The culture of Rape, Bill Cosby Story

[BruceVC]

What a strange comparison? First of all, there is a big difference between war and civilized court. But even then, after the war is over we damn sure want to take them to court for trial rather than just decide they're guilty and be judge, jury and executioner. It's why the international court of justice in The Hague and the Geneva Convention even exist.

 Forget that example, thats not the point

 

What about pedophile rings that get busted? Don't you automatically assume they scum and guilty ?

[Gfted1]

What about pedophile rings that get busted? Don't you automatically assume they scum and guilty ?

The court of public opinion is not the same as a court of law. One of the reasons for a court is to strip away the emotions and examine the facts.

[Blarghagh]

Well yes, they got "busted". That implies either being caught in the act or a presence of overwhelming evidence. They still deserve fair trial and if such evidence is lacking, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. But if it's just vague allegations against a celebrity that could just as easily be for an out-of-court-settlement payday and to see their lives ruined by the court of public opinion by default before any real evidence is found? Michael Jackson spins around in his grave so fast he's drilling through to China. It's hard to take "allegations" seriously by default in a world where the "Cheeseburger Bill" has to exist and I treat anything I only hear about in the media as allegations with a grain of salt and you should too.

[BruceVC]

 

What about pedophile rings that get busted? Don't you automatically assume they scum and guilty ?

The court of public opinion is not the same as a court of law. One of the reasons for a court is to strip away the emotions and examine the facts.

 

 

 

Well yes, they got "busted". That implies either being caught in the act or a presence of overwhelming evidence. They still deserve fair trial and if such evidence is lacking, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. But if it's just vague allegations against a celebrity that could just as easily be for an out-of-court-settlement payday and to see their lives ruined by the court of public opinion by default before any real evidence is found? Michael Jackson spins around in his grave so fast he's drilling through to China. It's hard to take "allegations" seriously by default in a world where the "Cheeseburger Bill" has to exist and I treat anything I only hear about in the media as allegations with a grain of salt and you should too.

Fair enough, I need to give you a valid analogy ....okay let me think about it. The problem being Cosby hasn't been charged yet 

 

Here is a good read that may change your mind 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html

Edited July 8, 2015 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

 

What a strange comparison? First of all, there is a big difference between war and civilized court. But even then, after the war is over we damn sure want to take them to court for trial rather than just decide they're guilty and be judge, jury and executioner. It's why the international court of justice in The Hague and the Geneva Convention even exist.

 Forget that example, thats not the point

 

What about pedophile rings that get busted? Don't you automatically assume they scum and guilty ?

 

no, we don't assume they are guilty or scum. however, depending on the evidence made public available, we might protest or boycott.  we might even  use our First Amendment rights to criticize the State if it appears to us that there were a failure on the part o' lawyers or police or whomever that made it possible for seeming guilty folks to go free.  

 

we need be convinced that a person is scum... need more than mere accusation.  however, what convinces Gromnir is likely gonna be different than what is required to convince gifted or bruce.  good.  am not seeing a problem if evidence made public is unconvincing to gifted but satisfies Gromnir that _________ is scum and we will henceforth never voluntarily do business with the d-bag.  stuff such as "innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard for the court o' public opinion.  if __________ is an accused pedophile, then how much evidence do we require to convince us that ___________ is not somebody we wanna leave alone with our pre-teen cousin, regardless o' whether or not we is certain that they is legal guilty?  chances are that we need little such evidence in that situation, eh?

 

for us, legal guilt is a complete different query.  there can be any number o' reasons why the State fails to prosecute a scumbag.  is even more reasons why the State may fail to gain a conviction o' a scumbag.

 

am understanding that such a pov can seem self-contradictory.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

 

 

What about pedophile rings that get busted? Don't you automatically assume they scum and guilty ?

The court of public opinion is not the same as a court of law. One of the reasons for a court is to strip away the emotions and examine the facts.

