http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE

I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
etc.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE

> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
> etc.  

  Unless you are the creator of the video (are you?) and are interested in
how you could improve it, I honestly can't understand why you are asking
that. The topic is much more interesting than the technical details on how
the video is made and its presentation, and could spawn some interesting
discussion (not about whether the germ theory is correct or not, but about
the phenomenon of denialism, which is an interesting psychological phenomenon
in the modern world).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/12/2010 1:52 AM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE
>
> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
> etc.

Made by: Powerpoint, (death by).

Audience: Fruit loops and the simple minded.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.12.2010 02:52, schrieb Neeum Zawan:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE
>
> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
> etc.

Too much on-screen text, cartoons etc. that don't directly relate to the 
spoken text, and therefore rather distract from it.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just

Needs more professional voice-over, as well as more practice, to be a 
professional-level video.  It *is* unclear who the audience is, or what the 
point is besides "how to identify a germ theory denier", which could have 
been covered in 1/5th the time.

I'm guessing you want to make similar videos and you're looking to improve 
your technique?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 16/12/2010 4:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Needs more professional voice-over,

I thought that the voice was fine.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On 16/12/2010 4:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Needs more professional voice-over,
> 
> I thought that the voice was fine.

Well, the recording itself could be better. Less gasping breathing, don't 
overload the microphone, etc. It wasn't the voice so much as the fact that 
he bobbled a few sentences that if it were a professional video would have 
been re-recorded.  The voice wasn't unpleasant. The performance was 
excellent for a youtube video, but wouldn't stand for (say) a television 
documentary.

Bobbled at 3m04s, bad breath break at 3m24s, bobbled at 3m37s, etc. 
Something that you'd certainly never worry about if you were listening to 
someone live (or free). Basically, he's trying to read and perform at the 
same time, not always reading far enough ahead to know where the "verbal 
commas" go, which professionals get around by only recording a handful of 
sentences at a time.

Since I don't know why Neeum is asking, I'm pointing out trivial stuff as 
well as any of the bigger things I notice.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 16/12/2010 5:35 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/12/2010 4:12 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Needs more professional voice-over,
>>
>> I thought that the voice was fine.
>
> Well, the recording itself could be better. Less gasping breathing,
> don't overload the microphone, etc. It wasn't the voice so much as the
> fact that he bobbled a few sentences that if it were a professional
> video would have been re-recorded. The voice wasn't unpleasant. The
> performance was excellent for a youtube video, but wouldn't stand for
> (say) a television documentary.
>
> Bobbled at 3m04s, bad breath break at 3m24s, bobbled at 3m37s, etc.
> Something that you'd certainly never worry about if you were listening
> to someone live (or free). Basically, he's trying to read and perform at
> the same time, not always reading far enough ahead to know where the
> "verbal commas" go, which professionals get around by only recording a
> handful of sentences at a time.
>
> Since I don't know why Neeum is asking, I'm pointing out trivial stuff
> as well as any of the bigger things I notice.
>

I liked his tone and his accent.
I did not listen to the content.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

>   Unless you are the creator of the video (are you?) and are interested in

Heck, no. I think it's a crappy video (and not in terms of technical
aspects). 

> how you could improve it, I honestly can't understand why you are asking
> that. The topic is much more interesting than the technical details on how

I didn't want to bias the discussion, so I was hoping to get everyone's
thoughts. But it seems I didn't phrase it well enough.

Essentially a friend and I were arguing about the video. My contention
was that the video was patronizing, and for that and perhaps other
reasons, was preaching to the choir. I think if the goal was to target
germ denialists, or even people part way there, it would fail as
well. If I were a germ denialist, I would have stopped watching soon
into the video.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> was that the video was patronizing, 

