cost benefit analysis?
>>
>> Freedom of speach is what drives a society forward. Freedom of speach is
>> one of the reasons, why we are so wealthy, as you note further below.
>> Without freedom of speach, there would be no basis for science. Freedom
>> of speach is what widens your intelectual horisont. Freedom of speech
>> saves you from oppression. Freedom of speach opens for real dialogue.
>
> 1. Please tell in what way the cartoons contribute advancement of sciences
> or the results of great creativity.
By demonstrating that all viewpoints are protected, they increase the number
of views that are expressed.
> 2. The Church/Science conflict was basically European in terms of scope,
> not universal. Islam preserved the knowledge while Europe was in the dark
> age. Without which Enlightment might not be possible.
Whatever.
> 3. I would say you underestimate the human spirit and human creativity.
I agree that the human spirit can endure oppression. That is not a reason to
endorse oppression.
> What kind of political freedom, religious freedom, or free expression did
> great scientist like Galileo have?
Not very much. Which delayed the benefits of his insights. Etc.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 08:08 |
|
For some reason I don't have ltlee1's post on my newsserver. So I'll try to
rebut in this post.
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 1. Please tell in what way the cartoons contribute advancement of sciences
> or the results of great creativity.
They don't nessescairily. However they have sparked a somewhat useful debate
here in DK. And today there are many initiatives for reconcilliation here.
Also what Jim Walsh wrote so eloquently.
> 2. The Church/Science conflict was basically European in terms of scope,
> not universal. Islam preserved the knowledge while Europe was in the dark
> age. Without which Enlightment might not be possible.
And this is not a European conflict or what? And whatever is the relevance
of this.
> 3. I would say you underestimate the human spirit and human creativity.
Perhaps, I'm not really sure what you are answering here, so if you would
clarify?
> What kind of political freedom, religious freedom, or free expression did
> great scientist like Galileo have?
Clearly not enough
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 15:02 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> For some reason I don't have ltlee1's post on my newsserver. So I'll try to
> rebut in this post.
>
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 1. Please tell in what way the cartoons contribute advancement of sciences
> > or the results of great creativity.
>
> They don't nessescairily. However they have sparked a somewhat useful debate
> here in DK. And today there are many initiatives for reconcilliation here.
> Also what Jim Walsh wrote so eloquently.
I think you are talking about the relation between free speech and
sciences. Or free speech is the necessary condition of sciences. In
case you don't already know, sciences are about objective facts and
logic, not about view points. As a matter of fact, view points like
Christian creationism pretends to be sciences could actually be
harmful. This is why many school teachers do not want to teach
creationism in America as sciences. Is this an infringement on free
speech.
This is also answer one of your earlier point that free speech cannot
be censored. It is a fact that you cannot teach 2 + 2 = 5. This kind of
free speech get you no where.
> > 2. The Church/Science conflict was basically European in terms of scope,
> > not universal. Islam preserved the knowledge while Europe was in the dark
> > age. Without which Enlightment might not be possible.
>
> And this is not a European conflict or what? And whatever is the relevance
> of this.
In case you forget, it cut and paste your own words:
"Without freedom of speach, there would be no basis for science."
My answer to your assertion above.
Yes. But this is primarily an European problem with of its powerful
Christian Churches.
>
> > 3. I would say you underestimate the human spirit and human creativity.
>
> Perhaps, I'm not really sure what you are answering here, so if you would
> clarify?
I am refuting your claim that free speech is a necessary condition of
sciences and perhaps human advancement. That is simply not true.
> > What kind of political freedom, religious freedom, or free expression did
> > great scientist like Galileo have?
>
> Clearly not enough
My point.Such lack of freedom did not prevent him from being great
scientist.
| |
Sirannon (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 07-02-06 15:16 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139319296.425593.171590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> For some reason I don't have ltlee1's post on my newsserver. So I'll try
>> to
>> rebut in this post.
>>
>
> I think you are talking about the relation between free speech and
> sciences. Or free speech is the necessary condition of sciences. In
> case you don't already know, sciences are about objective facts and
> logic, not about view points. As a matter of fact, view points like
> Christian creationism pretends to be sciences could actually be
> harmful. This is why many school teachers do not want to teach
> creationism in America as sciences. Is this an infringement on free
> speech.
> This is also answer one of your earlier point that free speech cannot
> be censored. It is a fact that you cannot teach 2 + 2 = 5. This kind of
> free speech get you no where.
Sure you can teach it. Results wont be that good however.
And creationism may be harmful, however it may also force scientist to
become more public in their defence of evoulution, thereby increasing
knowledge among other people.
>> > 2. The Church/Science conflict was basically European in terms of
>> > scope,
>> > not universal. Islam preserved the knowledge while Europe was in the
>> > dark
>> > age. Without which Enlightment might not be possible.
>>
>> And this is not a European conflict or what? And whatever is the
>> relevance
>> of this.
>
> In case you forget, it cut and paste your own words:
> "Without freedom of speach, there would be no basis for science."
>
> My answer to your assertion above.
> Yes. But this is primarily an European problem with of its powerful
> Christian Churches.
You can hardly characterize the churches in Europe as powerful anymore.
>> > 3. I would say you underestimate the human spirit and human creativity.
>>
>> Perhaps, I'm not really sure what you are answering here, so if you would
>> clarify?
>
> I am refuting your claim that free speech is a necessary condition of
> sciences and perhaps human advancement. That is simply not true.
You have yet to make a postive argument for your case, all I see is
handwaving.
>> > What kind of political freedom, religious freedom, or free expression
>> > did
>> > great scientist like Galileo have?
>>
>> Clearly not enough
>
> My point.Such lack of freedom did not prevent him from being great
> scientist.
Well the point is if he had his freedoms his message would have traveled a
lot faster. And his theory wasn't exactly right you know.
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 09:17 |
|
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:02:00 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139319296.425593.171590@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> Sirannon wrote:
>> For some reason I don't have ltlee1's post on my newsserver. So I'll try to
>> rebut in this post.
>>
>> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>> news:1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> 1. Please tell in what way the cartoons contribute advancement of sciences
>>> or the results of great creativity.
>>
>> They don't nessescairily. However they have sparked a somewhat useful debate
>> here in DK. And today there are many initiatives for reconcilliation here.
>> Also what Jim Walsh wrote so eloquently.
>
> I think you are talking about the relation between free speech and
> sciences.
False. Free speech relates to every single human endeavor.
> Or free speech is the necessary condition of sciences.
Free speech is necessary for every single human endeavor.
> In case you don't already know, sciences are about objective facts and
> logic, not about view points.'
Nonsense. Scientists argue among themselves, make crude insults and so on and
so forth.
> As a matter of fact, view points like Christian creationism pretends to be
sciences could actually be
> harmful.
Nonsense. Falsehoods help refine the truth.
>This is why many school teachers do not want to teach creationism in America
as sciences. Is this an infringement on free
> speech.
No. The US Constitution forbids public support of any religion. Using biology
classes in public schools to teach Christian beliefs violates that rule.
Teachers in church schools can teach Creationism. It is taught in books,
seminars and so on and so forth. It is important that people have the right
to teach it and to study it, but not at public expense.
> This is also answer one of your earlier point that free speech cannot
> be censored. It is a fact that you cannot teach 2 + 2 = 5. This kind of
> free speech get you no where.
Actually, there are forms of math in which 2+2=5. And once upon a time the
square root of -1 was considered nonsense, and those who taught it were
ridiculed.
The freedom to speak wrongly is very important.
> I am refuting your claim that free speech is a necessary condition of
> sciences and perhaps human advancement. That is simply not true.
Virtually every great scientist has explicitly stated that freedom of speech
is necessary for scientific process. Perhaps I should post some examples.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 15:06 |
|
Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:31:30 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>
> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> >> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> >> > right is more fundamental.
> >>
> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
> >
> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
> > insult?
>
> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
> should stop being insulted?
Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
However, such problems should not distract us from the reality that
words can hurt. If you feel you are being insulted, then you feel you
are being insulted. The world saying you should not have such feeling
does not change a thing. If your feeling is deep and if you feel that
freedom from unprovoked insult is a right, then you will do something.
In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
should. I am describing the reality.
Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was
badly written.
What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> Freedom of insult can not exist in the human world.
Freedom from insult is engendered by freedom to insult.
Not a whole lot of differences from: Church's and the king's freedom to
shut people up engendered the freedom of expression.
If one argues "freedom from insult" cannot exist, one could also argue
"freedom to insult" does not exit. May be the language of freedom and
rights is the problem.
>
> > If you latter and if you represent the authority, I will shut up.
>
> Why should i represent any form of authority for you to stop from
> insulting me? Are you saying that the authorities shold decide when people
> are insulted?
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 07-02-06 19:32 |
|
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
>> >> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
>> >> > right is more fundamental.
>> >>
>> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
>> >
>> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
>> > insult?
>>
>> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
>> should stop being insulted?
>
> Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent insulting
somebody.
> However, such problems should not distract us from the reality that
> words can hurt. If you feel you are being insulted, then you feel you
> are being insulted.
Yes, and to be insulted is a human right and a human feeling, it is simply
a part of being human.
> The world saying you should not have such feeling
> does not change a thing.
The world does not say that.
> If your feeling is deep and if you feel that
> freedom from unprovoked insult is a right, then you will do something.
Yes, that is a fanatic you are describing. We will not let fanatics rule
our lives.
> In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> should. I am describing the reality.
> Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> written.
> What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
>> Freedom of insult can not exist in the human world.
>
> Freedom from insult is engendered by freedom to insult. Not a whole lot
> of differences from: Church's and the king's freedom to shut people up
> engendered the freedom of expression.
>
> If one argues "freedom from insult" cannot exist, one could also argue
> "freedom to insult" does not exit. May be the language of freedom and
> rights is the problem.
No, fanatics are the problem.
| |
PeterL (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 07-02-06 18:24 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > PeterL wrote:
> > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > > > On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > > > > > <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > > > > > >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > > > > > >same opinion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > > > > > the right to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> > > >
> > > > Freedom to speak one's mind is a basic human right. If one wants to
> > > > insult another religion so be it.
> > > >
> > > > With that said, I stronly disagree with the message of the cartoon.
> > > > Yet I support the newspaper's right to publish it.
> > > >
> > > > > Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> > > >
> > > > No there is no such freedom. Who's to say what's "unprovoked" and
> > > > what's an "insult"?
> > >
> > > I admit that the boundary is difficult is to determine just like at
> > > what moment day changes into night is difficult to determine. However,
> > > difficulties in determining the boundary do not in general prevent us
> > > from telling day from night. For the sake of discussion, we assume both
> > > "unprovoked" and "insult" are clear.
> > >
> >
> > Not a good assumption.
>
> Are you saying unprovoked insults do not exist at all?
Sure it does, in the minds of those who feel they are insulted. Every
action is "provoked" by some other action.
> >
> > > With 20/20 hindsight, it is also clear the the muslims considered the
> > > cartoons unprovoked insults.
> > >
> >
> > But the Danes don't. So who gets to say what is and what is not
> > unprovoked insults?
>
> So, what do you suggested? The muslims who feel they are unfairly
> insulted should just turn the other cheek.
I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their outrage
through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is all about,
SPEECH.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
> > > > natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
> > > > free speech, not less.
> > >
> > > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> > > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> > > right is more fundamental.
> >
> > Yes it is. The right to free speech (including bad free speech) is
> > more important than the freedom from verbal insults.
>
> What is your advice to those who are unfairly targeted?
Express that outrage with speech.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 11-02-06 06:44 |
|
But the truth is you are not really interested in cartoon incident, you
are just venting your frustration over China/Taiwan dispute here. We
call it "ranting". So calm down, you dont like LT Lee's pro-China
stance, we are fully aware of it so no need to drag your anti-China
agenda into this Danish cartoon thread.
