Poppy-burning Muslim protesters mar Armistice Day commemorations.

[GommeInc]

I bolded it for you, but here it is again what you say; "Freedom of expression and free speech are reserved for people who have done research and know what they're talking about, and both sides are as stupid and dumb as they can get and are not allowed these "rights" as they are clearly incapable of rational thought." - in other words, freedom of speech should be regulated.

The post you've made now, but that logic is just as bad. You say these people do not know how to make rational arguments - instead of trying to argue for what they are saying to be banned and made illegal, why not form your own argument to destroy theirs because thats freedom of speech. If you don't like what people are saying, you dont go out and ban it - you confront it and prove them wrong.

Again, you say 'without cause' - who said? you? why? because you disagree with them? what if I wanted what you say banned based on my argument that you don't have a cause. You'd quite rightly be up in arms because i'm treading all over your right to freedom of speech.

Paragraph 1: You seem to have changed your argument. You said that freedom of speech only exists if I agree with it, now you've changed that argument because my original post suggested no such thing. I conclude that you misread what I wrote and therefore I have won that argument.

Paragraph 2: They're constantly proven wrong. If they can't form rational arguments (i.e. their points are clearly invalid and extreme to the point exaggerations are added to prove an invalid point, therefore a waste of time and air), then they shouldn't be arguing at all claiming they have freedom of speech, when what they have to speak about is pure vomit. "DEATH TO BRITISH SOLIDERS" in Britain is clearly ignorant and stupid thing to say, when the country they're in would be totally different if these soldiers fought no wars. Same as the imbesiles burning the Qu'ran to somehow prove a point that Muslim is generically bad and evil, when actually it's a minority. If I was against Muslim extremism, I'll burn pictures or idols of their god - the extremist leader(s) - which could be Osama Bin Laden or another leader, because burning the Qu'ran makes no point and will not make people listen, seeing as extremists do not appear to be following their "religion" anyway, or not to the extent the majority do anyway.

Paragraph 3: No, because it proves nothing. What did burning the poppies do? Buggar all, sweet "F.A.". If anything, they've just lowered their credibility. And you don't seem to have an example of an argument, though if you did it would probably be well constructed, unlike some of these clearly ignorant and purely brain dead individuals. It's like me claiming the moon is made of cheese and I should be allowed to have any information regarding the moon to be changed, 'cos I am angry and like burning my extensive copy of Wikipedia articles regarding cheese and the moon. It'd be stupid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I occasionally agree with your posts but this baffles me. Surely if we're living in a society where everyone is allowed to start fires and burn whatever their please, we're going to be living in a very offensive, very hurtful and extremely unruly environment. While some rules go over the top (Safety guidelines in particular), we shouldn't simply throw them all out of the window.

But there is no such right not to be offended, how can you make a thought/an opinion a crime? only the most despotic people in history have ever done so/strived to do so.

If we believe they are wrong then we debate them/challenge their views, we don't go and ban them.

Paragraph 1: You seem to have changed your argument. You said that freedom of speech only exists if I agree with it, now you've changed that argument because my original post suggested no such thing. I conclude that you misread what I wrote and therefore I have won that argument.

I haven't changed anything, more so you are changing the point. You have said to me basically that freedom of speech should be regulated, and why do you think it should be regulated? because you obviously don't agree with certain views being aired - which means you disagree with points of opinion. I disagree with points of opinion too as we disagree right now, but just because I disagree with you does not mean I think it should be regulated/controlled in any manner.

Paragraph 2: They're constantly proven wrong. If they can't form rational arguments (i.e. their points are clearly invalid and extreme to the point exaggerations are added to prove an invalid point, therefore a waste of time and air), then they shouldn't be arguing at all claiming they have freedom of speech, when what they have to speak about is pure vomit. "DEATH TO BRITISH SOLIDERS" in Britain is clearly ignorant and stupid thing to say, when the country they're in would be totally different if these soldiers fought no wars. Same as the imbesiles burning the Qu'ran to somehow prove a point that Muslim is generically bad and evil, when actually it's a minority. If I was against Muslim extremism, I'll burn pictures or idols of their god - the extremist leader(s) - which could be Osama Bin Laden or another leader, because burning the Qu'ran makes no point and will not make people listen, seeing as extremists do not appear to be following their "religion" anyway, or not to the extent the majority do anyway.