I think it was patronizing to denialists, but I don't think denialists are 
its target. It looks like "yes, there really are people that dense, and 
they're not all obviously nut-jobs", followed by "here's how you spot a 
denialist" more than anything.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 12/16/2010 1:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> was that the video was patronizing,
>
> I think it was patronizing to denialists, but I don't think denialists
> are its target. It looks like "yes, there really are people that dense,
> and they're not all obviously nut-jobs", followed by "here's how you
> spot a denialist" more than anything.
>
Hmm. Didn't bother watching it, so initially posted something irrelevant 
to the content, but there is a strong thread of, "We have tried every 
other damn thing to get these people to pay attention to facts, so lets 
make them angry and ridicule them, in the grand tradition of a long 
stream of people that have done so, and gotten actual results." People 
don't like to have other people make them feel bad. If you treat those 
completely clueless about something, or ill informed, like their 
position is worthy of discussion, it almost always *strengthens* their 
position, even if the only reason you take it seriously is to eviscerate 
their arguments. But, sometimes, every once in a while, the otherwise 
impervious *do* check their facts, if told that their arguments are not 
even worth respecting. And, while there is some small number of fence 
sitters that take the whole concept of "defend the underdog" way too 
seriously, who will jump to the denialists perspective, far more of them 
are likely to go, "Those people do research, these other people just 
whine about how they don't believe the research. I am not surprised the 
side with facts is pissed off about it."

The other sort, who try to debate/talk it over, because we, in their odd 
vision of the universe, we need "allies" among the people skeptical 
about abject, well proven, facts, pretty much always end up on the 
defense, never get their point across, and when they go to a debate, 
almost *always* find that the debate ends up being 10 minutes of the 
denialists rattling off 5,000 objections, 80% of which have jack to do 
with the subject being debated, and being given the *same* 10 minutes to 
address all of them, including the irrelevant ones, or, according to the 
denialist, his/her supporters, Faux News, and anyone else with a stake 
in the false side of the debate, "They failed to address all of the 
points brought up, so they lost the debate!"

Sometimes, the only correct response to this BS is to open your salvo 
with, "This is all frakking bullshit, and I am not going to be nice 
about it!" ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sometimes, the only correct response to this BS is to open your salvo 
> with, "This is all frakking bullshit, and I am not going to be nice 
> about it!" ;)

Saw this earlier today.  The first half had me laughing at just how 
obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> was that the video was patronizing, 
>
> I think it was patronizing to denialists, but I don't think denialists
> are its target. It looks like "yes, there really are people that dense,
> and they're not all obviously nut-jobs", followed by "here's how you
> spot a denialist" more than anything.

My impression too - it's preaching to the choir. A good video for poking
fun, but virtually useless otherwise.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> My impression too - it's preaching to the choir.

I wouldn't say *that*.  I imagine there are many people who believe in germs 
but might get conned into not believing in germs if some authority figure 
told them it was up in the air, simply because this denialism hasn't been so 
newsworthy.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> My impression too - it's preaching to the choir.
>
> I wouldn't say *that*.  I imagine there are many people who believe in
> germs but might get conned into not believing in germs if some authority
> figure told them it was up in the air, simply because this denialism
> hasn't been so newsworthy.

Yes, but I don't see them being convinced otherwise by this video.

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.12.2010 02:06, schrieb Darren New:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sometimes, the only correct response to this BS is to open your salvo
>> with, "This is all frakking bullshit, and I am not going to be nice
>> about it!" ;)
>
> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk

Refreshingly straightforward guy.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <fee### [at] festercom> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> > Neeum Zawan wrote:
> >> My impression too - it's preaching to the choir.
> >
> > I wouldn't say *that*.  I imagine there are many people who believe in
> > germs but might get conned into not believing in germs if some authority
> > figure told them it was up in the air, simply because this denialism
> > hasn't been so newsworthy.

> Yes, but I don't see them being convinced otherwise by this video. 

  It's a question of prevention. When you know that the denialism
phenomenon exists, it doesn't catch you by surprise if someone tries
to sell it to you. Sometimes if something like this catches you by
surprise and you are not experienced enough in recognizing pseudoscience,
conspiracy theories and denialism, you might get lured into believing it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/16/2010 6:06 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sometimes, the only correct response to this BS is to open your salvo
>> with, "This is all frakking bullshit, and I am not going to be nice
>> about it!" ;)
>
> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
>
Recent article from, I think, the Times, or one of those, centered on 
how, unlike some religions, evangelicals tend to embrace technology. My 
comment was, "Sure, just like barbarians embrace the use of books for 
use as foot rests (or maybe toilet paper would have been a better 
anology), someone who conquers a country whose national animal was a 
herd of specific deer, or the like, by sending one to every copatriot, 
freshly mounted for display, and certain terrorists embrace cell phone 
technology." The point is never to understand the sciences, its to 
employ those which give them a means to spread the faith, even if they 
later, having won, reject the very thing they used to do so, and their 
***entire*** intent is to get rid of any and all of it they don't like, 
just as soon as they can. Much like creating a 100% museum 'like' 
edifice to promote young earth creationism, because museums give the 
*suggestion* of authority, while wanting to erase any museum with the 
wrong art, or insufficient reverence to mythology), or one builds an 
"Ark" theme park, not with the intent of replicating something like 
Epcot, but rather the Pinocchio right at Disney Land, but *claiming* 
that it is Epcot.