Ace Sinica wrote:
> Ha! It is you who are ranting.
>
> Your pathetic near death struggle with this Danish cartoon bit is a failure.
> Danes can and will publish newspaper as their publishers want. Don't
> like it? Just right to that newspaper's editors. What do you plan to do?
> Threaten to stop your subscription? Ha! Ha!
>
> BTW, you're calling my reciting of your own beloved dear chairman Mao's
> famous words as "ranting"? Aye, watch out........ :)
>
>
>
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > Ace Sinica wrote:
> >
> >> ltlee1,
> >>
> >> Your own beloved chairman Mao has said this:
> >> "If you have shit, then shit it out, if you want to fart, then fart."
> >>
> >> "Let a hundred flowers bloom forth".....
> >>
> >> A good communist should humbly accept the criticism of others.
> >>
> >> The New China was supposed to break away from the feudal society of old
> >> China. What you are proposing, such as strong centralized authoritarian
> >> gov, strict control of speech, all these are from the old feudal
> >> society. The Chinese had two revolutions to let the citizen break free
> >> from gov control of thought, why should we go back?
> >>
> >> As thus, this is a betrayal of the revolution, be it Dr. Sun's
> >> revolution to overthrow autocracy, take power away from one single
> >> family, give to every citizen; or Mao's revolution of giving power to
> >> the proletariats.
> >>
> >> Those cartoons? Ha! Why should foreigners give concern over what a
> >> Danish cartoon published in a Danish newspaper, meant for Danish readers?
> >>
> >> If people don't like it, they are free to publish something similar in
> >> their own newspaper against the Danes. I'm sure the Danes wouldn't even
> >> bother to read it. Even if they do, they'll just laugh at it for a day,
> >> then tomorrow will bring another set of cartoons.
> >>
> >> You can live your life your way, not daring to speak out against your
> >> motherland's gov. Maybe you have family back there and you are afraid
> >> for their safety.
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ace
> >>
> >
> > If you want to discuss the issue concerning the right to insult and the
> > right to be free from insult which is the subject of this thread,
> > please go ahead. Not interested in your off topic ranting.
> >
> >
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>
> >>> reasoning would suggest we cannot ban truth through governemnt
> >>> restrictions? Why do we need free speech?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This is what I think.
> >>> But it could be encouraged by insults such as the cartoons. No?
> >>> Hence, banning insults would reduce suicide bombing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------070303000607010904060203
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 3021
>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
> <title></title>
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> Ha! It is you who are ranting.<br>
> <br>
> Your pathetic near death struggle with this Danish cartoon bit is a
> failure.<br>
> Danes can and will publish newspaper as their publishers want. Don't
> like it? Just right to that newspaper's editors. What do you plan to
> do? Threaten to stop your subscription? Ha! Ha!<br>
> <br>
> BTW, you're calling my reciting of your own beloved dear chairman Mao's
> famous words as "ranting"? Aye, watch out........ :) <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ltlee1 wrote:
> <blockquote
> cite="mid1139584749.705164.24650@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com"
> type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">Ace Sinica wrote:
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">ltlee1,
>
> Your own beloved chairman Mao has said this:
> "If you have shit, then shit it out, if you want to fart, then fart."
>
> "Let a hundred flowers bloom forth".....
>
> A good communist should humbly accept the criticism of others.
>
> The New China was supposed to break away from the feudal society of old
> China. What you are proposing, such as strong centralized authoritarian
> gov, strict control of speech, all these are from the old feudal
> society. The Chinese had two revolutions to let the citizen break free
> from gov control of thought, why should we go back?
>
> As thus, this is a betrayal of the revolution, be it Dr. Sun's
> revolution to overthrow autocracy, take power away from one single
> family, give to every citizen; or Mao's revolution of giving power to
> the proletariats.
>
> Those cartoons? Ha! Why should foreigners give concern over what a
> Danish cartoon published in a Danish newspaper, meant for Danish readers?
>
> If people don't like it, they are free to publish something similar in
> their own newspaper against the Danes. I'm sure the Danes wouldn't even
> bother to read it. Even if they do, they'll just laugh at it for a day,
> then tomorrow will bring another set of cartoons.
>
> You can live your life your way, not daring to speak out against your
> motherland's gov. Maybe you have family back there and you are afraid
> for their safety.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Ace
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->
> If you want to discuss the issue concerning the right to insult and the
> right to be free from insult which is the subject of this thread,
> please go ahead. Not interested in your off topic ranting.
>
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">
> ltlee1 wrote:
> </pre>
> <blockquote type="cite">
> <pre wrap="">reasoning would suggest we cannot ban truth through governemnt
> restrictions? Why do we need free speech?
>
>
> This is what I think.
> But it could be encouraged by insults such as the cartoons. No?
> Hence, banning insults would reduce suicide bombing.
>
>
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <br>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --------------070303000607010904060203--
| |
Ace Sinica (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Ace Sinica |
Dato : 11-02-06 07:09 |
|
I have already stated my views on the Danish cartoons incident:
Danish newspaper published something circulating in Denmark for Danish
readers.
Whoever don't like it, stop subscription, or write to editor.
If Muslims don't like presence of EU nations' embassies, they will pull
out.
好希罕唷! 盡é‡åŽ»æƒ¹æ¯›è€æå‘€, ä¸è¦ç‰åˆ°å…«åœ‹è¯è»å…µè‡¨åŸŽä¸‹, 到時候, è¦å“沒目屎.
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> But the truth is you are not really interested in cartoon incident, you
> are just venting your frustration over China/Taiwan dispute here. We
> call it "ranting". So calm down, you dont like LT Lee's pro-China
> stance, we are fully aware of it so no need to drag your anti-China
> agenda into this Danish cartoon thread.
>
>
>
| |
humantenacity (17-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : humantenacity |
Dato : 17-02-06 18:38 |
|
>The cartoons had provoked rage and destruction. This is the reality.
>What you think and what I think are irrelevant.
It's odd that these cartoons could provoke rage and destruction at all.
There are many islamic parodies and cartoons depicting Jesus Christ in
similar fashion. There are many islamic cartoons depicting Jews as
demons and murders and yet such potrayals by muslim journalists has yet
to provoke such outrage and destruction by Jews and Christians. Why is
there one standard for muslims and another for jews and christians? I
think this is relevant and what I and many others who think similarly
is relevant.
It is even more odd that muslims are advocating the destruction of
their own flesh and blood. Where does the great prophet of Islam
advocate any such thing in the Koran? Whether muslims and radical
muslims especially like it or not Jews share the same blood lineage and
Jews Christians and Muslims ALL share the same religious root.
So I wonder how anyone could possibly justify such outrage and violence
against their own family?
I find these radicals to be just that radicals. And in my experience
and history's viewpoint NOTHING will ever appease radicals. If it
wasn't these cartoons making fun of Islam then it would be something
else. There are always excuses to be had for any radical to act out!
| |
Jim Walsh (18-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 18-02-06 14:51 |
|
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 01:38:06 +0800, humantenacity wrote
(in article <1140197886.571461.81470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>> The cartoons had provoked rage and destruction. This is the reality.
>> What you think and what I think are irrelevant.
>
> It's odd that these cartoons could provoke rage and destruction at all.
> There are many islamic parodies and cartoons depicting Jesus Christ in
> similar fashion.....
Publish all satirical cartoons, and mellow out.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (17-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 17-02-06 19:09 |
|
humantenacity wrote:
> >The cartoons had provoked rage and destruction. This is the reality.
> >What you think and what I think are irrelevant.
>
> It's odd that these cartoons could provoke rage and destruction at all.
> There are many islamic parodies and cartoons depicting Jesus Christ in
> similar fashion. There are many islamic cartoons depicting Jews as
> demons and murders and yet such potrayals by muslim journalists has yet
> to provoke such outrage and destruction by Jews and Christians. Why is
> there one standard for muslims and another for jews and christians? I
> think this is relevant and what I and many others who think similarly
> is relevant.
The medium is part of the message.
The same Dannish newspaper was challenged to print Holocaust cartoon.
The editor who promised to consider was forced to step down.
> It is even more odd that muslims are advocating the destruction of
> their own flesh and blood. Where does the great prophet of Islam
> advocate any such thing in the Koran? Whether muslims and radical
> muslims especially like it or not Jews share the same blood lineage and
> Jews Christians and Muslims ALL share the same religious root.
>
> So I wonder how anyone could possibly justify such outrage and violence
> against their own family?
If you meant to say that the Judeo-Christian-muslim faith is
irraational, I have no objection.
>
> I find these radicals to be just that radicals. And in my experience
> and history's viewpoint NOTHING will ever appease radicals. If it
> wasn't these cartoons making fun of Islam then it would be something
> else. There are always excuses to be had for any radical to act out!
Those who insist on the right to insight is the true radical.
| |
PeterL (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 07-02-06 18:27 |
|
Here I give you an example:
http://tinyurl.com/btnhn
ltlee1 wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > Lars J. Helbo wrote:
> > > > On 6 Feb 2006 13:31:16 -0800, "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > >> On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > > > >> <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > > > >> >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > > > >> >same opinion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > > > >> the right to do it.
> > > > >
> > > > >Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> > > >
> > > > no
> > >
> > > Are you sure? Not even under the name of free speech?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> > > >
> > > > no
> > >
> > > Why?
> > > Do you think anyone would enjoy unprovoked insults?
> >
> >
> > It has nothing to do with enjoying it. It has to do with the
> > alternative, restricted speech, which is much worse.
>
> How about the right to draw insulting cartoons? Won't you say both the
> muslim protestors and the cartoonists who are now fearing for their
> safetu as well as the safty of the family members are victims of such
> right?
>
> It is clear that human has learnt to thrive on restricted speech
> including trying not to insult? I am not so sure that human has learnt
> to thrive on the right to insult. Some posters already mention WMD.
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 18:54 |
|
LR wrote:
> > When did Malaysian muslims provoke you?
>
> Why should Malaysia be insulted? Malaysia is so far away geographically and
> the drawings had Denmark as its target audience because it was a national
> news paper, not an international one. (allthough it has gone world wide now)
And it went worldwide because Danish Muslim leaders went out of their
way to provoke Muslims in the Middle East.
> We didn't go to Istanbul to print the pictures. They have their rules, we
> have our rules (free speech). Accept it.
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 19:07 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:31:30 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> >
> > >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> > >> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> > >> > right is more fundamental.
> > >>
> > >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
> > >
> > > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
> > > insult?
> >
> > You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
> > should stop being insulted?
>
> Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
> However, such problems should not distract us from the reality that
> words can hurt. If you feel you are being insulted, then you feel you
> are being insulted. The world saying you should not have such feeling
> does not change a thing. If your feeling is deep and if you feel that
> freedom from unprovoked insult is a right, then you will do something.
>
> In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> should. I am describing the reality.
> Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was
> badly written.
> What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
What authority? Who is qualified to decide? Insulting people can be
rude, but should it be illegal?
> > Freedom of insult can not exist in the human world.
>
> Freedom from insult is engendered by freedom to insult.
> Not a whole lot of differences from: Church's and the king's freedom to
> shut people up engendered the freedom of expression.
>
> If one argues "freedom from insult" cannot exist, one could also argue
> "freedom to insult" does not exit. May be the language of freedom and
> rights is the problem.
>
>
> >
> > > If you latter and if you represent the authority, I will shut up.
> >
> > Why should i represent any form of authority for you to stop from
> > insulting me? Are you saying that the authorities shold decide when people
> > are insulted?
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 19:10 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139282292.966767.158750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > LR wrote:
> >> > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> >>
> >> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
> >>
> >> That's a BIG difference.
> >
> > Not according to the protestors.
> > Anyway, the cartoons are just a examples. May be they are not good
> > examples.
> > My question, however, is the same.
>
> What makes the protestors right?