 

 

 

Well yes, they got "busted". That implies either being caught in the act or a presence of overwhelming evidence. They still deserve fair trial and if such evidence is lacking, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. But if it's just vague allegations against a celebrity that could just as easily be for an out-of-court-settlement payday and to see their lives ruined by the court of public opinion by default before any real evidence is found? Michael Jackson spins around in his grave so fast he's drilling through to China. It's hard to take "allegations" seriously by default in a world where the "Cheeseburger Bill" has to exist and I treat anything I only hear about in the media as allegations with a grain of salt and you should too.

Fair enough, I need to give you a valid analogy ....okay let me think about it. The problem being Cosby hasn't been charged yet 

 

Here is a good read that may change your mind 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/08/us/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-allegations/index.html

 

 

I'm not saying Cosby has my full support or anything. I just find it weird that you try so hard to justify the fact that you condemned the man far before this information came to light. Even now, your suspicions are at most "likely correct", but then your suspicions were based on nothing. My point is whether or not we decide someone is scum is irrelevant, what matters is what the courts say and the court of public opinion is at odds with that most of the time. Here's something that you might want to think about:

 

http://www.cracked.com/article/96_7-beloved-celebrities-awful-****-you-forgot-they-did/

[BruceVC]

 

 

What a strange comparison? First of all, there is a big difference between war and civilized court. But even then, after the war is over we damn sure want to take them to court for trial rather than just decide they're guilty and be judge, jury and executioner. It's why the international court of justice in The Hague and the Geneva Convention even exist.

 Forget that example, thats not the point

 

What about pedophile rings that get busted? Don't you automatically assume they scum and guilty ?

 

no, we don't assume they are guilty or scum. however, depending on the evidence made public available, we might protest or boycott.  we might even  use our First Amendment rights to criticize the State if it appears to us that there were a failure on the part o' lawyers or police or whomever that made it possible for seeming guilty folks to go free.  

 

we need be convinced that a person is scum... need more than mere accusation.  however, what convinces Gromnir is likely gonna be different than what is required to convince gifted or bruce.  good.  am not seeing a problem if evidence made public is unconvincing to gifted but satisfies Gromnir that _________ is scum and we will henceforth never voluntarily do business with the d-bag.  stuff such as "innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard for the court o' public opinion.  if __________ is an accused pedophile, then how much evidence do we require to convince us that ___________ is not somebody we wanna leave alone with our pre-teen cousin, regardless o' whether or not we is certain that they is legal guilty?  chances are that we need little such evidence in that situation, eh?

 

for us, legal guilt is a complete different query.  there can be any number o' reasons why the State fails to prosecute a scumbag.  is even more reasons why the State may fail to gain a conviction o' a scumbag.

 

am understanding that such a pov can seem self-contradictory.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

No its not self-contradictory but offers a more honest, nuanced and complex perspective which I enjoy

 

Do you consider the First Amendment as sacrosanct? And from some of your personal experiences growing up and being discriminated against  by "Americans " I am impressed again that this didn't make you jaded and unconcerned with the US Constitution....or did you resent White people when you were younger and if so what changed ( I remember you did mention this that you had some animosity towards Whites because of how they treated you and your Gran )  

[Gromnir]

am not gonna take the opportunity to pat our self on the back.  we thought we had reasons to dislike white folks, particularly as a kid.  that reflex, learned through harsh experience, were/is difficult to overcome.  is a flaw in our character.  that being said, our sense o' intellectual honesty precludes us from dismissing the value o' the United States Constitution 'cause o' the bigotry or character flaws o' the authors.  as we noted already, Gromnir has issues o' our own.  

 

US flavor o' free speech is almost unique in the world.  every democracy claims to protect free speech.  even China has a constitution which protects free speech.  our considerable time abroad gave us the opportunity to recognize that we took US Free Speech for granted.

 

...

 

am gonna note that most o' our paying work comes from free exercise and establishment clause cases.  freedom o' association is also more likely to result in paying jobs than is free speech.  in any event, it takes a particular kinda idiot to get into Constitutional law for the money.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[cirdanx]

  US flavor o' free speech is almost unique in the world.  every democracy claims to protect free speech. 

Why? Most of europe has free speech. Historicaly speaking long before the US, which is no suprise because the US constitution is based on the  Magna Carta Libertatum and it´s various interpretations. Long before the US even existed.

 

I will never understand this. US people are so high on their "freedom" of everything, which compared to us, is just a given thing. In fact considering some laws you have, and the the goverment can do what it want, i would say your idea of freedom is even less than what we consider freedom in europe. Or Russia, which, surprise is also a democracy. I don´t get that "we are the land of the free we can say what we want" when this is standart in europe and factual isn´t even the case in the US.

 

I just don´t get it.

Edited July 8, 2015 by cirdanx

[BruceVC]

 

  US flavor o' free speech is almost unique in the world.  every democracy claims to protect free speech. 

Why? Most of europe has free speech. Historicaly speaking long before the US, which is no suprise because the US constitution is based on the  Magna Carta Libertatum and it´s various interpretations. Long before the US even existed.

 

I will never understand this. US people are so high on their "freedom" of everything, which compared to us, is just a given thing. In fact considering some laws you have, and the the goverment can do what it want, i would say your idea of freedom is even less than what we consider freedom in europe. Or Russia, which, surprise is also a democracy. I don´t get that "we are the land of the free we can say what we want" when this is standart in europe and factual isn´t even the case in the US.

 

I just don´t get it.

 

 

 

Do you care about the notion of free speech....seriously think about it, don't just say " yes " 

 

And tell me why you care if you don't mind ?

[Gromnir]

 

  US flavor o' free speech is almost unique in the world.  every democracy claims to protect free speech. 

Why? Most of europe has free speech. Historicaly speaking long before the US, which is no suprise because the US constitution is based on the  Magna Carta Libertatum and it´s various interpretations. Long before the US even existed.

 

I will never understand this. US people are so high on their "freedom" of everything, which compared to us, is just a given thing. In fact considering some laws you have, and the the goverment can do what it want, i would say your idea of freedom is even less than what we consider freedom in europe. Or Russia, which, surprise is also a democracy. I don´t get that "we are the land of the free we can say what we want" when this is standart in europe and factual isn´t even the case in the US.

 

I just don´t get it.

 

it is true that you don't get it, but it likely ain't your fault.  what you call free speech, isn't.  sorry, but you haven't bothered to learn the differences 'tween US freedom and yours.  

 

hmmm.

 

probably easiest to provide a link

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419

 

to folks in the USA, we realize that it is the speech that offends that is requiring protection.  simply because we, the majority, dislike or even loathe the message, does not mean that we should limit the speaker.

 

"those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 

you don't get it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

am not gonna take the opportunity to pat our self on the back.  we thought we had reasons to dislike white folks, particularly as a kid.  that reflex, learned through harsh experience, were/is difficult to overcome.  is a flaw in our character.  that being said, our sense o' intellectual honesty precludes us from dismissing the value o' the United States Constitution 'cause o' the bigotry or character flaws o' the authors.  as we noted already, Gromnir has issues o' our own.  

 

US flavor o' free speech is almost unique in the world.  every democracy claims to protect free speech.  even China has a constitution which protects free speech.  our considerable time abroad gave us the opportunity to recognize that we took US Free Speech for granted.

 

...

 

am gonna note that most o' our paying work comes from free exercise and establishment clause cases.  freedom o' association is also more likely to result in paying jobs than is free speech.  in any event, it takes a particular kinda idiot to get into Constitutional law for the money.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Makes sense, the reason I am asking is this is something we grapple with in South Africa. We ask questions like " can you forgive people who discriminated against you ", " how do you forgive people who discriminated against you ", " what does it mean to be a South African...do we as whites need to accept some sense of responsibility for Apartheid even if we were kids at the time and had no influence " and other similar questions 

 

So I was interested in your view 

[Gfted1]

Fair enough, I need to give you a valid analogy ....okay let me think about it. The problem being Cosby hasn't been charged yet 

 

Here is a good read that may change your mind...

 

I think you misunderstand me. I personally have a low threshold for what I consider scumbaggery and Cosby definitely fits the bill (see what I did there). As do all pedophiles, obviously. But thankfully for all concerned, they do not allow me to mete out justice, because I probably would not be able to strip out emotion and look at things objectively. That's why you must let the judicial system run its course, criminally. Socially/professionally hes already a dead man walking.

[Bartimaeus]

All pedophiles, Gfted1? Did you mean all active pedophiles, or actually any and everyone who happens to feel attraction to children? I think it's kind of unfair to paint literally all pedophiles in that manner...who you're attracted to can't be much controlled, though how you act on such certainly can (...unless you don't believe in free will, but that just means you have to accept that society will punish those unlucky enough to not be born and raised "right", so it doesn't really affect the equation). It's considered a mental disorder for a reason.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

Fair enough, I need to give you a valid analogy ....okay let me think about it. The problem being Cosby hasn't been charged yet 

 

Here is a good read that may change your mind...

 

I think you misunderstand me. I personally have a low threshold for what I consider scumbaggery and Cosby definitely fits the bill (see what I did there). As do all pedophiles, obviously. But thankfully for all concerned, they do not allow me to mete out justice, because I probably would not be able to strip out emotion and look at things objectively. That's why you must let the judicial system run its course, criminally. Socially/professionally hes already a dead man walking.

 

I meant to say I know the majority of you guys aren't supportive of Cosby in any way ....you just not passing judgement like me

 

I didn't mean to imply anything or make you feel guilty 

[cirdanx]

 

it is true that you don't get it, but it likely ain't your fault.  what you call free speech, isn't.  sorry, but you haven't bothered to learn the differences 'tween US freedom and yours.  

 

hmmm.

 

probably easiest to provide a link

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419

 

to folks in the USA, we realize that it is the speech that offends that is requiring protection.  simply because we, the majority, dislike or even loathe the message, does not mean that we should limit the speaker.

 

"those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 

you don't get it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Wait. How is my free speech not like yours? In fact i can say what the **** i want, about what the **** i want without less restritcitons than you do, without fearing a goverment agent knocking on my door. I can tell a police officer to **** off with out getting arrested. ****, you are living in a police state that can bring you into prison without much of an offense.

 

I think you are being ironic but i can´t tell, because your link is useless and doesn´t prove anything. :>

Edited July 9, 2015 by cirdanx

[Gromnir]

 

 

it is true that you don't get it, but it likely ain't your fault.  what you call free speech, isn't.  sorry, but you haven't bothered to learn the differences 'tween US freedom and yours.  

 

hmmm.

 

probably easiest to provide a link

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419

 

to folks in the USA, we realize that it is the speech that offends that is requiring protection.  simply because we, the majority, dislike or even loathe the message, does not mean that we should limit the speaker.

 

"those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 

you don't get it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Wait. How is my free speech not like yours? In fact i can say what the **** i want, about what the **** i want without less restritcitons than you do, without fearing a goverment agent knocking on my door. I can tell a police officer to **** off with out getting arrested. ****, you are living in a police state that can bring you into prison without much of an offense.

 

I think you are being ironic but i can´t tell, because your link is useless and doesn´t prove anything. :>

 

*sigh*

 

no you can't say what you want.  as an austrian (yes?) you can be criminalized if you deny the holocaust or spout nazi propaganda.  there is also austrian laws that prohibit you from "denigrating religious beliefs." 

 

perhaps you watch too much tv or read too many internet posts about the US?  you don't get it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[cirdanx]

 

 

 

it is true that you don't get it, but it likely ain't your fault.  what you call free speech, isn't.  sorry, but you haven't bothered to learn the differences 'tween US freedom and yours.  

 

hmmm.

 

probably easiest to provide a link

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419

 

to folks in the USA, we realize that it is the speech that offends that is requiring protection.  simply because we, the majority, dislike or even loathe the message, does not mean that we should limit the speaker.

 

"those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 

you don't get it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Wait. How is my free speech not like yours? In fact i can say what the **** i want, about what the **** i want without less restritcitons than you do, without fearing a goverment agent knocking on my door. I can tell a police officer to **** off with out getting arrested. ****, you are living in a police state that can bring you into prison without much of an offense.

