https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B56c6J...e_continue=148
This not knocking the USA, these people are everywhere, but freedom of speech or not this guy should be locked up for inciting hate.
Printable View
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B56c6J...e_continue=148
This not knocking the USA, these people are everywhere, but freedom of speech or not this guy should be locked up for inciting hate.
its a fine line we walk when we want others dealt harshly for hate speech, yet we can act in the same manner ourselves
we want this preacher silenced according to mans law, a law that we make up as we go along and do we really think that he is going to see it as his offensive speech being in violation of the law ? hes going to see it as him being prosecuted for his beliefs....
I am in NZ where we talk about equal rights, equal treatment, freedom from discrimination but in true, maori have more rights than any other race, women have their own minister of womans rights, there is exemptions for LGBT, and middle aged white males are constantly blamed for the woes and worries of NZ.....we have not gained the fair and balanced society we claim we are working towards, we are just working on silencing any groups that are proud to be white, and that includes groups that celebrate viking, Norwegian, Scandinavian etc descent, under the quise of silencing white supremacy groups
I am ex military, I served, I saw the best and worst of mankind but I did not just see it overseas in combat, I see it every day in my own country... a progressive push to end hate speech but an outcry when its the people trying to end hate speech, finding its their own speech being curbed
I do not like what the guy says any more than many others would, but by sharing his voice, we give him a much wider audience and more people that agree with him, will know about him...... we create the very issue we have a issue with....
Hate speech is defined by the listener. The general notion of "so and so will go to hell for such and such" is absolutely reprehensible to some while being totally agreed with by others. Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. etc. all have basic beliefs based on their own dogma regarding who's gonna make it and who's not. As a person of faith, I draw the line at the call for action against ANY group by ANY group based on race, creed, color or sexual orientation. Laws are in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves. There are also laws in place to allow individuals to express their beliefs, whatever they may be. I do not wish to live in a society where speech is curbed because it doesn't comply with "the norm".Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
If I am in disagreement with a particular person or group, I nonetheless must accept that they have the right to their own beliefs and the expression of same. I have the equal right to mine and that same expression. it is up to me to first set the better example with how I live my life and then to speak of my own beliefs. Let people choose as to whom they wish to listen.
Gosh, youtube seems to have the very worst of humanity on proud display. The more extreme, the more views it gets. So I avoid this kind of social media completely.
I agree, hate speech is defined by the listener..... the truth defined by what we personally believe.. and a better way defined by our understandingQuote:
Originally Posted by bibiboy
But he does not hate me, he does not even know I exist, he just can not find peace with something that he believes is wrong.... other human beings .... and its easier to silence them, isolate them and even eliminate them to create a better world..... and we still can not get it through our heads that we also preach what we can not practice, cos we want to do the same thing to other people.....
Your rights end at the tip of your nose.
I think that this statement applies here. You may not impose your beliefs on others in a democratic society. The question as to promoting hate is a major issue for people and societies. You may see certain behaviour as evil etc. but unless it physically endangers their own life, it is really none of their business.
The question as to what is or is not promoting hatred towards a group can be solved in our courts.
Well said Tenni.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
I have major issue with this video, and it is caused by not being there......................my problem, is it is a really bad patch job, it is overly obvious where it is spliced where it jumps.
I hate hate speech, I support the constitution that gives them freedom of speech.............but even worse, I hate out of context speech. This video is put together in an order to designed to get people as worked up as they can, I would like to see the unedited video first.
I refuse, to denegrate anyone, even someone that appears to be a hateful person, without seeing things properly, and an edited video that jumps around, is not enough for me to wish bad things on people, we have too much BS news, and too much edited things out there these days
Well, Leviticus is in the Old Testament, the book of the vengeful god. As the late Joseph Campbell said about the Old Testament, "...a lot of rules and no mercy."
He is committing an act of "stochastic terrorism". Yes, it is a very real thing and it should be legislated as a crime of terrorism.
stochastic terrorism [stuh-kas-tik ter-uh-riz-uh m] -noun- the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted: The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism.
https://mavenroundtable.io/theintell...0miJLNEEafXwA/
The problem with using Leviticus as the standard by which they judge homosexuality, they are using it out of its original context.Quote:
Originally Posted by delpark
In it's original and correct context, it was referring to the temple prostitutes and not LGBT relationships. The church even had gay marriage right up until the mid 1400's. The Jesuits at Fordham even wrote a well supported, scholarly article on it.
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/2rites.asp
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. Truth is based on facts. Valid, independently-verifiable, legitimate, documented facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Ignorance of factual knowledge is not truth.
Beliefs are not truth.
Feelings are not truth.
Opinion is not truth.
If I say “This is a dog” while I am pointing to a dog, that is a fact. It is truth.
You can’t say “That’s your opinion. I have the opinion that it is a cat, and everyone has their own opinions.” and have anyone take you seriously, or give you any credibility or authority. Your opinion is wrong, and my fact is correct. It’s just that simple.
