Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.

London Zoo: Politics - When does the talk stop, and violence begin?

Bottom of Page

121 to 140 of 231

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 12
  14. >
  1.  (7713.121)
    "Hate speech laws scare me. Too often they seem politically motivated, and less about "hate" and more about avoiding unpleasant truths..."

    Can you provide specific examples of that?
    • CommentAuthorJiveKitty
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2010
     (7713.122)
    I was considering my own context: NZ, and the idea hasn't come up in quite a while (around 2005, I think), but I can give it a shot. It was just the impression at the time from the proponents given that NZ already has good laws in the Crimes Act 1963 and the Human Rights Act 1993. It was unnecessary to go further. I guess "unpleasant truths" was perhaps a poor statement on my part. More about censoring dissenting views, or views they found offensive, rather than out of any actual need for laws going further would have been a better way to put it. I'll chuck a link to Ian Bassett's submissions: http://www.hatespeech.co.nz/hatespeech.pdf, http://www.hatespeech.co.nz/submission.pdf, a Herald editorial: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10116130, a Herald article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10115936&pnum=0. I can't actually figure out which politicians were promoting it at the time, because that may have coloured my impressions at the time somewhat.
    • CommentAuthorRedwynd
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.123)
    The Second Amendment is there because guns preserve freedom. During the Cold War one of the main obstacles that the Russians saw in the U.S. was a well armed population. That's one of the main reasons for our right to bear arms.


    Alright, this is just silly. The American Revolutionary War (wiki) began in 1775. Cold War? 1945. (wiki) One would like to note the nearly two hundred years of difference. Even if you meant it as a general point, after WWII, by the time either side was in a position to seriously consider attacking, neither wanted to do it. They were both enjoying a post-war boom, and wars do nothing but fuck they hell out of economies - note the lack of funds to do anything BUT wage war in the U.S. now. When tensions had ratcheted up to the point of war, they had reached a MAD level, placing a further barrier to war. Guns do not protect freedom any better than toilet paper does, and probably worse. An act of violence engenders only a reprisal by violence, and guns(or bombs) only up the stakes.

    Do you know what does protect freedom? Dialogue and a willingness to understand another person's point of view. Look to the Bush administration; they have created more "terrorists"* than bin Laden ever could have, by promoting their special brand of freedom at the point of a gun. Not that they could have done any less in late 2001 than do after the enemies that had attacked them, they did have a nation crying for blood. But a wise leader would have attempted to meet the Islamic world and resolve differences through dialogue before it came to bloodshed. I don't mean that as an automatic endorsement of Obama, but at least he's trying something new, 'cause the old sure as shit wasn't working.

    Quote of the Day: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." -Mahatma Ghandi

    * Terrorist is a very misleading term. Men who live in Third World countries, without running water, electricity or proper medical care, and are willing to give their lives to protect their values and culture from the Goliath that is the U.S. should be treated with more respect than to give them a name that has become synonymous with "evil". I may not agree with their ideas or methods, but these are brave men fighting for what they believe to be noble ideals in any way they can - not so very different from the service men and women we send to slaughter them like cattle.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.124)
    We need a [citation needed] tag in here.
  5.  (7713.125)
    @Rootfireember. You cannot help them, you can only watch them dig their own graves.

    Regarding the Cold War, you do know that much of the information regarding the capabilities of the RED MENACE were exaggerated to keep the intelligence agencies well funded don't you? Same on the other side, the KGB made up all sorts of shit. However when one looks at the evils of each of the evil empires, at least the Russians kept it in house. They had no real desire to destroy America but knew, like Iran does now, that the Jingoistic nature of the U.S. meant they had to engage in brinkmanship in order to sustain their own brand of political stupidity.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.126)
    the RED MENACE were exaggerated to keep the intelligence agencies well funded


    And perhaps as a reason/excuse to repress foreign banana republics (not to mention domestic trade unions): if you don't want to let us own the means of production, and you be our wage-slave, then you're a commie sympathizer.
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
     (7713.127)
    "Increase in national debt = inflation adjusted?"

    @Jivekitty. It's a factor, but not a significant one. The country is borrowing a ton of money from China, and that bothers a lot of people. It would be much better if the usage of that much money was seeing dramatic results, but it's not making much of any difference.