 

I think you are being ironic but i can´t tell, because your link is useless and doesn´t prove anything. :>

 

*sigh*

 

no you can't say what you want.  as an austrian (yes?) you can be criminalized if you deny the holocaust or spout nazi propaganda.  there is also austrian laws that prohibit you from "denigrating religious beliefs." 

 

perhaps you watch too much tv or read too many internet posts about the US?  you don't get it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Ah yes i knew that would come up. The european "ban" on speaking and researching the holocaust because history has allready been written. I give you that (and firmly disagree but whatever).

 

Except this. "denigrating religious beliefs." was a very short time effort and useless. Austria is a multiculturel hotspot by nature because we are in the middle of this continent. Which makes it also difficult to keep our own culture..but thats beside the point.

 

What you don´t get, we can still say WHAT we want, and it´s no problem, and yes that includes ww2, no one will show up on my doorway, Your wannabe freedom of speech is in no way different. You just have a different approache, instead of legal, it´s public shaming, say something against the wars the US have started in the last 50 years...you are probalby, anti-american etc, and will  be shamed into ground. Also, considering laws in america today, you can say what you want, but they can also take you without any reason and lock your away, patriot act..they don´t need to explain themselve, but good luck trying.

[Volourn]

"Do we as whites need to accept some sense of responsibility for Apartheid even if we were kids at the time and had no influence "

 

\Easy answer is no. You were kid. You said it yourself - you had no influence. You had no responsibility for Apartheid any more than a murderer's child is responible for his murder(s\).

 

You are responsible 100% for your own actions. That's it that's all.

 

Collective punishment/shame is EVIL TO THE CORE.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Volourn

[Gromnir]

multicultural hostspot?

 

...

 

you are gonna bring up multicultural when comparing austria to the USA?

 

HA!

 

classic.

 

and again, no, as an austrian you cannot say what you want if you have laws that prohibit holocaust denial, national socialist party propaganda and "denigrating religious beliefs."  oddly enough, you also got some laws that specific prohibit anti-islamic speech, but anti-jewish speech seems to be okie dokie.  weird.

 

am not sure what kinda public shaming you are imagining.  we went to berkeley for chrissakes.  anti-government and anti-american (whatever that means nowadays) rhetoric were so common at our university that you tended not to notice such stuff.  is not too much "I Hate America" speech 'mongst the general population, but disagreeing with the government is less likely to be a problem than rooting for the cowboys if you live in nyc, or being a cubs fan if you live in st. louis. 

 

*shrug*

 

we spent a couple years in europe and we were initially startled by the misconceptions folks had 'bout the USA and americans. we rare go to europe anymore as our trips abroad is almost exclusive asian, but am betting that the internet has not improved misconceptions.

 

regardless, you do not get it.  hate the USA if you wish... many americans do.  however, free speech in the USA is different than in austria and most o' the democracies o' the world.  that don't make the USA superior, not by a long shot.  USA free speech is different.

 

...

 

we have this same discussion every year or so.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showtopic=56176&p=1069777

 

read the thread from the linked post.  

 

is off-topic from cosby though, so we kinda apologize.  nevertheless, you did ask for an explanation o' how USA is different.  congrats. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

multicultural hostspot?

 

...

 

you are gonna bring up multicultural when comparing austria to the USA?

 

HA!

 

classic.

 

and again, no, as an austrian you cannot say what you want if you have laws that prohibit holocaust denial, national socialist party propaganda and "denigrating religious beliefs."  oddly enough, you also got some laws that specific prohibit anti-islamic speech, but anti-jewish speech seems to be okie dokie.  weird.

 

am not sure what kinda public shaming you are imagining.  we went to berkeley for chrissakes.  anti-government and anti-american (whatever that means nowadays) rhetoric were so common at our university that you tended not to notice such stuff.  is not too much "I Hate America" speech 'mongst the general population, but disagreeing with the government is less likely to be a problem than rooting for the cowboys if you live in nyc, or being a cubs fan if you live in st. louis. 

 

*shrug*

 

we spent a couple years in europe and we were initially startled by the misconceptions folks had 'bout the USA and americans. we rare go to europe anymore as our trips abroad is almost exclusive asian, but am betting that the internet has not improved misconceptions.