Opinions aren’t always equal either. someone might hold a very stupid opinion that is provably and demonstrably wrong by easily obtained facts, or by common knowledge, but it will still be wrong. For example, that person might believe the earth is flat. None of their opinions, beliefs, feelings, or misinterpretations of the mathematics and sciences which prove the earth is not flat are valid, because they are in contravention of established, accepted fact.
And when an opinion is proven wrong by truth, whomever holds that incorrect opinion is under the obligation to immediately cease to promote that opinion, or to publicly give it validity. Just because it’s an opinion, it isn’t truth.
Where most people get their panties in a wad is this: Having your opinion being proven wrong doesn't invalidate you, it just invalidates your opinion.
When it is shown by facts, science, mathematics, physics, or other valid, true evidence to be wrong, it is therefore a factually-incorrect opinion, and therefore a wrong opinion. See how easy this is?
A truth is always true. An opinion can be wrong.
It is not sacred, just because it is *your* opinion.
The simple fact is, anyone can proclaim as loudly as they want that their beliefs say that 2 + 2 = parakeet. But the *fact* is, by doing so, they will be demonstrating to the entire world that they are not only wrong, but that they're not very smart as well.
People can have their own opinions. They cannot have their own facts.
:bigrin:
While I disagree with this man I am happy I live in a country where we have the right to express our opinions. "Hate Speech" laws are dangerous and that's why we don't have them in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leehebs
Slippery slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by travelingman5000
I suggest that you rethink your position, and realize that "freedom of speech" does not mean what you think it means. The First Amendment is clear: The Government may not punish you for speaking against it. That's what it says. Plainly, in 18th-Century language. The Constitution does not exist to give citizens rights. It exists to tell the government what it may not do to it's citizens.
Don't believe me? Go to a crowded theater, stand up in the middle of the movie, and scream "FIRE!!" at the top of your lungs. You do not have the right to speak if the words you use incite danger, violence, or have the potential to cause harm to the public. Period.
I'm always dumbfounded at how little people actually know about how this country works. Do they not teach Civics in 7th Grade anymore?
Yes. I'm a near absolutist when it comes to the First Amendment. Guys like this are usually laughable and ridicule is often my weapon of choice. But this guy is a waw enforcement officer He presumably carries a gun. What he really needs is to get his tiny dick sucked by one of us.
by my remark that the truth is defined by what we believe, I am referring to social media truth..... or simply the truth does not matter as long as there is a target and if there is a target, then what we believe, becomes our truth.....a truth that has its foundation in emotions, feelings, opinions and beliefs......Quote:
Originally Posted by lancer525
truth and what is true, can not always be defined by science and fact, as the majority of truth, comes down to perception.....I do not agree with what is said in the original video but fact and science does not prove what he is saying to be hate speech, its our perception and man made law, shaped legally, that makes what he says, to be hate speech....
using the earth is flat argument is a major flaw in your stance as you use a scientific situation and are applying it to a personal opinion, in order to strengthen your own stance but the earth is round ergo the person in the video is wrong for their opinion, is a very lousy agreement.... besides, the earth is not round, its more elliptical lol
Alisa Rosenbaum relativistic claptrap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
Truth is truth. Period. There is no degree, there is no exception. What is true is always true.
And the mere fact that you want to try to play word games completely and totally discredits your entire post. You sound like a fourteen year old.
*Plonk*
Hi Lancer,Quote:
Originally Posted by lancer525
Just a reminder that this is an international site and it goes beyond the USA constitution etc. No one government constitution is absolute here on this site. In fact the site was started by Drew in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. It might be clearer to reference your comments more appropriately...ie "In the US, the government may not punish you for speaking against it (The US government???)
In Canada, promoting hate towards identified groups (i.e. LBGT, gender..including transgendered, race, religion, disability, age, etc.) has been referenced in our hate laws. The laws that exist against promoting hatred via hate speech are not single focused and other laws have often been used to stop promoting hatred via hate speech.
Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 3 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on "race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E
You may want to sit down for a chat with Plato and Aristotle when it comes to "truth".
At what point in this video did the guy yell "FIRE!"Quote:
Originally Posted by lancer525
If you think the first amendment can be summed up by your statement, "The Government may not punish you for speaking against it" you my friend are the one who needs to "rethink your position".
truth is perceptive, to argue otherwise, is to assume a mantle of superiority to mask ones own flawed logic... just look at any court room where most legal battles are not over the truth but over who can convince the jury of what the " truth " is... ergo truth is perceptive, if the jury believes the lawyer is showing them the truth, innocent men can go to prison.....Quote:
Originally Posted by lancer525
Now your truth is going to be that you are right and anybody that argues with you, clearly has no idea what they are talking about, that does not mean that stance, true, it merely means your personal truth may be flawed but clearly right in your eyes
This is a very good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbrit