Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
18 February 2009
08:3415643No it isn't !!
Roger
18 February 2009
09:1015646!!!!!!!
It's behind you...............!!
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
18 February 2009
09:5515649oh yes it is.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 February 2009
18:1515663Risk giving further 'legs' to this long thread. I have read a very interesting article by Andrew Lilco, which though somewhat critical of David Cameron for something he said, I agree with whole heartedly.
This is about our right to cause offense being an important element of freedom of speech. I recommend reading it here
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/02/freedom-of-spee.html it may cause a lot more debate on this topic!!!!
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
18 February 2009
20:0715665Reading that Barry, Cameron's is still the more considered approach. This guy is playing games with the boundaries of what is unconventional and what is wrong. When he starts to look at himself he talks about truth and never questions belief (which doesn't matter if you rely on mount Sinai), which would lead to ask what he actually thinks knowing is?
I always find it funny this notion "why doesn't everyone adhere to this idea that we can do what we like" Amusingly paradoxical. Which always leads to me to ask why don't true believers in 'individualism' go it alone...why align to a group at all?
It is quite easy to use this chaps justification to defend someone shouting some rather 'fun' abuse at a police officer or telling a school teacher to f' off. Afterall adhering to rules is just conforming, and not free speech. (both of these examples don't incite any hatred) "it's a lack of respect" you say, respect being a taught belief (or truth, who knows) that we conform to!
Why don't people know what is 'wrong' anymore (see beelzebub thread), because they are acting as this chap would want, using their own rules and not shared ones!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 February 2009
23:1615666I dont think you read that properly. He is not advocating rudeness just the freedom to be rude.
I may not want to call someone names but I advocate the right of others to do so!!! We should have a right to be rude if we want to, simple really. But of course, there are consequences and we must be free to accept those too. In your example if you tell a teacher to f' off the consequences should be a caning. On a more mundane level if you are rude to someone dont expect them to be treat you well in return.
Those I object to are those who have ostracised whole swathes of the English language because they have deemed it offensive, regardless of context or intent. These people, as I say, need to get a life and anyone who is offended should get a backbone instead of getting the vapours.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,696
19 February 2009
00:2115668I think there is a difference between being rude and deliberately using language that degrades or belittles the subject, or for that matter incites others to behave inappropriately to those we are being rude to.
I wholly support your right to say what you like when you like provided it stays within the bounds of the law of the land and whether I like what you say or not.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 February 2009
07:5815673But, Ross, we have a problem of where the 'bounds of the law' are being drawn now and the interpretation of it. Hence the need to protect the right to offfend.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
19 February 2009
08:0615675)Barryw (and others()
Whilst I have oftyen supported even you to be able to speak out, i fink
I think you miss the p;oint on this arrticle
I wioll keep taking you back to Mandies comments very early on in this debate on her childrens abuse just because of the olour of there skin.
I think Barryw igf you were in that position you may well view this all in a diffren t way.
19 February 2009
08:2515676Bounds of the law be blowed - we all know, don't we, the difference between satire and hatred. The difference between Bernard Manning and Billy Connolly or Lenny Bruce. Freedom of Speech is hugely important and separates the cultured from the ignorant and the liberal from the facist, but it brings with it responsibilities. Causing offence is human nature, using that offence to creat hatred and racism is another matter.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 February 2009
09:0915679Its Keith who totally misses the point (and ignores my comment on the Mandie issue) as no-one is defending attacks on people because of their race. It is is the way harmless comments are being interpreted as offensive remarks. Even so, once again I repeat, the right to offend must be defended as a key part of free speech. I suspect you did not read the article on the link, Keith.
Another idiotic pc situation has now arisen in Edinburgh. In a play about Al Jolson, the great American singer who used to black up, the producers have decided the actor playing Jolson should not do so. That takes away an historical fact and an essential part of the Jolson experience. Even Equity who say they would not normally approve of blacking up have said that playing Jolson is one instance where it would be justified.
Guest 664- Registered: 23 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,039
19 February 2009
09:4015680I invariably bend over backwards to avoid using terms that could be construed as offensive. I choose to do this as part of my own moral code, not because I am being lectured at by 'bien pensants'.
I bet that applies to plenty of others too.
What does make me angry is being preached at by those out to take the moral high ground as if they were trying to make themselves better than everyone else in the process. I believe that is really the core of this issue and one which stirs up so much resentment and anger.
Some people use this issue to try to elevate themselves above others and love ticking others off for non-existent crimes of being 'offensive' even when no offence was intended. They try to make themselves look good. They are, in effect, the thought police.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
19 February 2009
10:2115681BarryW
You state "I repeat, the right to offend must be defended as a key part of free speech" Does that mean you defend the people who offended Mandies children?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 February 2009
10:5415682GaryC - Why dont you read my previous post on that subject, here it is again copied and pasted:
"""my sypathy would be firmly with Mandie and her daughter over that. To call someone who is a Sikh or of similar non Pakistani extraction a 'Paki' is indeed nothing more than deliberately causing offense if, in such instances, after being corrected they dont apologise or carry on with it. Once again context and intent is very important.""""
I do not agree with what they did, but yes, freedom of speech means someone should be able to say things that I (or you) do not approve of even if they do give offense. As I have said in such instances you should also be prepared to pay the consequences and if the way Mandie's children were being treated was deliberate bullying (rather than ignorance that can be corrected) then those who did it should be dealt with severly. I detest bullying.
This is a far cry from merely using a word that some disapprove of in a non-insulting manner, people who take offense at that do indeed need to get a life and a backbone.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
19 February 2009
14:1115683BarryW
I have read your previous post, no need for copy/paste. My question was specific to one incident, not the entire thread. You seem to be saying, you don't agree with Mandies(children) offenders, but then you say, they should be allowed to offend Mandies children and then be defended, for offending, in the name of Freedom of speech?
I happen to agree with quite a lot of your comments about this thread but I cannot agree that personal verbal attacks on children or adults, should be defended using freedom of speech as a defence.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
19 February 2009
17:0015686Please do not misrepresent what I am saying GaryC.
I am not condoning bullying, far from it. I have made myself totally clear in my last post.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
19 February 2009
19:0115699BarryW
I think you have me wrong on this post, I am not tying to attack you and I am not calling you a bully, I am not up there with you guys, I am just trying to understand your points of view. I kept my question simple to try and get a simple answer, both your answer's were harsh and not helpful, I don't think I misrepresented you, I stuck to points you made. As I said, I almost agree with all you have said on this post, except for defending the offenders, which is what you said, or if that is not what you have said, please put me straight with simple but polite answer.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
19 February 2009
19:3815700Get a grip - this isn't about all of you, it's about people who have suffered and died because of words. We can hissy fit all we like about our wounded feelings, but the bare fact is people manipulate us with words, and some of the people who manipulate us with words are racists who convince us that some of the words that offend and hurt people are harmless.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
19 February 2009
20:2915706did anyone see that cinematic production called "the life of brian"?
there was a scene in it where a chap was being stoned for using the word "jehovah".
much merriment ensued from this sketch, it was all about use of words.
this thread has turned into a copy cat edition of the afore mentioned.
19 February 2009
20:3315707He's not the Messiah, Howard, he's a very naughty boy.......................