 

regardless, you do not get it.  hate the USA if you wish... many americans do.  however, free speech in the USA is different than in austria and most o' the democracies o' the world.  that don't make the USA superior, not by a long shot.  USA free speech is different.

 

...

 

we have this same discussion every year or so.  

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showtopic=56176&p=1069777

 

read the thread from the linked post.  

 

is off-topic from cosby though, so we kinda apologize.  nevertheless, you did ask for an explanation o' how USA is different.  congrats. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

"Do we as whites need to accept some sense of responsibility for Apartheid even if we were kids at the time and had no influence "

 

\Easy answer is no. You were kid. You said it yourself - you had no influence. You had no responsibility for Apartheid any more than a murderer's child is responible for his murder(s\).

 

You are responsible 100% for your own actions. That's it that's all.

 

Collective punishment/shame is EVIL TO THE CORE.

You see Volo that's where it gets complicated. Technically you are right and many people I know would consur.  Many white people feel like they are  targeted for verbal abuse  and blamed for the inefficiency of the ANC, so they refuse to do more 

 

But there are groups of people like me who ignore this " blaming the whites " and realize we have to help build the new South Africa. This may sound arrogant but there are many valid reasons that white people need to stay in South Africa 

[ManifestedISO]

we went to berkeley for chrissakes.  anti-government and anti-american (whatever that means nowadays) rhetoric were so common at our university that you tended not to notice such stuff. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Oldie but goodie. http://on.cc.com/O3Szpb  

 

"If only there was an organization that was sworn to defend that free speech." 

[Volourn]

"But there are groups of people like me who ignore this " blaming the whites " and realize we have to help build the new South Africa. This may sound arrogant but there are many valid reasons that white people need to stay in South Africa"

 

Wanting to help make your country is NOT the same as taking the blame for someone else's mistakes.

 

Just like the murderer's child stating he will never be a murderer is taking the blame for what his parent did.

[Agiel]

 

we went to berkeley for chrissakes.  anti-government and anti-american (whatever that means nowadays) rhetoric were so common at our university that you tended not to notice such stuff. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Oldie but goodie. http://on.cc.com/O3Szpb

 

"If only there was an organization that was sworn to defend that free speech." 

 

 

"...we don't have to worry about [the Marines'] rights. It's not an equal relationship."

 

She at least has the second part right about the men and women who voluntarily sign a contract with unlimited liability. One of my former signatures (emphasis mine):

 

 

 

There is a bargain between those who become soldiers and those who stay civilians. It's not written down anywhere but it exists in every country, whether the soldiers are volunteers or not. We don't just pay our soldiers money; we let them have their own separate society run mostly by themselves. We offer them travel, adventure, and status; we show them respect when they're living, and veneration if they die. It's a much better deal than we offer to bus drivers or secretaries.

 

But it seems worth our while as civilians to give soldiers these privileges because in return they take war off our hands. It becomes their problem and their responsibility, not ours. And it's not a lopsided bargain because there is a catch for the soldiers: They have to die when we tell them to. -Gwynne Dyer

Edited July 9, 2015 by Agiel

[Blarghagh]

 

 

it is true that you don't get it, but it likely ain't your fault.  what you call free speech, isn't.  sorry, but you haven't bothered to learn the differences 'tween US freedom and yours.  

 

hmmm.

 

probably easiest to provide a link

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11254419

 

to folks in the USA, we realize that it is the speech that offends that is requiring protection.  simply because we, the majority, dislike or even loathe the message, does not mean that we should limit the speaker.

 

"those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. they did not fear political change. they did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. to courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

 

you don't get it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Wait. How is my free speech not like yours? In fact i can say what the **** i want, about what the **** i want without less restritcitons than you do, without fearing a goverment agent knocking on my door. I can tell a police officer to **** off with out getting arrested. ****, you are living in a police state that can bring you into prison without much of an offense.

 

I think you are being ironic but i can´t tell, because your link is useless and doesn´t prove anything. :>

 

 

Really? Here in the Netherlands, it's a crime to insult public servants like police officers. I'm also not allowed to publish anything insulting regarding the royal monarchs.