But you say proven wrong, who says they are proven wrong? you and me because we don't agree with them? see now we are trying to quash another opinion right there. Here is one example, say socialism is proven wrong (which I believe it has been proven wrong time and time again with the likes of the Third Reich, USSR, Khamer Rogue and so on) - well just because I see it as proven wrong doesn't mean that socialism or socialist views should be outlawed now does it?

Paragraph 3: No, because it proves nothing. What did burning the poppies do? Buggar all, sweet "F.A.". If anything, they've just lowered their credibility. And you don't seem to have an example of an argument, though if you did it would probably be well constructed, unlike some of these clearly ignorant and purely brain dead individuals.

Then they've lowered their credibility and thats that. It doesn't mean they should be banned from airing these views just because you, me and the majority of people disagree with them.

I believe genuinely and honestly believe that the European Union is an absolute disaster and does absolutely nothing for this country. However I don't propose that people who disagree with me have their opinions banned, if I disgaree with them or they disagree with me - then we can debate it and if they dont want to debate it then they just loose credibility - the same if I refused to debate it.

Freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular speech.

[Mathew]

But there is no such right not to be offended, how can you make a thought/an opinion a crime? only the most despotic people in history have ever done so/strived to do so.

If we believe they are wrong then we debate them/challenge their views, we don't go and ban them.

While I see where you're coming from and it looks like a good idea on paper, it's simply impractical.
If you have someone burning the Bible on one side of the street and someone burning the Koran on the other; do you honestly think they're going to have a mass debate over the road?

No, of course not. They're going to get on the phone to their friends and have a riot. No, an opinion shouldn't be a crime and personally, I couldn't care less about what people say unless it's directly relating to me - but in the society we've been brought up in, you can't trust people to openly share and debate views in a civilized environment.

[-:Undertaker:-]

While I see where you're coming from and it looks like a good idea on paper, it's simply impractical.
If you have someone burning the Bible on one side of the street and someone burning the Koran on the other; do you honestly think they're going to have a mass debate over the road?

No, of course not. They're going to get on the phone to their friends and have a riot. No, an opinion shouldn't be a crime and personally, I couldn't care less about what people say unless it's directly relating to me - but in the society we've been brought up in, you can't trust people to openly share and debate views in a civilized environment.

Well one of the reasons we get so 'offended' or worked up nowadays is because people now see it as a right to not be offended, and that others don't have a right to have an opinion that is differing to that of their own. We did afterall have this system not that long ago, until ridiculous modern-style law and European-type law became the new fashion with politicians falling over themselves right, left and centre to protect minoritys from becoming offended at anything which disagreed with their lifestyle/way of life/opinions in general.

In terms of violence, of course it will occur at times - and if it does reach that stage in circumstances then the regular law will step in when needed, although I do accept sometimes it will lead to nasty circumstances - but thats what comes with life generally just like if you allow people to drive cars then you'll end up with horrific pile ups now and again on the motorway. I would argue that these laws lead to more trouble than they are worth, just look at the outrage that bottles up over issues such as this;- why are muslims allowed to burn poppies/our flags, but old aged pensioners cant even voice opposition to homosexuality as an example.

Its ridiculous, people need to get a bloody good grip before this leads down a very dangerous road (or it already has done you could argue).

[Mathew]

Before I reply again, I agree with you on all accounts, but I simply don't think it will ever happen and it can't ever happen. People cannot accept the drastic change.

I couldn't agree with you more about the petiness of society; and yes, I'd love to shove the blame on Labour for introducing so many laws, trying to do what's best for the country, keeping us safe... but in reality, taking away much of our freedom. As I keep saying, people are trying so hard to avoid being racist, that they end up being racist to their own people. And that's the problem.

While you can't ban someone from burning a book on the grounds of it being offensive, you have to look at what is really best for people. It is inevitable that it would turn to uproar (as it did, burning the poppy). Are you really saying that the group of maniacs should have been allowed to burn the poppy? a) the fire is dangerous. b) it's a threat to themselves and c) it's disrespectful to the country for which they live in. I am failing to see why the police should sit back with a cup of tea and warm their hands on the fire, admiring any fights which may arise from it.

Well one of the reasons we get so 'offended' or worked up nowadays is because people now see it as a right to not be offended, and that others don't have a right to have an opinion that is differing to that of their own. We did afterall have this system not that long ago, until ridiculous modern-style law and European-type law became the new fashion with politicians falling over themselves right, left and centre to protect minoritys from becoming offended at anything which disagreed with their lifestyle/way of life/opinions in general.

In terms of violence, of course it will occur at times - and if it does reach that stage in circumstances then the regular law will step in when needed, although I do accept sometimes it will lead to nasty circumstances - but thats what comes with life generally just like if you allow people to drive cars then you'll end up with horrific pile ups now and again on the motorway. I would argue that these laws lead to more trouble than they are worth, just look at the outrage that bottles up over issues such as this;- why are muslims allowed to burn poppies/our flags, but old aged pensioners cant even voice opposition to homosexuality as an example.

Its ridiculous, people need to get a bloody good grip before this leads down a very dangerous road (or it already has done you could argue).

[GommeInc]

I haven't changed anything, more so you are changing the point. You have said to me basically that freedom of speech should be regulated, and why do you think it should be regulated? because you obviously don't agree with certain views being aired - which means you disagree with points of opinion. I disagree with points of opinion too as we disagree right now, but just because I disagree with you does not mean I think it should be regulated/controlled in any manner.

I didn't say it should be banned, I said freedom of speech should be reserved to people who know what they're talking about or have made a good argument, in the sense of use and how those views are expressed. You assume that I base freedom of speech as only being useful if I agree with it, which is far from the truth. It's more a matter of constructing a good argument than constructing an argument with little substance. For example:

- The student protests. Some of the points raised I do not strongly agree with, but they've at least done the research to fight their cause and do not necessary create these arguments to offend or cause destruction or unnecessary hatred. I am of course focusing on the students and teachers who were not throwing things of buildings. That's assuming they were there to protest for their cause, as they do appear to of gone just to cause havoc.

- Calling all Christians or Muslims evil, or simply burning symbols of a religion to spite a particularly sub-group within that group e.g. extremist Muslims. It's pointless and holds no substance. Surely you'd find freedom of speech useful and a "right" if there is actually some thought going behind it? Hating a particular type of person, but going on to hate everyone mildly associated just annoys me and lowers any credibility.

But you say proven wrong, who says they are proven wrong? you and me because we don't agree with them? see now we are trying to quash another opinion right there. Here is one example, say socialism is proven wrong (which I believe it has been proven wrong time and time again with the likes of the Third Reich, USSR, Khamer Rogue and so on) - well just because I see it as proven wrong doesn't mean that socialism or socialist views should be outlawed now does it?

You seem to have proven my point. Socialism and views associated with it do not reflect the entirity of socialism, therefore I won't quash socialism. But saying all socialism is wrong is about as useful as saying capitalism is good, when there are bad and good aspects. It's only useful if you target specific issues that cause problems, it's useless if you attack the whole community associated, which is why I think poppy burning hypocrites do not deserve the freedom of expression or speech, because the very thing they're burning means more than just the soldiers who thought in Iraq or Afghanistan which it is mildly associated with, but service men and women who have lost their lies for those very freedoms they are attempting but failing to use. It's the same as with the Qu'ran burning ignoramuses who are attacking Islam in general, claiming that Islam is evil, when actually it's extremism they're angry with, not Islam as there is a wider target with that. Of course, extremism may not necessary be evil, but if they can't form an argument stating that then they've lost the opinion of their audience.

Then they've lowered their credibility and thats that. It doesn't mean they should be banned from airing these views just because you, me and the majority of people disagree with them.

I'd rather have useful, factual information hurled at me than information that is far from the truth, or made up, or exaggerated without reason. If they make up information then the only support they'll get are from people who know very little or angry people who do not understand their cause (as in, do not know what they're arguing for or against).

I believe genuinely and honestly believe that the European Union is an absolute disaster and does absolutely nothing for this country. However I don't propose that people who disagree with me have their opinions banned, if I disgaree with them or they disagree with me - then we can debate it and if they dont want to debate it then they just loose credibility - the same if I refused to debate it.

Freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular speech.

You misunderstood my point dear Of course you disagree with the EU, and opposite views exist, but my point is that information which is far from the truth and hasn't been researched is useless. The arguments for the EU, for example, are at least well thought out and at least counter-argue points put against the EU. My point is this; freedom of speech and expression is only useful if your arguments are valid and do not sit in the seat of extremism gone mad. Being told that British soldiers are evil, when the people voicing these opinions actually mean "... who have killed hundreds of people in Iraq/Afghanistan" is misleading and invalid, therefore useless. Like the "God Hates ****" people in America who clearly do not understand any part of Christianity, nor war, nor America but love posting faecal matter, their views are so misled and wrong it's irritating, and only exists so to annoy or to troll, as they clearly do not have any, if not, very little arguments to back up their claims and are easily proven wrong, and most likely know this.

However, I can kind of see a flaw in my argument, as this only really invovles those who over-exaggerate their claims and know their views are wrong, which I again reflect on the GHF Americans.

[alexxxxx]

What could you do under the nazi regime? I think this is quite a silly comment - I can almost say for a fact, the British soldiers would hate to see this.

---

It is also interesting that if it wasn't for the allied soldiers (British etc) the muslims probably wouldn't even be alive now.

No, that's what i meant. The Soldiers fought for everybody's freedom, not just a select few. This would not have been tolerated in a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, no?

And anyone saying 'omg i carnt believe EDL peepol got arrestid' well yes, one got arrested for assaulting a police officer and 2 muslim protesters got arrested for public order offenses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-11751268

[Apple]

After doing a lot of research into the Qur'an and discovering how violent some of the verses actually are, my opinion on Muslims has changed significantly.

I also found this very interesting, straight out of the Qur'an:

O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide people who are unjust. (Quran 5:51)

Islam is far from a religion of peace.

Look how we are treated in their countries. What would happen to me as a Christian in an Islamic country? Why is it that in nearly all Islamic countries that Christians are persecuted? Tolerance isn't a one way road. We bend over backwards for muslims to fit into our countries yet they give nothing our way. It's just all take take take, and give nothing back.

[Nemo]

After doing a lot of research into the Qur'an and discovering how violent some of the verses actually are, my opinion on Muslims has changed significantly.

I also found this very interesting, straight out of the Qur'an:



Islam is far from a religion of peace.

Look how we are treated in their countries. What would happen to me as a Christian in an Islamic country? Why is it that in nearly all Islamic countries that Christians are persecuted? Tolerance isn't a one way road. We bend over backward for muslims to fit into our countries yet they give nothing our way. It's just all take take take, and give nothing back.

Hahahahahahaha, oh my god i dont even know if i should take you seriously anymore or if you're just a troll

[GommeInc]

After doing a lot of research into the Qur'an and discovering how violent some of the verses actually are, my opinion on Muslims has changed significantly.

I also found this very interesting, straight out of the Qur'an:



Islam is far from a religion of peace.

Look how we are treated in their countries. What would happen to me as a Christian in an Islamic country? Why is it that in nearly all Islamic countries that Christians are persecuted? Tolerance isn't a one way road. We bend over backwards for muslims to fit into our countries yet they give nothing our way. It's just all take take take, and give nothing back.

Pfft, that's nothing. If you read the Bible (specifically the old testament), you'll understand that what you just quoted is foreplay in comparison