    Some of us actually know this shit, Marty.


    @Kosmopolit. I'm not calling your intelligence into question, but I think you're going off of faulty data. You and I are never going to agree on anything political, I think we both know this. I also think, and I'm not lumping you into this category because that would simply be insulting, that people on both sides of the aisle are getting why to comfortable demonizing the other side of argument. Both the Left and Right have good motivations for their vision of the country. I'm on the Right because the means in which they want the country to prosper make more sense to me (Free market solutions and limited government involvement). But I do see the viewpoint of the Left (Government being responsible for the welfare of its people.) Neither side is inherently eeeeeeeevil, but there are politicians on both sides that have no trouble with folks thinking that and that's crappy.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.128)
    It would be much better if the usage of that much money was seeing dramatic results, but it's not making much of any difference.


    I think that much *does* makes a difference: look at the pie chart at United States federal budget for example:

    * 23% spent on defense -- that may not make a difference to you, but it has made a difference in other parts of the world. The US basically spends as much on "defence" as the rest of the worl put together.

    * 40% on social security, medicare, and medicaid -- there are other countries (China, which you mentioned, for example) which don't have that.

    Those alone amount to two thirds of the budget.

    The penultimate section of the wikipedia article says, "the most likely case is that the U.S. would default on its entitlement obligations for Social Security and Medicare first, by reducing the obligations through entitlement reform" ... you're saying it makes not much difference: but maybe people will miss it when it's gone. For example it's normal in other (non-first-world) countries for old people to be unable to afford to buy their medical prescriptions.
    • CommentAuthorroadscum
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.129)
    There has been some very interesting discussion here, both reasoned (Jivekitty) and rabid (MissMolotov). About time for my over simplistic twopence worth then:

    When, if at any point, are you prepared to take up arms to defend what you believe is your vision of democracy and civilization?


    Take a little wander around the place where you live and look around, look at the houses where your neighbours live, the schools, the hospitals, the nice little restaurant where you sometimes enjoy a meal, all of the things that make up your home. Things may not be perfect, they seldom are, certainly not where i am anyway, but things work and people get on with their lives regardless.

    Now think about how that all changes if people start shooting at each other in the street, sniping from rooftops, shelling the local market. Think about Yugoslavia as an example.

    Once the shooting starts it's too late, democracy and civilisation have already gone out the window and won't be back for a very long time. A lot of people won't be around to see their return.

    Best then to do all you can to stop the fighting before it begins, argue, campaign, discuss and if all else fails, take as much as you can of what you hold dear and get the hell out of there. You can still keep up the arguing, campaigning and discussing from where you end up at without contributing to the death and destruction. If you're lucky.

    That may look cowardly to some. Perhaps it is. Fighting fire with fire tends to burn the whole place down, water is usually a better option. Please excuse me if i sound a little wet.
    • CommentAuthorTwist
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.130)
    @Roadscum

    On the contrary. You sound perfectly fucking sane and reasoned.
  11.  (7713.131)
    Gotta agree Roadscum but as you can see even in this thread there are some who are so self assured and aggressive about the words they believe in that dicussion becomes fruitless. Whether we like it or not, those with most guns and money make the rules and normally they are absolutists who are quite happy to use force to prove their point. I'd say that my own survival is much more important to me than attempting to defend any stupid belief system or bit of dirt. Cowards tend to survive upheavals more than heroes or tyrants.
    • CommentAuthorroadscum
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.132)
    Cowards tend to survive upheavals more than heroes or tyrants.

    I believe that another, different kind of coward usually starts most of them in the first place, then retires to somewhere safe to watch the little people fight it out. As i've said in a previous rant, the people pulling the strings are the real problem.
  13.  (7713.133)
    Hate speech laws scare me. Too often they seem politically motivated, and less about "hate" and more about avoiding unpleasant truths (for some people).

    Hate speech laws are on the books for the express purpose of protecting vulnerable populations by making the casual marginalization and disenfranchisement of them more difficult, from my understanding. I'm not frightened by them and am genuinely interested in how other people could be.
  14.  (7713.134)
    @roadscum. I read that rant and agreed with that one too.
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.135)
    Hate speech laws scare me, a little bit. Something about legislating opinions strikes me the wrong way.

