French Magazine Stands up for FS

[Spider]

[Boris Johnson]

RoyBatty, again given that to respond point by point would involve a wall of text, if I can add that I retract statements implying you were making general statements about Muslims (im sorry I misinterpreted your stance on Van Wilders, he most certainty is a bigot).

1) Exactly how much my point is predicated on defending the home office's and the crown prosecution services's exact record, I would argue is now getting rather off point. I would want these laws to be coherently applied. I would only note that, the notion that nothing is done about islamists and salafists whilst anti-islamists are ruthless hunted down is quite frankly a selective view of the evidence. As I already noted 'Muslims against crusades' have been banned in their various iterations several times, whilst on the other hand Nick Griffin has won appeals against charges of hate speech (if your foreign and pull this shit, you do tend to just be deported. The issue being a lot of both sides of the bigoted coin are not these days). I would send them all to build tidal turbines in the north sea. but hey, i'm not lord protector yet.
2) Following on from one, I was simply making the point that these hate speech laws, have no encouraged into other spheres of expression of opinion. Having a history of problems of sectarianism we take the religious stuff seriously here. I was using this as a point, if you remember, to contest the homogeneity and equal protection under the law of all expression of opinion. to wit, I would cite the continued existence of every 'dissident' press organ from the morning star on up.
3) again, to recap. My position here comprises two I think rather uncontroversial thesis'
a) I do not think there are solid grounds either from the history of the development of the concept of freedom of speech, nor a careful examination of the different possible methods of expression, for treating the expressions of all opinions equally under the law. In fact I think the burden of proof is on someone who wishes to advance such unity.
b) I do not think sectioning off harms caused by inciting violence or hatred can be separated off from other harms as easily as many would wish by invoking the free will of people involved. Why? I'm trying to come at this from a position of advocacy of public policy which aims to secure a stable liberal pluralistic society, in the world we live in, not the one we might wish to live in.


Do you have any specific points from before you wish me to address, i'm sure i've missed some.

[RoyBatty]

[Zeugma]

[Spider]

[Zeugma]

[Spider]

[Spider]

Please pay attention and read the post. All of it. Deal with it, no matter how inconvenient.

The parts of it in larger font should be responded to, rather than edited out of your responses.

You clearly aren't interested in what I write, but rather in substituting your own invented narrative. (In other words, quite simply lying).

If you were able to actually counter anything I'd said so far, you wouldn't have had to deflect away from it by lying.

An example of lying would be the claim that I support grendade launchers for private use. Since I scoffed at the whole idea in the thread you linked, I think that goes without saying.

An example of lying would be the claim that I argue anthropology against biology. Above, I clearly state my opinions on both. To portray me otherwise...is lying. *shrug*

Etc etc.

A clue to the wise...if my rather long posts are condensed down to sentence fragments, with entire paragraphs ignored 3 times consecutively, you can tell the poster is...lying.

But keep 'em coming. Whole lotta fail.

[uebermann]

Let's get back on topic please. Things are starting to get a tad too personal.

[Zeugma]