The feelings of all people must be respected, with the exception of
Chinese citizens who are abused by the Chinese government. Isn't that
right, LT?
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 19:20 |
|
What should they do? There must be something to be able to "provoke"
Muslims in the Middle East, the cartoons, right?
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> LR wrote:
> > > When did Malaysian muslims provoke you?
> >
> > Why should Malaysia be insulted? Malaysia is so far away geographically and
> > the drawings had Denmark as its target audience because it was a national
> > news paper, not an international one. (allthough it has gone world wide now)
>
> And it went worldwide because Danish Muslim leaders went out of their
> way to provoke Muslims in the Middle East.
>
> > We didn't go to Istanbul to print the pictures. They have their rules, we
> > have our rules (free speech). Accept it.
| |
Bruno Christensen (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bruno Christensen |
Dato : 07-02-06 23:15 |
|
On 7 Feb 2006 10:19:39 -0800, abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> What should they do? There must be something to be able to "provoke"
> Muslims in the Middle East, the cartoons, right?
The imams showed 15 cartoons in the Middel East, the newspaper printed 12.
It was the 3 extra drawings (one was a retouched photograph) that offended.
Why did the imams have extra material to convince their brothers in belief.
What have been published then was the 12 cartoons, if you need extra
material then those original cartoons can't be "bad enough".
Those imams were seeking "thrust" to become higher "ranking" imams in
Europa. (The ones you listen to).
--
Med Venlig Hilsen
Bruno Christensen
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 19:23 |
|
Insulting people has legal consquence.
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:31:30 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> > > >> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> > > >> > right is more fundamental.
> > > >>
> > > >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
> > > >
> > > > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
> > > > insult?
> > >
> > > You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
> > > should stop being insulted?
> >
> > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
> > However, such problems should not distract us from the reality that
> > words can hurt. If you feel you are being insulted, then you feel you
> > are being insulted. The world saying you should not have such feeling
> > does not change a thing. If your feeling is deep and if you feel that
> > freedom from unprovoked insult is a right, then you will do something.
> >
> > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > should. I am describing the reality.
> > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was
> > badly written.
> > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
>
> What authority? Who is qualified to decide? Insulting people can be
> rude, but should it be illegal?
>
> > > Freedom of insult can not exist in the human world.
> >
> > Freedom from insult is engendered by freedom to insult.
> > Not a whole lot of differences from: Church's and the king's freedom to
> > shut people up engendered the freedom of expression.
> >
> > If one argues "freedom from insult" cannot exist, one could also argue
> > "freedom to insult" does not exit. May be the language of freedom and
> > rights is the problem.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > If you latter and if you represent the authority, I will shut up.
> > >
> > > Why should i represent any form of authority for you to stop from
> > > insulting me? Are you saying that the authorities shold decide when people
> > > are insulted?
| |
Bruno Christensen (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Bruno Christensen |
Dato : 07-02-06 23:18 |
|
On 7 Feb 2006 10:22:52 -0800, abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> Insulting people has legal consquence.
Then make a legal complaint, the imams i Denmark did so, it was expelled
according to danis law.
--
Med Venlig Hilsen
Bruno Christensen
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 19:28 |
|
African Americans, native Americans had been abused by the US
government for 180 years. Can you tell us why it took so long when The
Declaration of Independence of the USA stated "all men created equal"
in 1776.
bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
> Sirannon wrote:
> > "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:1139282292.966767.158750@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > LR wrote:
> > >> > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> > >>
> > >> The drawings were not meant to INSULT. They were meant to ACCUSE.
> > >>
> > >> That's a BIG difference.
> > >
> > > Not according to the protestors.
> > > Anyway, the cartoons are just a examples. May be they are not good
> > > examples.
> > > My question, however, is the same.
> >
> > What makes the protestors right?
>
> The feelings of all people must be respected, with the exception of
> Chinese citizens who are abused by the Chinese government. Isn't that
> right, LT?
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 20:22 |
|
Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > should. I am describing the reality.
> > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > written.
> > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
>
> Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
Ace Sinica (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Ace Sinica |
Dato : 08-02-06 07:00 |
|
A very accurate observation, Mr. Moore.
LT's real mission here is to tell people, that, see I told you so,
freedom of press, freedom of speech is undesirable, especially for China.
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
>
> He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> is an apologist for the Chinese government.
>
>
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 14:50 |
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:59:49 +0800, Ace Sinica wrote
(in article <o_adnR1fm8xIFXTeRVn-qw@wideopenwest.com>):
> A very accurate observation, Mr. Moore.
>
> LT's real mission here is to tell people, that, see I told you so,
> freedom of press, freedom of speech is undesirable, especially for China.
Agree.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 20:45 |
|
That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either. So how can you
expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
embassy.
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > written.
> > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> >
> > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
>
> LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
>
> He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 20:49 |
|
BTW, you seem to have a fatal attraction to LT Lee and you want to tell
the world about him. Take it easy, dont overdo it. :^))
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > written.
> > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> >
> > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
>
> LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
>
> He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
ltlee1@hotmail.com (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1@hotmail.com |
Dato : 07-02-06 21:16 |
|
Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>
> >> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> >> >> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> >> >> > right is more fundamental.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
> >> >
> >> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
> >> > insult?
> >>
> >> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
> >> should stop being insulted?
> >
> > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
>
> That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent insulting
> somebody.
Somehow I don't think I can accept "You simply can not prevent
insulting
somebody." I have no problem with "we cannot please everyone." But
"simply can not prevent insulting somebody" is different.
The most obvious case is this. If someone is about to lose an
arguement, he or she often turn to insult. Why? Insults are effective
ways to terminate futher discussion. "Simply cannot pervent insulting
somebody", in these instances, can also be used as excuses to prevent
free speech. What do you think?
Basically, all arguement used to defend the freedom to insult can also
be used to defend the freedom from insults.
> > However, such problems should not distract us from the reality that
> > words can hurt. If you feel you are being insulted, then you feel you
> > are being insulted.
>
> Yes, and to be insulted is a human right and a human feeling, it is simply
> a part of being human.
>
> > The world saying you should not have such feeling
> > does not change a thing.
>
> The world does not say that.
>
> > If your feeling is deep and if you feel that
> > freedom from unprovoked insult is a right, then you will do something.
>
> Yes, that is a fanatic you are describing. We will not let fanatics rule
> our lives.
>
> > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > should. I am describing the reality.
> > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > written.
> > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
>
> Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
I slip in the authority becasue I don't want to quit just because
someone says it.
In case someone is really being insulted and he goes through the
trouble to contact the authority, then I will stop.
> >> Freedom of insult can not exist in the human world.
> >
> > Freedom from insult is engendered by freedom to insult. Not a whole lot
> > of differences from: Church's and the king's freedom to shut people up
> > engendered the freedom of expression.
> >
> > If one argues "freedom from insult" cannot exist, one could also argue
> > "freedom to insult" does not exit. May be the language of freedom and
> > rights is the problem.
>
> No, fanatics are the problem.
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 07-02-06 22:37 |
|
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:15:35 -0800, ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
>> >> >> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
>> >> >> > right is more fundamental.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
>> >> > insult?
>> >>
>> >> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
>> >> should stop being insulted?
>> >
>> > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
>>
>> That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent insulting
>> somebody.
>
> Somehow I don't think I can accept "You simply can not prevent
> insulting somebody."
You have to, it is a fact.
> I have no problem with "we cannot please everyone." But
> "simply can not prevent insulting somebody" is different.
>
> The most obvious case is this. If someone is about to lose an
> arguement, he or she often turn to insult. Why?
Because some people are immature.
> Insults are effective
> ways to terminate futher discussion.
Insults are effecitive to loose a debate.
> "Simply cannot pervent insulting
> somebody", in these instances, can also be used as excuses to prevent
> free speech. What do you think?
That i can not say without insulting you.
> Basically, all arguement used to defend the freedom to insult can also
> be used to defend the freedom from insults.
No, they can not.
>> > However, such problems should not distract us from the reality that
>> > words can hurt. If you feel you are being insulted, then you feel you
>> > are being insulted.
>>
>> Yes, and to be insulted is a human right and a human feeling, it is simply
>> a part of being human.
>>
>> > The world saying you should not have such feeling
>> > does not change a thing.
>>
>> The world does not say that.
>>
>> > If your feeling is deep and if you feel that
>> > freedom from unprovoked insult is a right, then you will do something.
>>
>> Yes, that is a fanatic you are describing. We will not let fanatics rule
>> our lives.
>>
>> > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
>> > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
>> > should. I am describing the reality.
>> > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
>> > written.
>> > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
>> > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
>> > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
>>
>> Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
>> stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
>
> I slip in the authority becasue I don't want to quit just because
> someone says it.
Why not? Then you are deliberately insulting people. Do you feel that it
is your right to do so?
> In case someone is really being insulted and he goes through the
> trouble to contact the authority, then I will stop.
In other words, you are suggesting that the authorities should decide when
you are being insulted. You are not just opposing free speech, you are
opposing the free mind.
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 14:53 |
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 04:15:35 +0800, ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote
(in article <1139343335.480880.137190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Basically, all arguement used to defend the freedom to insult can also
> be used to defend the freedom from insults.
False.
None of the arguments used to defend freedom of speech (freedom to insult is
a part of freedom of speech) can be used to defend censorship of speech (the
power to prevent insults is a part of the power to censor).
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
Cache-Control (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Cache-Control |
Dato : 07-02-06 21:29 |
|
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 21:45 |
|
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
to argue.
There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
haven't picked up on that at all.
But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
because I would have feared that something like this would have
happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
violence.
> So how can you
> expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
You're not really getting the point.
> As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> embassy.
No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
>
>
> bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > written.
> > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > >
> > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> >
> > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> >
> > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 21:53 |
|
Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
>
> Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> to argue.
> There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> haven't picked up on that at all.
>
> But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
>
>
> The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> because I would have feared that something like this would have
> happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> violence.
>
> > So how can you
> > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
>
> You're not really getting the point.
>
> > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > embassy.
>
> No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
>
> >
> >
> > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > written.
> > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > >
> > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > >
> > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > >
> > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 07-02-06 22:39 |
|
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
I am wrong.
Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
destruction.
BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
what you are replying to?
>
> bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> >
> > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > to argue.
> > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > haven't picked up on that at all.
> >
> > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> >
> >
> > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > violence.
> >
> > > So how can you
> > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> >
> > You're not really getting the point.
> >
> > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > embassy.
> >
> > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > written.
> > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > >
> > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > >
> > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 22:45 |
|
Cache-Control wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > >
> > > >> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
> > > >> > insult?
> > > >>
> > > >> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
> > > >> should stop being insulted?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
> > >
> > > That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent insulting
> > > somebody.
> >
> > Somehow I don't think I can accept "You simply can not prevent insulting
> > somebody." I have no problem with "we cannot please everyone." But
> > "simply can not prevent insulting somebody" is different.
>
> It is not. No matter how careful I am, I will always run the risk of
> insulting someone, somewhere, who has a different threshold for being
> insulted and different sensibilities than myself.
>
> It is literally impossible to conduct a meaningful discourse that insults
> no-one in the world, since different people's criteria for being insulted
> are often contradictory. Some religious people are insulted by suggesting
> there is no God, I may be insulted by suggesting there is. Only solution:
> Never say anything.
Chinese philosopher Han Fei had written an article with the title
"Talking is difficult" more than 2000 years ago detailing all the
problems of saying things. So, your frustration is not new.
Essentially, saying is difficult because it is a social process and an
interactive process involves more than one single individual. Hence the
freedom of the speaker is always limited by the audiences, including
their ability to stay above being insulted.
Currently, free speech framed in the language of individual right is
misleading. One side insisting his right to insult inevitably invites
the other side to assert his right for not to be insulted. In this
sense, the language of right is actually harmful. Rather than
facilitating communication and exchange of ideas, it blocks
communications.
>
> /CC
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 22:51 |
|
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=77893
"On Sunday, Syria's foreign ministry expressed regret at the embassy
arsons and promised to step up security around foreign diplomatic
missions."
Now provide us the evidence that Syria allowed burning of embassy
happen.
bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
>
> Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
> protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
> discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
> I am wrong.
>
> Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
> destruction.
>
> BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
> what you are replying to?
>
> >
> > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> > >
> > > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > > to argue.
> > > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > > haven't picked up on that at all.
> > >
> > > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> > >
> > >
> > > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > > violence.
> > >
> > > > So how can you
> > > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> > >
> > > You're not really getting the point.
> > >
> > > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > > embassy.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > > >
> > > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
Sirannon (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 08-02-06 17:09 |
|
<abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139349085.207250.284260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=77893
>
> "On Sunday, Syria's foreign ministry expressed regret at the embassy
> arsons and promised to step up security around foreign diplomatic
> missions."
>
> Now provide us the evidence that Syria allowed burning of embassy
> happen.
You mean other than plenty footage showing that the security forces were
there, but that they didn't interveen?
| |
ltlee1 (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 07-02-06 22:59 |
|
Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 12:15:35 -0800, ltlee1@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> >> >> >> > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> >> >> >> > right is more fundamental.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then what?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from unprovoked
> >> >> > insult?
> >> >>
> >> >> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted, then who
> >> >> should stop being insulted?
> >> >
> >> > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
> >>
> >> That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent insulting
> >> somebody.
> >
> > Somehow I don't think I can accept "You simply can not prevent
> > insulting somebody."
>
> You have to, it is a fact.
Not true.
Why do you think only Danish Embassies were burnt recently?
If insulting is inevitable, should we see more embassies from more
countries being burnt everday?
>
> > I have no problem with "we cannot please everyone." But
> > "simply can not prevent insulting somebody" is different.
> >
> > The most obvious case is this. If someone is about to lose an
> > arguement, he or she often turn to insult. Why?
>
> Because some people are immature.
>
> > Insults are effective
> > ways to terminate futher discussion.
>
> Insults are effecitive to loose a debate.
Irrelevant. Insults stop a debate and all the benefits which could have
been derived from a debate.
>
> > "Simply cannot pervent insulting
> > somebody", in these instances, can also be used as excuses to prevent
> > free speech. What do you think?
>
> That i can not say without insulting you.
>
> > Basically, all arguement used to defend the freedom to insult can also
> > be used to defend the freedom from insults.
>
> No, they can not.
Examples please.
>
> >> > However, such problems should not distract us from the reality that
> >> > words can hurt. If you feel you are being insulted, then you feel you
> >> > are being insulted.
> >>
> >> Yes, and to be insulted is a human right and a human feeling, it is simply
> >> a part of being human.
> >>
> >> > The world saying you should not have such feeling
> >> > does not change a thing.
> >>
> >> The world does not say that.
> >>
> >> > If your feeling is deep and if you feel that
> >> > freedom from unprovoked insult is a right, then you will do something.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is a fanatic you are describing. We will not let fanatics rule
> >> our lives.
> >>
> >> > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> >> > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> >> > should. I am describing the reality.
> >> > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> >> > written.
> >> > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> >> > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> >> > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> >>
> >> Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> >> stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> >
> > I slip in the authority becasue I don't want to quit just because
> > someone says it.
>
> Why not? Then you are deliberately insulting people. Do you feel that it
> is your right to do so?
Don't know what you mean.
>
> > In case someone is really being insulted and he goes through the
> > trouble to contact the authority, then I will stop.
>
> In other words, you are suggesting that the authorities should decide when
> you are being insulted. You are not just opposing free speech, you are
> opposing the free mind.
No. I did not suggest the authorities should decide. I don't oppose
free mind. However, I oppose people claiming the right to insult.
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 07-02-06 23:59 |
|
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:58:36 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important
>> >> >> >> > than freedom from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this
>> >> >> >> > thread is to explore which right is more fundamental.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then
>> >> >> >> what?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from
>> >> >> > unprovoked insult?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted,
>> >> >> then who should stop being insulted?
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
>> >>
>> >> That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent
>> >> insulting somebody.
>> >
>> > Somehow I don't think I can accept "You simply can not prevent
>> > insulting somebody."
>>
>> You have to, it is a fact.
>
> Not true.
> Why do you think only Danish Embassies were burnt recently?
I think that you do not read the news.
> If insulting is inevitable, should we see more embassies from more
> countries being burnt everday?
Are you burning down embassies if you get insulted? I do not. Most people
do not. Some people do what their religious leaders tells them to.
>> > I have no problem with "we cannot please everyone." But "simply can
>> > not prevent insulting somebody" is different.
>> >
>> > The most obvious case is this. If someone is about to lose an
>> > arguement, he or she often turn to insult. Why?
>>
>> Because some people are immature.
>>
>> > Insults are effective
>> > ways to terminate futher discussion.
>>
>> Insults are effecitive to loose a debate.
>
> Irrelevant. Insults stop a debate and all the benefits which could have
> been derived from a debate.
The debate stops anyway. You said it yourself "If someone is about to lose
an arguement, he or she often turn to insult.". The debate is over with or
without the insult. The insult just leaves an ugly ending.
>> > "Simply cannot pervent insulting
>> > somebody", in these instances, can also be used as excuses to
>> > prevent free speech. What do you think?
>>
>> That i can not say without insulting you.
>>
>> > Basically, all arguement used to defend the freedom to insult can
>> > also be used to defend the freedom from insults.
>>
>> No, they can not.
>
> Examples please.
I can not give you an example of something that does not exist. It is your
claim that any argument to defend freedom of speech also can be used to
defend freedom from insult. You are the one who has to deliver the
examples.
>> > I slip in the authority becasue I don't want to quit just because
>> > someone says it.
>>
>> Why not? Then you are deliberately insulting people. Do you feel that
>> it is your right to do so?
>
> Don't know what you mean.
You do not want to stop insulting people, even when they tells you that
you are insulting them. You do that because you feel that it is your
right, and that right is superior to others right not to be insulted. In
other words, you do belive that your freedom of speech is more important
than others freedom from insults.
>> > In case someone is really being insulted and he goes through the
>> > trouble to contact the authority, then I will stop.
>>
>> In other words, you are suggesting that the authorities should decide
>> when you are being insulted. You are not just opposing free speech, you
>> are opposing the free mind.
>
> No. I did not suggest the authorities should decide.
Yes you did.
> I don't oppose free mind.
Yes you do.
> However, I oppose people claiming the right to insult.
No you do not. You stand by your right to insult.
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 14:57 |
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 05:58:36 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139349516.014222.257220@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>):
> Why do you think only Danish Embassies were burnt recently?
Syrians protesting over offensive caricatures of Islam's prophet have been
blocked from approaching the French embassy after torching the Danish and
Norwegian embassies in Damascus.
Premise is false. Questions based on an erroneous premise have no valid
answer.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 23:10 |
|
Monday, February 06, 2006
Syria religious leader condemns embassy attacks
DAMASCUS: Syria's highest Muslim authority on Sunday expressed regret
protestors set fire to buildings housing the Danish and Norwegian
embassies over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet
Muhammed (PBUH).
"It is regrettable that certain people have poorly expressed their
protest against the publication by European newspapers of images that
are offensive to the prophet," grand mufti Sheikh Ahmed Badreddine
Hassun said. Sheikh Hassun, whose comments were carried by state media,
accused "elements who do not believe in dialogue who were introduced
among the demonstrators" in Damascus. Angry crowds stormed the
buildings housing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on
Saturday, setting fire to both and pillaging the contents of the
first-floor office of the Chilean embassy in one of the buildings.
"We are sad about their actions which harms our dialogue with the
Danish and Norwegian people," Sheikh Hassun said. Amid fresh riots in
Lebanon on Sunday, a Syrian intellectual, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said "extremism and Puritanism have taken hold of the Arab
street." Meanwhile, moderate Islamists and those who support
democracy have been "kept away from the scene" by Arab regimes that
have clamped down on opposition and free speech, he said. afp
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C06%5Cstory_6-2-2006_pg4_11
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
>
> Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
> protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
> discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
> I am wrong.
>
> Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
> destruction.
>
> BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
> what you are replying to?
>
> >
> > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> > >
> > > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > > to argue.
> > > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > > haven't picked up on that at all.
> > >
> > > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> > >
> > >
> > > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > > violence.
> > >
> > > > So how can you
> > > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> > >
> > > You're not really getting the point.
> > >
> > > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > > embassy.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > > >
> > > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 23:25 |
|
Syria expresses regrets for violent protests over cartoons
www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-06 04:57:54
DAMASCUS, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Syria expressed regret on Sunday for
Saturday's violent protests in which angry demonstrators torched Danish
and Norwegian embassies in Damascus over publication of cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammad in the two countries.
"Despite the big understanding of feelings of the popular anger
over publication of caricatures that insulted the Prophet Mohammad, it
is unacceptable to contradict law and order in the country," the
Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
"Syria is committed to the international conventions regarding the
protection of foreign embassies and their staffs," it said, adding that
"more protection has been placed on diplomatic missions".
The statement also denied as "baseless" the existence of any threat
targeting some states' citizens in Syria.
Soon after the attacks which caused serious damages to the building
but no casualties, the Danish and Norwegian governments urged their
nationals to leave Syria immediately.
On Sunday, scores of Danish and Norwegian citizens left Damascus by
plane after being driven to the airport in buses escorted by Syrian
police.
Security measures has been stepped up on Sunday as riot police were
deployed near the French and U.S. embassies.
The cartoons were first published by the Danish newspaper,
Jyllands-Posten, last September and republished in Norway and other
European countries last month, sparking waves of protests in the
Islamic world.
Islamic teachings forbid any images of the Prophet Mohammad.
Enditem
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/06/content_4140466.htm
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
>
> Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
> protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
> discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
> I am wrong.
>
> Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
> destruction.
>
> BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
> what you are replying to?
>
> >
> > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> > >
> > > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > > to argue.
> > > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > > haven't picked up on that at all.
> > >
> > > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> > >
> > >
> > > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > > violence.
> > >
> > > > So how can you
> > > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> > >
> > > You're not really getting the point.
> > >
> > > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > > embassy.
> > >
> > > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > > >
> > > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (07-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 07-02-06 23:45 |
|
I just went through all your posts on this cartoon issue and I did not
find you have refuted those netters who said they have every right to
insult others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad
with terrorism as you claimed here. Maybe you should show me you did.
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
>
> Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> to argue.
> There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> haven't picked up on that at all.
>
> But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
>
>
> The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> because I would have feared that something like this would have
> happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> violence.
>
> > So how can you
> > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
>
> You're not really getting the point.
>
> > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > embassy.
>
> No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
>
> >
> >
> > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > written.
> > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > >
> > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > >
> > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > >
> > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
humantenacity (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : humantenacity |
Dato : 08-02-06 00:39 |
|
As an American raised in Asia I can understand the clashes of thought
regarding "free speech". Let me say just this from an American Legal
and Constitutional perspective:
"No speech, no matter how inflammatory, can be used as justification
for physical violence against another human being". US justice does
place limits on free speech such as "yelling fire" in a crowded
theater. This form of speech is illegal even in the USA because its
result could cause potential harm to life and property in the ensuing
panic created. But published work as in a newspaper or magazine can
have no such effect under USA law. I cannot speak to other countries
legal systems and free speech standards or lack thereof. Within the USA
I agree that often the "insults" in published works are offensive at
best but under our consitutional government free speech is afforded
even to the most offensive. If we silence what we don't like where does
it stop>?