    But what do I know? I'm Canadian.
  16.  (7713.136)
    Free market solutions


    Communism's twenty first century estranged cousin.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbrianwood
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010 edited
     (7713.137)
    @mister hex - It's not about legislating opinions. It's about punishing illegal acts carried out as a result of a specific sort of opinion. No one is going to arrest you if you secretly hate gay people, but they will if you hate them so much you take a bat to their heads.

    What some people take exception to, when opposing hate crime laws, is that it says that braining a gay person in the head is a worse crime than braining any other type of person in the head. That the only difference in the two scenarios IS the bat-wielder's personal feelings and that's not a valid reason for a special law with special punishments. People are going to agree with that or not and its hard to convince someone to change their minds on it. My personal feelings, as someone else said upthread, is that we need these laws since they protect minorities who are most often the target of discrimination, persecution, and violence, and suffer an imbalance of justice without specific laws that protect them.

    And, of course, that racial or gender-motivated crime IS particularly venomous. To use a trite phrase, it's insult heaped upon injury, and I think its good to have a stronger deterrent in place than what is normal.

    (Obviously, my bat reference is extreme and I used it to make the point)
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.138)
    @brianwood

    Hate *speech* isn't about whether you actually take a bat to someone's head: it's about what you *say*.

    In the USA, I think it's legal to say "I think gays should be killed etc.": it's legal to write it, too, and legal to say it on TV. All this could at least theoretically be seen as inciting criminal acts: but it would only be any subsequent criminal acts, not the previous mere speech, that would be illegal (however hateful the speech may be).

    An exception I think is only when the circumstance of the speech is imminent, immediate, and direct: e.g. perhaps if you say that kind of thing to an actual lynch mob.

    [I am not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice.]
  19.  (7713.139)
    #Looks in#

    Ah, looks like it's settled back down to a more reasonable tone in here. So what do you think so far, Stygmata? ;)

    I've been thinking about your question more and I think that yes, you should get a gun. Preferably, three. A pistol, probably a Glock, a good high-powered rifle(I suggest a Mini-14) and a shotgun, semi-auto if you can afford it. You won't need huge amounts of ammo for the pistol as pistols are conceal and carry things but I'd probably have a little more in the way of shotgun and rifle stocked. If you're REALLY worried make sure to have a good sword or two handy also. Ammo runs out and a blade is better than a bat. Maybe a bullet-proof vest? Have a good hidey-hole and start sticking canned food into it.

    Then put them away. Treat them like you would your smoke alarm. I think the truth is that you probably will never need them. However, if you truly believe a day may come that society collapses to the point you need to defend yourself in the stead that is your home or you need to march with the newly formed militia having them at ready is the only way to be sure.

    You will know you need those things more when you're standing with your neighbor trading stunned looks and saying "I can't believe this is happening!", which is highly unlikely, at best. I doubt the Army is going to mobilize against the people. Guns couldn't help anyone when Katrina happened. Guns make you more a target, too. Consider this quip from a David Koresh interview...

    "King: Would you use a gun if someone trespassed?"
    "Koresh: They come in here with a gun and they start shooting at us, what would you do?"

    If you are holding a gun you must be prepared to use it. Anyone seen holding a gun is assumed to be following this dictum. I'd say it's probably the biggest reason I don't own guns...
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2010
     (7713.140)
    @Marty

    Instead of insisting that his disagreement with you is because he is theoretically on the Left and you are on the Right you could just accept that you've been shown to be wrong. Twice. Additionally, if he is going off faulty data, why not provide some evidence that supports your stated assumptions instead of just crossing your arms and going "Well, you're on the Left so obviously you're not going to agree with me"?

    @Val
    If you are holding a gun you must be prepared to use it. Anyone seen holding a gun is assumed to be following this dictum. I'd say it's probably the biggest reason I don't own guns...

    Indeed. One of the things that I've been told by many people (police, currently serving and ex-servicemen/women, gun enthusiasts) is that you should only point a gun at another person if you have every intention of using it.

121 to 140 of 231

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 12
  14. >

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.