 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 03:57, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 15:04, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D
>>
>> For the love of God, Gryffindor.
>
> Nerd alert!
Is it bad that I haven't read a single book, and yet I know the correct
spelling?
(Or rather, I recognise incorrect spelling. I'd by lying if I said I
could spell it correctly myself...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 6:32 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D
>
> Even with the correct spelling, I don't get it.
>
One point from Slytherin.
It is from the Harry Potter books.
At the boarding school the pupils are split into houses which have a
friendly rivalry. Points are awarded to the houses for merit and are
totalled up at the end of the year to decide which house wins the glory
of winning.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 6:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> The war on internet and, ultimately, the war on free speech.
>
> Free speech has this nasty side-effect that it allows people to express
> the wrong opinions. That's not good nor PC.
>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 17/03/2012 6:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> > The war on internet and, ultimately, the war on free speech.
> >
> > Free speech has this nasty side-effect that it allows people to express
> > the wrong opinions. That's not good nor PC.
> >
> What “Free Speech”? There Ain't No Such Animal.
There is, still. It's just under heavy attack.
"Free speech is a great idea, but..."
- Lindsey Graham, United States senator
Yeah, free speech is a "great idea", but.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 10:35 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 17/03/2012 6:34 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> The war on internet and, ultimately, the war on free speech.
>>>
>>> Free speech has this nasty side-effect that it allows people to express
>>> the wrong opinions. That's not good nor PC.
>>>
>
>> What Free Speech? There Ain't No Such Animal.
>
> There is, still.
Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with
impunity.
In Britain we think that we have the right to free speech but on
consideration it is only members of parliament, in the House of Commons,
that have that right in law. Even then they are restricted to what they
can say by not using unparliamentary language.
> It's just under heavy attack.
>
> "Free speech is a great idea, but..."
> - Lindsey Graham, United States senator
>
> Yeah, free speech is a "great idea", but.
>
Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or
sectarian things or incite others to hate?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> What Free Speech? There Ain't No Such Animal.
> >
> > There is, still.
> Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with
> impunity.
The United States is still somewhat of a bastion of free speech. For
example, you can freely criticize a religion (*any* religion) and eg.
burn their holy book, and it's (still) protected by the constitution.
(Of course, as noted, they are working hard to rectify this "problem"
there.)
> Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or
> sectarian things or incite others to hate?
Absolutely. Free speech means that people are entitled to express their
opinions regardless of whether you agree with them or not. It doesn't
matter how hideous you think those opinions are.
It's precisely the ideology that "free speech is bad because it allows
people to express the 'wrong' opinions" that's the major driving force
behind the modern movement of limiting free speech.
When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
speech. That's totalitarianism.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 11:43 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with
>> impunity.
>
> The United States is still somewhat of a bastion of free speech. For
> example, you can freely criticize a religion (*any* religion) and eg.
> burn their holy book, and it's (still) protected by the constitution.
> (Of course, as noted, they are working hard to rectify this "problem"
> there.)
>
Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.
Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
whites, even though they believed it?
America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
It also has Free Speech Zones where the government may regulate the
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) The implication being
that outside of these zones you cannot have true free expression.
>> Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or
>> sectarian things or incite others to hate?
>
> Absolutely. Free speech means that people are entitled to express their
> opinions regardless of whether you agree with them or not. It doesn't
> matter how hideous you think those opinions are.
>
I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
this site for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG
at the time when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
Have you changed your mind?
> It's precisely the ideology that "free speech is bad because it allows
> people to express the 'wrong' opinions" that's the major driving force
> behind the modern movement of limiting free speech.
>
I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech is
a misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.
> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>
That is a different kettle of fish. Political Correctness is another
tool used by politicians (whether elected or not) to force their own
opinions on the public. Again, in my opinion.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/03/2012 11:15 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 05:45 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/03/2012 6:36 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>>> well ... it's true enough that /some/ good has come from hacking
>>> (soft/hardware) in the more benign sense, but lately, I would say the
>>> term has taken a beating, a more negative context. Seems like it just
>>> boils down to the fact that more folks are willing to push boundaries.
>>
>> Careful, with an attitude like that you could get extradited to the US.
>> Oops! I forgot. You already did. :-P
>
> LOL ... no kidding, and through no fault of my own ;-)
>
I know and again, I am sorry.
>>
>> It seems to me that some people would rather use the law and a big stick
>> rather than do a proper job on their security.
>> First the war on drugs then the war on terrorism closely followed by the
>> war on sharing. What next, the war on not having the same opinion?
>
> Yep ... afraid that while I was away much has changed. Kind of like a
> train wreck in slow motion, but I have to keep the faith and hope that
> cooler heads will eventually prevail.
>
One can only hope.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
It's not illegal to do so (at least yet). That's the point.
> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
The problem with hate crime laws is that they are extremely subjective,
influenced by (often changing) cultural and political trends, and can be
abused for political reasons (eg. to silence dissenters). Almost invariably
such laws are not applied consistently and equally, but some people are in
practice more protected than others.
> It also has Free Speech Zones
Which is an oxymoron, really.
Anyways, what I meant is that the US is one of the few places in the
world where you can still publicly criticize religions and cultures with
impunity.
> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
> crime is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
You would have to prove that a speech caused the riot or crime.
> Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from
> this site for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG
> at the time when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
> Have you changed your mind?
This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
whatever reason he wants.
If you want a guest to leave your house, you have all the right in
the world to do that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 1:54 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
>
> It's not illegal to do so (at least yet). That's the point.
>
> Anyways, what I meant is that the US is one of the few places in the
> world where you can still publicly criticize religions and cultures with
> impunity.
>
I won't argue any more because I know when I am banging my head off a
brick wall.
>
> You would have to prove that a speech caused the riot or crime.
>
No, incitement is an anticipatory offence.
>
> This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
> person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
> whatever reason he wants.
>
Unanimously supported action?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