Let me also say that the some of the loudest muslim protests are coming
from the same people who publicly cry out for the murder and
destruction of the .USA and its citizens, the destruction of Jews and
Israel, the destruction of Europe and its citizenry. Let me make it
even simpler many of the radical muslim fundamentalists who are
decrying these cartoons are the same people who are calling for the
death of anything and everything that doesn't fit into their scheme of
things.
There are certain basic human principles I think and among them is the
right to life and to live that life according to one's own values
providing those values bring no harm to other human beings.
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 14:59 |
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 07:38:46 +0800, humantenacity wrote
(in article <1139355526.459568.23880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> "No speech, no matter how inflammatory, can be used as justification
> for physical violence against another human being".
exactly
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 01:01 |
|
humantenacity wrote:
> As an American raised in Asia I can understand the clashes of thought
> regarding "free speech". Let me say just this from an American Legal
> and Constitutional perspective:
> "No speech, no matter how inflammatory, can be used as justification
> for physical violence against another human being". US justice does
> place limits on free speech such as "yelling fire" in a crowded
> theater. This form of speech is illegal even in the USA because its
> result could cause potential harm to life and property in the ensuing
> panic created. But published work as in a newspaper or magazine can
> have no such effect under USA law.
Publish work as in a newspaper or magazine can be potentially harmful
to life and property.
> I cannot speak to other countries
> legal systems and free speech standards or lack thereof. Within the USA
> I agree that often the "insults" in published works are offensive at
> best but under our consitutional government free speech is afforded
> even to the most offensive. If we silence what we don't like where does
> it stop>?
It boundary will be determined by the collective "common sense" of the
society.
>
> Let me also say that the some of the loudest muslim protests are coming
> from the same people who publicly cry out for the murder and
> destruction of the .USA and its citizens, the destruction of Jews and
> Israel, the destruction of Europe and its citizenry. Let me make it
> even simpler many of the radical muslim fundamentalists who are
> decrying these cartoons are the same people who are calling for the
> death of anything and everything that doesn't fit into their scheme of
> things.
>
> There are certain basic human principles I think and among them is the
> right to life and to live that life according to one's own values
> providing those values bring no harm to other human beings.
| |
Jim Walsh (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 08-02-06 15:00 |
|
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:01:13 +0800, ltlee1 wrote
(in article <1139356873.248121.123020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
> It boundary will be determined by the collective "common sense" of the
> society.
In the PRC the boundary is determined by the 12 old men who rule it.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 01:04 |
|
Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:58:36 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important
> >> >> >> >> > than freedom from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this
> >> >> >> >> > thread is to explore which right is more fundamental.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then
> >> >> >> >> what?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from
> >> >> >> > unprovoked insult?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted,
> >> >> >> then who should stop being insulted?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent
> >> >> insulting somebody.
> >> >
> >> > Somehow I don't think I can accept "You simply can not prevent
> >> > insulting somebody."
> >>
> >> You have to, it is a fact.
> >
> > Not true.
> > Why do you think only Danish Embassies were burnt recently?
>
> I think that you do not read the news.
>
> > If insulting is inevitable, should we see more embassies from more
> > countries being burnt everday?
>
> Are you burning down embassies if you get insulted? I do not. Most people
> do not. Some people do what their religious leaders tells them to.
A matter of probability.
If what you say is true, then 6 billion plus people are insulting
people and/or being insulted every day of the year. Some of these
billion plus are going to behave like the Islamist extremists. Or do
you believe Islam has a monopoly on extremism?
>
> >> > I have no problem with "we cannot please everyone." But "simply can
> >> > not prevent insulting somebody" is different.
> >> >
> >> > The most obvious case is this. If someone is about to lose an
> >> > arguement, he or she often turn to insult. Why?
> >>
> >> Because some people are immature.
> >>
> >> > Insults are effective
> >> > ways to terminate futher discussion.
> >>
> >> Insults are effecitive to loose a debate.
> >
> > Irrelevant. Insults stop a debate and all the benefits which could have
> > been derived from a debate.
>
> The debate stops anyway. You said it yourself "If someone is about to lose
> an arguement, he or she often turn to insult.". The debate is over with or
> without the insult. The insult just leaves an ugly ending.
Admitting one's mistkae can be enlightening. No?
>
> >> > "Simply cannot pervent insulting
> >> > somebody", in these instances, can also be used as excuses to
> >> > prevent free speech. What do you think?
> >>
> >> That i can not say without insulting you.
> >>
> >> > Basically, all arguement used to defend the freedom to insult can
> >> > also be used to defend the freedom from insults.
> >>
> >> No, they can not.
> >
> > Examples please.
>
> I can not give you an example of something that does not exist. It is your
> claim that any argument to defend freedom of speech also can be used to
> defend freedom from insult. You are the one who has to deliver the
> examples.
>
> >> > I slip in the authority becasue I don't want to quit just because
> >> > someone says it.
> >>
> >> Why not? Then you are deliberately insulting people. Do you feel that
> >> it is your right to do so?
> >
> > Don't know what you mean.
>
> You do not want to stop insulting people, even when they tells you that
> you are insulting them. You do that because you feel that it is your
> right, and that right is superior to others right not to be insulted. In
> other words, you do belive that your freedom of speech is more important
> than others freedom from insults.
No. Basically, I don't know who I am communicating with over the net. I
don't know who is asking me to stop. As a matter of fact, I can't be
sure that I am talking to real human and not a clever AI program.
Authority is not required in face to face communication. People usually
stop short of insulting in more discussions. It is called common
courtesy.
> >> > In case someone is really being insulted and he goes through the
> >> > trouble to contact the authority, then I will stop.
> >>
> >> In other words, you are suggesting that the authorities should decide
> >> when you are being insulted. You are not just opposing free speech, you
> >> are opposing the free mind.
> >
> > No. I did not suggest the authorities should decide.
>
> Yes you did.
>
> > I don't oppose free mind.
>
> Yes you do.
>
> > However, I oppose people claiming the right to insult.
>
> No you do not. You stand by your right to insult.
| |
Frank E. N. Stein (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Frank E. N. Stein |
Dato : 08-02-06 01:57 |
|
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 16:03:59 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important
>> >> >> >> >> > than freedom from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this
>> >> >> >> >> > thread is to explore which right is more fundamental.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Lets assume i'm insulted by your attack on free speech. Then
>> >> >> >> >> what?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What do you beleive first? Freedom to insult or freedom from
>> >> >> >> > unprovoked insult?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You just don't get it. If i'm insulted that you are insulted,
>> >> >> >> then who should stop being insulted?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes. It is tricky and the question is not easy to answer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is because there is no answer. You simply can not prevent
>> >> >> insulting somebody.
>> >> >
>> >> > Somehow I don't think I can accept "You simply can not prevent
>> >> > insulting somebody."
>> >>
>> >> You have to, it is a fact.
>> >
>> > Not true.
>> > Why do you think only Danish Embassies were burnt recently?
>>
>> I think that you do not read the news.
>>
>> > If insulting is inevitable, should we see more embassies from more
>> > countries being burnt everday?
>>
>> Are you burning down embassies if you get insulted? I do not. Most people
>> do not. Some people do what their religious leaders tells them to.
>
> A matter of probability.
> If what you say is true, then 6 billion plus people are insulting
> people and/or being insulted every day of the year. Some of these
> billion plus are going to behave like the Islamist extremists.
Yes, and that we see everyday. People are getting into fights,
abortion-doctors are being harrased etc. But to see what we see in the
Middleeast, extremism have to be organized in a large scale. That is
luckilly not the case in the majority of the world.
>Or do you believe Islam has a monopoly on extremism?
No. Almost every religion, political orientation etc have their
extremists. There are even extremistic philatelists.
>> >> > I have no problem with "we cannot please everyone." But "simply can
>> >> > not prevent insulting somebody" is different.
>> >> >
>> >> > The most obvious case is this. If someone is about to lose an
>> >> > arguement, he or she often turn to insult. Why?
>> >>
>> >> Because some people are immature.
>> >>
>> >> > Insults are effective
>> >> > ways to terminate futher discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Insults are effecitive to loose a debate.
>> >
>> > Irrelevant. Insults stop a debate and all the benefits which could have
>> > been derived from a debate.
>>
>> The debate stops anyway. You said it yourself "If someone is about to lose
>> an arguement, he or she often turn to insult.". The debate is over with or
>> without the insult. The insult just leaves an ugly ending.
>
> Admitting one's mistkae can be enlightening. No?
I am glad to have enlightened you. I have not said that insults are
positive, i have said that they are unavoidable.
A debate does not stop with the insult, it stops just before as the insult
does not add anything to the debate.
In the case with the drawings of Mohammed, the insult is not the debate.
They were meant to create a debate on the acclaimed self-censorship
artists put on themselves out of fear for violent reactions from muslims.
>> >> > "Simply cannot pervent insulting
>> >> > somebody", in these instances, can also be used as excuses to
>> >> > prevent free speech. What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> That i can not say without insulting you.
>> >>
>> >> > Basically, all arguement used to defend the freedom to insult can
>> >> > also be used to defend the freedom from insults.
>> >>
>> >> No, they can not.
>> >
>> > Examples please.
>>
>> I can not give you an example of something that does not exist. It is your
>> claim that any argument to defend freedom of speech also can be used to
>> defend freedom from insult. You are the one who has to deliver the
>> examples.
You could not do that?
>> >> > I slip in the authority becasue I don't want to quit just because
>> >> > someone says it.
>> >>
>> >> Why not? Then you are deliberately insulting people. Do you feel that
>> >> it is your right to do so?
>> >
>> > Don't know what you mean.
>>
>> You do not want to stop insulting people, even when they tells you that
>> you are insulting them. You do that because you feel that it is your
>> right, and that right is superior to others right not to be insulted. In
>> other words, you do belive that your freedom of speech is more important
>> than others freedom from insults.
>
> No. Basically, I don't know who I am communicating with over the net. I
> don't know who is asking me to stop.
That should not matter to you.
> As a matter of fact, I can't be
> sure that I am talking to real human and not a clever AI program.
When you are talking to somebody face to face, you can not be sure it is
not a clever robot. When debating, common sense is just as important as
common courtesy.
> Authority is not required in face to face communication.
But it is in writing. Why?
> People usually
> stop short of insulting in more discussions. It is called common
> courtesy.
It is. Common courtesy is also free speech, you choose to be polite as
opposed to being forced to be polite. The keyword here is "choose".
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 08-02-06 07:11 |
|
Really?! Syrian Foreign Ministry and Syria religious leaders all have
expressed regret for embassy arsons. Lets see what Bill Moore is going
to say about this. How about you? Mind to provide some inputs after
your anti-LT Lee hysteria. :^))
Ace Sinica wrote:
> A very accurate observation, Mr. Moore.
>
> LT's real mission here is to tell people, that, see I told you so,
> freedom of press, freedom of speech is undesirable, especially for China.
>
>
> bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> >
> > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
> >
> >
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 12:34 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139283220.282263.173960@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > People believe in Islam and depend on the teaching of the Quran because
> > the religion and the teaching provide them a lot of comfort. Unlike
> > wealthy westerners, the majority of these muslims are poor and their
> > future are bleak. Their faith is probably the only thing which gives
> > them strength and allow them to ike out a meek existence.
>
> Well it is hardly my problem that the muslim nations as a whole lack the
> moral fortitude to cast away the yoke of spiritual and physical oppression.
> Which is the a cause of their poverty and despair.
No. It is not your problem. It is their problem.
But I won;t say people of muslim nations lack the moral fortitude. I
see no reason to berate hundreds of million. The issue is whether the
cartoons are contributing to their situation or making their situation
worse. As far as one can observe, they did not welcome the cartoons.
Should it be obvious to anyone that they don't see the cartoons as
contributing to their situation, physcially or spiritually.
> > Yes, I understand drawing the cartoons cost close nothing to the
> > cartoonists as well as the Danish people. How about the cost to the
> > muslim faithful? No, one single attempt probably would not lead them
> > away from their faith. But repeated attempts would certainly exact a
> > price.
>
> Well if they learned to take their religion less seriously, it would
> certainly be a benefit to the world.
What if they all has a million? It would be more effective in making
them more secular.
>
> > On the benefit side. What benefit do the cartoons bring to the Danes?
> > What else but a good laugh and self-congradulations concerning the
> > virtue and hlolier-then-thou of free speech.
>
> Well many would argue that we have had a fairly good debate about the
> issues, if we only talk about DK. And that many now won't have as much of a
> stereotypical view of the Danish muslims as before, since many Danish
> muslims have been forced to speak out agaist their extremist fellows.
>
> > The question is what to do when these rights, the right to insult and
> > the right not to be insulted, are in conflict.
>
> You are the only one who makes this false dichotomy. There is no right not
> to be insulted.
If there is no right not to be insulted, then there is no right to
insult.
| |
Sirannon (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 08-02-06 13:36 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139398442.638075.91380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> No. It is not your problem. It is their problem.
> But I won;t say people of muslim nations lack the moral fortitude. I
> see no reason to berate hundreds of million. The issue is whether the
> cartoons are contributing to their situation or making their situation
> worse. As far as one can observe, they did not welcome the cartoons.
> Should it be obvious to anyone that they don't see the cartoons as
> contributing to their situation, physcially or spiritually.
The cartoons don't help their situation neither do they hurt them. The
muslims are hurting themselves with their ridiculous behaviour. It is hardly
our fault that people are crazy enough to kill for the sake of a cartoon.
> What if they all has a million? It would be more effective in making
> them more secular.
Well they are never going to get a million (whatever) if they persist living
under opressive regimes and under opressive religious dogma.
> If there is no right not to be insulted, then there is no right to
> insult.
That doesn't follow.
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 08-02-06 16:44 |
|
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=77893
>
> "On Sunday, Syria's foreign ministry expressed regret at the embassy
> arsons and promised to step up security around foreign diplomatic
> missions."
Let's see. You said
"As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
embassy"
Now, "expresed regret" isn't really the same thing as "condemned". You
used a strong word like "condemned" and it doesn't really convey what
the Syrian Foreign Ministry actually said. In a rational discussion
it's good to argue your points as accurately as possible.
> Now provide us the evidence that Syria allowed burning of embassy
> happen.
First I will note that my mentioning the laxness of the Syrians in
responding to the violence is an aside. You are jumping on this small
aside and neglecting the big picture.
You have a very irritating habit of demanding a lot from the people you
converse with and offering little in return.
Regarding the burning of the embassies,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682388.stm like
"The government of Syria's failure to provide protection to diplomatic
premises, in the face of warnings that violence was planned, is
inexcusable."
and
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18046936%255E1702,00.html
Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller told local television it was
"completely unacceptable that the Syrian authorities did not protect
the embassy, and I have told the Syrian foreign minister that".
>
> bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
> > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
> >
> > Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
> > protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
> > discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
> > I am wrong.
> >
> > Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
> > destruction.
> >
> > BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
> > what you are replying to?
> >
> > >
> > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> > > >
> > > > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > > > to argue.
> > > > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > > > haven't picked up on that at all.
> > > >
> > > > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > > > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > > > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > > > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > > > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > > > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > > > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > > > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > > > violence.
> > > >
> > > > > So how can you
> > > > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> > > >
> > > > You're not really getting the point.
> > > >
> > > > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > > > embassy.
> > > >
> > > > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > > > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 17:01 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > PeterL wrote:
> > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > T.Liljeberg wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6 Feb 2006 04:58:46 -0800, in dk.politik "abianchen@my-deja.com"
> > > > > > > <abianchen@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >No, you dont have freedom to insult others' religion. US government,
> > > > > > > >Annan of UN Secretary General, German Chancellor etc all expressed the
> > > > > > > >same opinion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No. They said you SHOULD NOT. They did not say that you did not have
> > > > > > > the right to do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is insulting other people one of the the basic human right too?
> > > > >
> > > > > Freedom to speak one's mind is a basic human right. If one wants to
> > > > > insult another religion so be it.
> > > > >
> > > > > With that said, I stronly disagree with the message of the cartoon.
> > > > > Yet I support the newspaper's right to publish it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Or is freedom from unprovoked insult a basic human right?
> > > > >
> > > > > No there is no such freedom. Who's to say what's "unprovoked" and
> > > > > what's an "insult"?
> > > >
> > > > I admit that the boundary is difficult is to determine just like at
> > > > what moment day changes into night is difficult to determine. However,
> > > > difficulties in determining the boundary do not in general prevent us
> > > > from telling day from night. For the sake of discussion, we assume both
> > > > "unprovoked" and "insult" are clear.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not a good assumption.
> >
> > Are you saying unprovoked insults do not exist at all?
>
> Sure it does, in the minds of those who feel they are insulted. Every
> action is "provoked" by some other action.
>
> > >
> > > > With 20/20 hindsight, it is also clear the the muslims considered the
> > > > cartoons unprovoked insults.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But the Danes don't. So who gets to say what is and what is not
> > > unprovoked insults?
> >
> > So, what do you suggested? The muslims who feel they are unfairly
> > insulted should just turn the other cheek.
>
> I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their outrage
> through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is all about,
> SPEECH.
Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real world.
I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH can't. And
inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked insults.
Some one sitting in their house attending their own business. Why
should they be the targets of unprovoked insults? Why can't they be
left alone?
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Free speech does not always result in nice exchanges. Bad speech is a
> > > > > natural result of free speech. The way to counter bad speech is more
> > > > > free speech, not less.
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying the the right to inuslt is more important than freedom
> > > > from unprovoked insults? The purpose of this thread is to explore which
> > > > right is more fundamental.
> > >
> > > Yes it is. The right to free speech (including bad free speech) is
> > > more important than the freedom from verbal insults.
> >
> > What is your advice to those who are unfairly targeted?
>
> Express that outrage with speech.
| |
PeterL (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 08-02-06 18:17 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
>
> >
> > I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their outrage
> > through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is all about,
> > SPEECH.
>
> Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real world.
> I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH can't. And
> inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
>
No one says speech can solve all problems.
> A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked insults.
No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked" and
what's an "insult"?
We see that in many governments today anything said against the
government is considered illegal. So whoever is in power decides what
is allowed speech and what is not. This form of government control
cannot exist in a democracy.
> Some one sitting in their house attending their own business. Why
> should they be the targets of unprovoked insults? Why can't they be
> left alone?
>
If someone wants to be left alone, they don't have to read the
newspaper then. No one is forced to read the newspaper.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 11-02-06 07:25 |
|
Hmmm... did not know you still have such inferiority complex. Sigh,
Boxer Rebellion's fault!
Ace Sinica wrote:
> I have already stated my views on the Danish cartoons incident:
>
> Danish newspaper published something circulating in Denmark for Danish
> readers.
> Whoever don't like it, stop subscription, or write to editor.
>
> If Muslims don't like presence of EU nations' embassies, they will pull
> out.
>
> 好希罕唷! 盡é‡åŽ»æƒ¹æ¯›è€æå‘€, ä¸è¦ç‰åˆ°å…«åœ‹è¯è»å…µè‡¨åŸŽä¸‹, 到時候, è¦å“沒目屎.
>
>
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > But the truth is you are not really interested in cartoon incident, you
> > are just venting your frustration over China/Taiwan dispute here. We
> > call it "ranting". So calm down, you dont like LT Lee's pro-China
> > stance, we are fully aware of it so no need to drag your anti-China
> > agenda into this Danish cartoon thread.
> >
> >
> >
| |
Ace Sinica (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Ace Sinica |
Dato : 11-02-06 14:40 |
|
Looks like you have trouble reading Chinese. BTW, you have not typed in
any original material, as we only see you copy and paste Chinese text
from other sources.
See, it takes a little more knowledge of Chinese to be able to type it
in. 
You need to pick correctly from the window of candidate words, and you
need to speak relative accurate Mandarin to get the candidate window to
pop up. You can also write it in using a tablet, but now not only do you
need to know how to pronounce, but know how to write it; which is one
more rung up the ladder.
For those who can't afford a tablet, WinXP has built in written
character recognition software, but you'll need to write words using the
mouse, which is very awkward.
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hmmm... did not know you still have such inferiority complex. Sigh,
> Boxer Rebellion's fault!
>
>
> Ace Sinica wrote:
>
>> I have already stated my views on the Danish cartoons incident:
>>
>> Danish newspaper published something circulating in Denmark for Danish
>> readers.
>> Whoever don't like it, stop subscription, or write to editor.
>>
>> If Muslims don't like presence of EU nations' embassies, they will pull
>> out.
>>
>> 好希罕唷! 盡é‡åŽ»æƒ¹æ¯›è€æå‘€, ä¸è¦ç‰åˆ°å…«åœ‹è¯è»å…µè‡¨åŸŽä¸‹, 到時候, è¦å“沒目屎.
>>
>>
>>
>>
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 20:27 |
|
Sirannon wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139398442.638075.91380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > No. It is not your problem. It is their problem.
> > But I won;t say people of muslim nations lack the moral fortitude. I
> > see no reason to berate hundreds of million. The issue is whether the
> > cartoons are contributing to their situation or making their situation
> > worse. As far as one can observe, they did not welcome the cartoons.
> > Should it be obvious to anyone that they don't see the cartoons as
> > contributing to their situation, physcially or spiritually.
>
> The cartoons don't help their situation neither do they hurt them. The
> muslims are hurting themselves with their ridiculous behaviour. It is hardly
> our fault that people are crazy enough to kill for the sake of a cartoon.
>
> > What if they all has a million? It would be more effective in making
> > them more secular.
>
> Well they are never going to get a million (whatever) if they persist living
> under opressive regimes and under opressive religious dogma.
>
> > If there is no right not to be insulted, then there is no right to
> > insult.
>
> That doesn't follow.
Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
| |
Sirannon (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 08-02-06 20:49 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139426815.939445.93180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Neither are god given. Both are human inventions.
What if my religion says freedom of speach is sacred?
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 20:35 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their outrage
> > > through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is all about,
> > > SPEECH.
> >
> > Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real world.
> > I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH can't. And
> > inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
> >
>
> No one says speech can solve all problems.
>
>
> > A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked insults.
>
> No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked" and
> what's an "insult"?
If the assumption is that there is no right from wrong, then I have
nothing to add.
However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
insult.
> We see that in many governments today anything said against the
> government is considered illegal. So whoever is in power decides what
> is allowed speech and what is not. This form of government control
> cannot exist in a democracy.
People said the wrong thing and they got sacked or punished all the
time. Democracy is not different.
>
> > Some one sitting in their house attending their own business. Why
> > should they be the targets of unprovoked insults? Why can't they be
> > left alone?
> >
>
> If someone wants to be left alone, they don't have to read the
> newspaper then. No one is forced to read the newspaper.
Funngy logic. Do you read newspaper because you want to be insulted.
Probably not. People read newspaper for various reasons. Looking to be
insulted is not one of them.
| |
T.Liljeberg (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : T.Liljeberg |
Dato : 09-02-06 04:24 |
|
On 8 Feb 2006 11:35:17 -0800, in dk.politik "ltlee1"
<ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
>from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
>insult.
People in general will never agree on what is insulting or unprovoked.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (11-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 11-02-06 22:02 |
|
Are you bragging your computer knowledge or not? Yes, I am computer
illiterate, satisfy now?
Boring!
Ace Sinica wrote:
> Looks like you have trouble reading Chinese. BTW, you have not typed in
> any original material, as we only see you copy and paste Chinese text
> from other sources.
>
> See, it takes a little more knowledge of Chinese to be able to type it
> in.
>
> You need to pick correctly from the window of candidate words, and you
> need to speak relative accurate Mandarin to get the candidate window to
> pop up. You can also write it in using a tablet, but now not only do you
> need to know how to pronounce, but know how to write it; which is one
> more rung up the ladder.
>
> For those who can't afford a tablet, WinXP has built in written
> character recognition software, but you'll need to write words using the
> mouse, which is very awkward.
>
>
>
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Hmmm... did not know you still have such inferiority complex. Sigh,
> > Boxer Rebellion's fault!
> >
> >
> > Ace Sinica wrote:
> >
> >> I have already stated my views on the Danish cartoons incident:
> >>
> >> Danish newspaper published something circulating in Denmark for Danish
> >> readers.
> >> Whoever don't like it, stop subscription, or write to editor.
> >>
> >> If Muslims don't like presence of EU nations' embassies, they will pull
> >> out.
> >>
> >> 好希罕唷! 盡é‡åŽ»æƒ¹æ¯›è€æå‘€, ä¸è¦ç‰åˆ°å…«åœ‹è¯è»å…µè‡¨åŸŽä¸‹, 到時候, è¦å“沒目屎.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
| |
ltlee1 (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 08-02-06 20:40 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their outrage
> > > through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is all about,
> > > SPEECH.
> >
> > Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real world.
> > I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH can't. And
> > inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
> >
>
> No one says speech can solve all problems.
>
>
> > A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked insults.
>
> No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked" and
> what's an "insult"?
If the assumption is that there is no right from wrong, then I have
nothing to add.
However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
insult.
> We see that in many governments today anything said against the
> government is considered illegal. So whoever is in power decides what
> is allowed speech and what is not. This form of government control
> cannot exist in a democracy.
People said the wrong thing and they got sacked or punished all the
time. Democracy is not different.
>
> > Some one sitting in their house attending their own business. Why
> > should they be the targets of unprovoked insults? Why can't they be
> > left alone?
> >
>
> If someone wants to be left alone, they don't have to read the
> newspaper then. No one is forced to read the newspaper.
Funngy logic. Do you read newspaper because you want to be insulted.
Probably not. People read newspaper for various reasons. Looking to be
insulted is not one of them.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 08-02-06 21:31 |
|
Read below... Syrian Foreign Ministry expressed regret and also said
embassy arsons have violated law and order in the country and the act
is unacceptable. That's condemnation.
Not only that, Syria religious leaders also condemned the arsons and I
have posted the link.
And you claimed you have criticized those who said they have every
right to insult or linked Mohammad to terrorism, I went through all
your posts but did not find any. You need to explain that.
-----
DAMASCUS, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Syria expressed regret on Sunday for
Saturday's violent protests in which angry demonstrators torched Danish
and Norwegian embassies in Damascus over publication of cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammad in the two countries.
"Despite the big understanding of feelings of the popular anger
over publication of caricatures that insulted the Prophet Mohammad, it
is unacceptable to contradict law and order in the country," the
Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
-----
bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=77893
> >
> > "On Sunday, Syria's foreign ministry expressed regret at the embassy
> > arsons and promised to step up security around foreign diplomatic
> > missions."
>
> Let's see. You said
>
> "As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> embassy"
>
> Now, "expresed regret" isn't really the same thing as "condemned". You
> used a strong word like "condemned" and it doesn't really convey what
> the Syrian Foreign Ministry actually said. In a rational discussion
> it's good to argue your points as accurately as possible.
>
> > Now provide us the evidence that Syria allowed burning of embassy
> > happen.
>
> First I will note that my mentioning the laxness of the Syrians in
> responding to the violence is an aside. You are jumping on this small
> aside and neglecting the big picture.
> You have a very irritating habit of demanding a lot from the people you
> converse with and offering little in return.
>
> Regarding the burning of the embassies,
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682388.stm like
>
> "The government of Syria's failure to provide protection to diplomatic
> premises, in the face of warnings that violence was planned, is
> inexcusable."
>
> and
>
> http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18046936%255E1702,00.html
>
> Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller told local television it was
> "completely unacceptable that the Syrian authorities did not protect
> the embassy, and I have told the Syrian foreign minister that".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
> > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
> > >
> > > Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
> > > protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
> > > discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
> > > I am wrong.
> > >
> > > Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
> > > destruction.
> > >
> > > BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
> > > what you are replying to?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > > > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > > > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > > > > to argue.
> > > > > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > > > > haven't picked up on that at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > > > > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > > > > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > > > > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > > > > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > > > > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > > > > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > > > > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > > > > violence.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So how can you
> > > > > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> > > > >
> > > > > You're not really getting the point.
> > > > >
> > > > > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > > > > embassy.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > > > > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
abianchen@my-deja.co~ (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : abianchen@my-deja.co~ |
Dato : 08-02-06 21:33 |
|
The police could not stop the arsons. It's like recent Paris riots.
Sirannon wrote:
> <abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:1139349085.207250.284260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=77893
> >
> > "On Sunday, Syria's foreign ministry expressed regret at the embassy
> > arsons and promised to step up security around foreign diplomatic
> > missions."
> >
> > Now provide us the evidence that Syria allowed burning of embassy
> > happen.
> You mean other than plenty footage showing that the security forces were
> there, but that they didn't interveen?
| |
Sirannon (08-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Sirannon |
Dato : 08-02-06 21:45 |
|
<abianchen@my-deja.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1139430780.939550.192400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The police could not stop the arsons. It's like recent Paris riots.
Would you please qoute properly!
It was obvious that they didn't even try.
| |
PeterL (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : PeterL |
Dato : 09-02-06 00:08 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > PeterL wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their outrage
> > > > through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is all about,
> > > > SPEECH.
> > >
> > > Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real world.
> > > I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH can't. And
> > > inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
> > >
> >
> > No one says speech can solve all problems.
> >
> >
> > > A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked insults.
> >
> > No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked" and
> > what's an "insult"?
>
> If the assumption is that there is no right from wrong, then I have
> nothing to add.
No that's not the assumption. But what is right and what is wrong is
relative. What is right in Denmark may not be right in Syria, and vis
versa.
> However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
> from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
> insult.
>
Which is different depending on a lot of factors. What's an insult to
one culture is not an insult to another culture. And how different
cultures react to insults is different.
> > We see that in many governments today anything said against the
> > government is considered illegal. So whoever is in power decides what
> > is allowed speech and what is not. This form of government control
> > cannot exist in a democracy.
>
> People said the wrong thing and they got sacked or punished all the
> time. Democracy is not different.
>
But citizens are protected from persecution by their governments if
there is free speech protection in that country. Free speech don't
mean one can say anything at any time. Free speech protection is
pretty narrow.
> >
> > > Some one sitting in their house attending their own business. Why
> > > should they be the targets of unprovoked insults? Why can't they be
> > > left alone?
> > >
> >
> > If someone wants to be left alone, they don't have to read the
> > newspaper then. No one is forced to read the newspaper.
>
> Funngy logic. Do you read newspaper because you want to be insulted.
> Probably not. People read newspaper for various reasons. Looking to be
> insulted is not one of them.
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 01:31 |
|
PeterL wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > PeterL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their outrage
> > > > > through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is all about,
> > > > > SPEECH.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real world.
> > > > I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH can't. And
> > > > inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No one says speech can solve all problems.
> > >
> > >
> > > > A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked insults.
> > >
> > > No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked" and
> > > what's an "insult"?
> >
> > If the assumption is that there is no right from wrong, then I have
> > nothing to add.
>
> No that's not the assumption. But what is right and what is wrong is
> relative. What is right in Denmark may not be right in Syria, and vis
> versa.
"Autistic children appear to lack "theory of mind", the ability to see
things from another person's perspective, a behavior cited as exclusive
to human beings above the age of five and, possibly, other higher
primates such as adult gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos."
Normal adults are nomal adults because they in general have the ability
to see things from another person's perspective. Of course, some people
may choose not to see things from another perosn's perspective some of
the time. In addition, some people may have better theory of mind
because their experience and knowledge, and some worse. But I have no
reason to believe any culture is "autistic" in nature.
> > However, I am living in a world where people in general can tell right
> > from wrong. They in general can tell what's unprovoked and what's an
> > insult.
> >
>
> Which is different depending on a lot of factors. What's an insult to
> one culture is not an insult to another culture. And how different
> cultures react to insults is different.
>
> > > We see that in many governments today anything said against the
> > > government is considered illegal. So whoever is in power decides what
> > > is allowed speech and what is not. This form of government control
> > > cannot exist in a democracy.
> >
> > People said the wrong thing and they got sacked or punished all the
> > time. Democracy is not different.
> >
>
> But citizens are protected from persecution by their governments if
> there is free speech protection in that country. Free speech don't
> mean one can say anything at any time. Free speech protection is
> pretty narrow.
>
> > >
> > > > Some one sitting in their house attending their own business. Why
> > > > should they be the targets of unprovoked insults? Why can't they be
> > > > left alone?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If someone wants to be left alone, they don't have to read the
> > > newspaper then. No one is forced to read the newspaper.
> >
> > Funngy logic. Do you read newspaper because you want to be insulted.
> > Probably not. People read newspaper for various reasons. Looking to be
> > insulted is not one of them.
| |
Enkil (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Enkil |
Dato : 09-02-06 16:44 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> PeterL wrote:
>>>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>>>> PeterL wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their
>>>>>> outrage through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is
>>>>>> all about, SPEECH.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real
>>>>> world. I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH
>>>>> can't. And inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one says speech can solve all problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked
>>>>> insults.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked"
>>>> and what's an "insult"?
>>>
>>> If the assumption is that there is no right from wrong, then I have
>>> nothing to add.
>>
>> No that's not the assumption. But what is right and what is wrong is
>> relative. What is right in Denmark may not be right in Syria, and
>> vis versa.
>
> "Autistic children appear to lack "theory of mind", the ability to see
> things from another person's perspective, a behavior cited as
> exclusive to human beings above the age of five and, possibly, other
> higher primates such as adult gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos."
>
> Normal adults are nomal adults because they in general have the
> ability to see things from another person's perspective. Of course,
> some people may choose not to see things from another perosn's
> perspective some of the time. In addition, some people may have
> better theory of mind because their experience and knowledge, and
> some worse. But I have no reason to believe any culture is "autistic"
> in nature.
This is an awful curious thing for you to say, LT. It would seem you are
advocating Denmark modify it's perspective of the rightness of free speech
with Syria's perspective of the rightness of free speech. If you are
advocating such a thing how far does it go? Should China modify its
perspectives in accordance with US perspectives? Or what about Syria
modifying its perspective?
Or is the reality you don't really care about such things because you think
sovereign nations should act as they see fit according to their own
perspective? I'm sure you would advocate that for China.
| |
Jim Walsh (10-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Jim Walsh |
Dato : 10-02-06 05:19 |
|
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 23:44:23 +0800, Enkil wrote (in article
<dsfo0l$k62$1@netnews.hinet.net>):
> It would seem you [LT Lee} are advocating Denmark modify it's perspective
> of the rightness of free speech with Syria's perspective of the rightness
> of free speech. If you are advocating such a thing how far does it go?
> Should China modify its perspectives in accordance with US perspectives?
> Or what about Syria modifying its perspective?
>
> Or is the reality you don't really care about such things because you
> think sovereign nations should act as they see fit according to their own
> perspective? I'm sure you would advocate that for China.
Mr. Lee's purpose in this debate is to make freedom of speech seem dangerous
when, of course, the opposite is true.
--
Love, Jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
bmoore@nyx.net (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : bmoore@nyx.net |
Dato : 09-02-06 06:44 |
|
abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> Read below... Syrian Foreign Ministry expressed regret and also said
> embassy arsons have violated law and order in the country and the act
> is unacceptable. That's condemnation.
As usual, you are "sort of" correct. You said enough that someone would
have to expend a lot of energy explaining why you are not really on
target, as you always do.
> Not only that, Syria religious leaders also condemned the arsons and I
> have posted the link.
> And you claimed you have criticized those who said they have every
> right to insult or linked Mohammad to terrorism, I went through all
> your posts but did not find any. You need to explain that.
Geez, you have no idea how hard you are to have a conversation with.
> -----
> DAMASCUS, Feb. 5 (Xinhua) -- Syria expressed regret on Sunday for
> Saturday's violent protests in which angry demonstrators torched Danish
>
> and Norwegian embassies in Damascus over publication of cartoons of the
>
> Prophet Mohammad in the two countries.
>
> "Despite the big understanding of feelings of the popular anger
> over publication of caricatures that insulted the Prophet Mohammad, it
> is unacceptable to contradict law and order in the country," the
> Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
> -----
>
>
> bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=77893
> > >
> > > "On Sunday, Syria's foreign ministry expressed regret at the embassy
> > > arsons and promised to step up security around foreign diplomatic
> > > missions."
> >
> > Let's see. You said
> >
> > "As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > embassy"
> >
> > Now, "expresed regret" isn't really the same thing as "condemned". You
> > used a strong word like "condemned" and it doesn't really convey what
> > the Syrian Foreign Ministry actually said. In a rational discussion
> > it's good to argue your points as accurately as possible.
> >
> > > Now provide us the evidence that Syria allowed burning of embassy
> > > happen.
> >
> > First I will note that my mentioning the laxness of the Syrians in
> > responding to the violence is an aside. You are jumping on this small
> > aside and neglecting the big picture.
> > You have a very irritating habit of demanding a lot from the people you
> > converse with and offering little in return.
> >
> > Regarding the burning of the embassies,
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682388.stm like
> >
> > "The government of Syria's failure to provide protection to diplomatic
> > premises, in the face of warnings that violence was planned, is
> > inexcusable."
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18046936%255E1702,00.html
> >
> > Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller told local television it was
> > "completely unacceptable that the Syrian authorities did not protect
> > the embassy, and I have told the Syrian foreign minister that".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > bmo...@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > Then you have to provide the evidence that Syria allowed that happen.
> > > >
> > > > Just wait a second. You just asserted that the Syrian FM condemned the
> > > > protests when they did no such thing. If you want to have a rational
> > > > discussion you have to play fair and admit your mistake. Or show where
> > > > I am wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Then we can talk about whether Syria turned a blind eye to the
> > > > destruction.
> > > >
> > > > BTW, why do you top post? Is it to make it harder to follow exactly
> > > > what you are replying to?
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > > abianchen@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > > > That's funny. Some netters here said they have every right to insult
> > > > > > > others' religion or said there's nothing wrong to link Mohammad with
> > > > > > > terrorism and I didnt see you say anything either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes I have. You ignore whatever you feel like ignoring because you like
> > > > > > to argue.
> > > > > > There are serious problem with the way you debate and it seems that you
> > > > > > haven't picked up on that at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But to repeat: the cartoons are rude and I can understand how some
> > > > > > Muslims might be upset. But the cartoons shouldn't be illegal, and
> > > > > > burning buildings and attacking people with weapons is obviously far
> > > > > > worse than drawing any cartoon. Only an idiot or someone with an agenda
> > > > > > would talk at great length about curtailing freedom of expression and
> > > > > > say virtually nothing about those who respond with terrifying violence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main reason I wouldn't have published the cartoons in any case
> > > > > > because I would have feared that something like this would have
> > > > > > happened. There are too many crazies in Islam who are prone to
> > > > > > violence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So how can you
> > > > > > > expect LT Lee say anything against Syria?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're not really getting the point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for Syria, Syrian Foreign Ministry condemned burning of Danish
> > > > > > > embassy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, he didn't. And you're also shifting the subject. The question is
> > > > > > whether Syria allowed the embassies to be burned down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > bmoore@nyx.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > Frank E. N. Stein wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:05:34 -0800, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In the case of the cartoons insulting the muslims, the muslims hit back
> > > > > > > > > > with protests and attempts to burn the embassies. I am not saying they
> > > > > > > > > > should. I am describing the reality.
> > > > > > > > > > Fortunately, we don't have to resort to that. My last response was badly
> > > > > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > > > > What I mean is this: If you beleive freedom from unprovoked insult is a
> > > > > > > > > > right,. and if you feel that my posts were insulting, let the authority
> > > > > > > > > > inform me that I am insulting you and I will quit.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again I just do not understand why any authority shold be involved in
> > > > > > > > > stoppinginsulting med. Shold you not do that by your own initiative?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LT is making noise about how the "authorities" should legislate the
> > > > > > > > right to insult, but glossing over the fact that the "insulted" are
> > > > > > > > destroying embassies. Should the authorities allow that, as the Syrian
> > > > > > > > government has? No comment from LT so far. He even tried to slip in
> > > > > > > > that they are making "attempts to burn the embassies" when the actually
> > > > > > > > reality is that they are destroying them. He's "not saying that they
> > > > > > > > should" but he's not saying that they shouldn't, either. It's odd that
> > > > > > > > someone would have so much compassion for those with hurt feelings but
> > > > > > > > not seem overly concerned with destruction and loss of life and limb.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He may be pretending to have a philosophical discussion with you but
> > > > > > > > all of us on soc.culture.china know his agenda. This disingenuous
> > > > > > > > support of Muslims' feelings is little more than a smokescreen for
> > > > > > > > justifying supression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. LT
> > > > > > > > is an apologist for the Chinese government.
| |
ltlee1 (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : ltlee1 |
Dato : 09-02-06 17:20 |
|
Enkil wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> >> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>> PeterL wrote:
> >>>> ltlee1 wrote:
> >>>>> PeterL wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their
> >>>>>> outrage through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is
> >>>>>> all about, SPEECH.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real
> >>>>> world. I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH
> >>>>> can't. And inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No one says speech can solve all problems.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked
> >>>>> insults.
> >>>>
> >>>> No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked"
> >>>> and what's an "insult"?
> >>>
> >>> If the assumption is that there is no right from wrong, then I have
> >>> nothing to add.
> >>
> >> No that's not the assumption. But what is right and what is wrong is
> >> relative. What is right in Denmark may not be right in Syria, and
> >> vis versa.
> >
> > "Autistic children appear to lack "theory of mind", the ability to see
> > things from another person's perspective, a behavior cited as
> > exclusive to human beings above the age of five and, possibly, other
> > higher primates such as adult gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos."
> >
> > Normal adults are nomal adults because they in general have the
> > ability to see things from another person's perspective. Of course,
> > some people may choose not to see things from another perosn's
> > perspective some of the time. In addition, some people may have
> > better theory of mind because their experience and knowledge, and
> > some worse. But I have no reason to believe any culture is "autistic"
> > in nature.
>
> This is an awful curious thing for you to say, LT. It would seem you are
> advocating Denmark modify it's perspective of the rightness of free speech
> with Syria's perspective of the rightness of free speech.
No. I said no such thing. It is irrelevant whether I said such thing.
My post is a response to the postulate that what is right and what is
wrong is relative. IMO, people do have the ability to see things from
another person's/culture's perspective.
> If you are
> advocating such a thing how far does it go? Should China modify its
> perspectives in accordance with US perspectives? Or what about Syria
> modifying its perspective?
As the consequence of our ability to see things from other people's
perspectives, practical truth is knowable. "Dao is never far from the
people." (Centrality and Commonality) Currently the problem is this.
The language of rights such as the right to free speech gives the
connotation of "god given truth." Of course, this kind of language or
view reflects western culture's theocratic tradition.
>
> Or is the reality you don't really care about such things because you think
> sovereign nations should act as they see fit according to their own
> perspective? I'm sure you would advocate that for China.
If I am a politician and I have to responsibility the maximize the
benefit of the people, of course I would try to act as I see fit as
much as possible. However, I still have to act according to "practical
truth" as long as I need to seek win-win solutions.
| |
Enkil (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : Enkil |
Dato : 09-02-06 17:35 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> Enkil wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> PeterL wrote:
>>>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>>>> PeterL wrote:
>>>>>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>>>>>> PeterL wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest that those who feel they are insulted express their
>>>>>>>> outrage through speech, not riots. That's what free speech is
>>>>>>>> all about, SPEECH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. One can suggest that. But then he is not living in the real
>>>>>>> world. I also wish SPEECH can solve all problems. But SPEECH
>>>>>>> can't. And inevitably, some would take stronger actions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one says speech can solve all problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A simpler way is to allow people the freedom from unprovoked
>>>>>>> insults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it's not a simpler way. Again who decides what's "unprovoked"
>>>>>> and what's an "insult"?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the assumption is that there is no right from wrong, then I
>>>>> have nothing to add.
>>>>
>>>> No that's not the assumption. But what is right and what is wrong
>>>> is relative. What is right in Denmark may not be right in Syria,
>>>> and vis versa.
>>>
>>> "Autistic children appear to lack "theory of mind", the ability to
>>> see things from another person's perspective, a behavior cited as
>>> exclusive to human beings above the age of five and, possibly, other
>>> higher primates such as adult gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos."
>>>
>>> Normal adults are nomal adults because they in general have the
>>> ability to see things from another person's perspective. Of course,
>>> some people may choose not to see things from another perosn's
>>> perspective some of the time. In addition, some people may have
>>> better theory of mind because their experience and knowledge, and
>>> some worse. But I have no reason to believe any culture is
>>> "autistic" in nature.
>>
>> This is an awful curious thing for you to say, LT. It would seem
>> you are advocating Denmark modify it's perspective of the rightness
>> of free speech with Syria's perspective of the rightness of free
>> speech.
>
> No. I said no such thing. It is irrelevant whether I said such thing.
> My post is a response to the postulate that what is right and what is
> wrong is relative. IMO, people do have the ability to see things from
> another person's/culture's perspective.
Either what you say relates to the discussion here or it was useless. Are
you saying it doesn't actually relate to the topic?
>> If you are
>> advocating such a thing how far does it go? Should China modify its
>> perspectives in accordance with US perspectives? Or what about Syria
>> modifying its perspective?
>
> As the consequence of our ability to see things from other people's
> perspectives, practical truth is knowable. "Dao is never far from the
> people." (Centrality and Commonality) Currently the problem is this.
> The language of rights such as the right to free speech gives the
> connotation of "god given truth." Of course, this kind of language or
> view reflects western culture's theocratic tradition.
So what is the practical truth of the PRC using the threat of violence to
bring about unification with Taiwan? What's the perspective outside of the
PRC?
>> Or is the reality you don't really care about such things because
>> you think sovereign nations should act as they see fit according to
>> their own perspective? I'm sure you would advocate that for China.
>
> If I am a politician and I have to responsibility the maximize the
> benefit of the people, of course I would try to act as I see fit as
> much as possible. However, I still have to act according to "practical
> truth" as long as I need to seek win-win solutions.
For who? People outside of China also? So a Chinese official has to
consider the US perspective also? And the Japanese? And the Taiwanese?
And the Korean? And the Brazilian? Everybody wins?
| |
phenomorph (09-02-2006)
| Kommentar
Fra : phenomorph |
Dato : 09-02-06 22:06 |
|
then what do we need politicians for ??....
given - violence should not be used to force will through...but the
much shown cludder your eyes... many muslims does not express their
views through force but voice...
freedom of speech also allows us to talk and listen to eachother and
altering eachothers mindset - -but if you can't hear beyond the noise
you will never hear the ones you _should_ be listening too
does the possibility to choose to say whatever you want make you run
around insulting your friends all day for constructive dialog??
actually in my opponion, we all have a responsibility for theese
tensions between the islamic world and the west -... so many unsolved
conflicts....
allways pointing outwards...
....allways holding ground
Regards
phenomorph
| |
|
|