They don't respect any of it, they hate most of it, they would just as 
soon be rid of any of it that wasn't convenient for their own ends, etc. 
Its the village idiot using a surgical laser to snuff ants, because they 
don't believe in surgery, but its so nice for burning ants that they 
can't *quite* decide to just get rid of the device entirely. Its still 
useful see. Its only the completely useless stuff you throw out, like 
heart transplants (thanks Brewer!).

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 16-12-2010 10:50, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.12.2010 02:52, schrieb Neeum Zawan:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyodvwxe4mE
>>
>> I'm curious about your views regarding the video. Not the topic - just
>> the video. As in who the target audience would be, if it's made well,
>> etc.
>
> Too much on-screen text, cartoons etc. that don't directly relate to the
> spoken text, and therefore rather distract from it.

That is what my impression was too. You could use it as an example in 
the (equally useless) youtube video: 'how to loose your audience in 5 
easy steps'.

Post a reply to this message

On 17-12-2010 2:06, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sometimes, the only correct response to this BS is to open your salvo
>> with, "This is all frakking bullshit, and I am not going to be nice
>> about it!" ;)
>
> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
>

Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
If so, what the ... does he mean?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
> If so, what the ... does he mean?

  I think he's referring to the case of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 16:26, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
>> If so, what the ... does he mean?
>
>    I think he's referring to the case of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

I sure hope not. And if he does I'd like to know what sources he has for 
his statement. I think he says: "Faith disqualifies reason the way a 
Dutch criminal court disqualifies truth and witnesses and for much the 
same reason". Which seems to suggest that it is a common if not 
necessary thing in the Dutch law system.
I was actually hoping that I either misheard him or that it refers to an 
expression used by US lawyers. Sort of like the concept of a Dutch party 
where everyone brings his own food and drinks (what we refer here to as 
an American party and got much the same reason).

BTW there was a case against Geert Wilders, but that is now on hold 
while they try to find new judges. Ones that have no opinion yet on the 
case. (That probably means that it is on hold indefinitely).
Details are so hairy that I can hardly follow this case even with daily 
updates from the best lawyers. Basing an opinion on this case and 
extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I 
would advise. You are probably correct in that this is the only Dutch 
court case that has gotten any international attention recently.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Basing an opinion on this case and 
> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I 
> would advise.

  I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.
Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
phenomenon.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 20:33, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Basing an opinion on this case and
>> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I
>> would advise.
>
>    I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.

might be, but that sort of implies that his audience knows what he is 
referring to. And that implies that someone somewhere did his best to 
misinform the public and succeeded. That worries me a bit. Remember the 
Dutch are in general allies of the US. How misinformed are they about 
their enemies? (assuming this person is from the USA)

> Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
> mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
> like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
> phenomenon.

So what is his frustration with the Dutch criminal courts? I might have 
missed it by being too close.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 20-12-2010 20:33, Warp wrote:
> > andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> Basing an opinion on this case and
> >> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I
> >> would advise.
> >
> >    I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.

> might be, but that sort of implies that his audience knows what he is 
> referring to. And that implies that someone somewhere did his best to 
> misinform the public and succeeded. That worries me a bit. Remember the 
> Dutch are in general allies of the US. How misinformed are they about 
> their enemies? (assuming this person is from the USA)

  He's British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell

> > Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
> > mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
> > like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
> > phenomenon.

> So what is his frustration with the Dutch criminal courts? I might have 
> missed it by being too close.

  I suppose he sees the whole lawsuit as a travesty against freedom of
speech.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 21:08, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 20-12-2010 20:33, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> Basing an opinion on this case and
>>>> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I
>>>> would advise.
>>>
>>>     I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.
>
>> might be, but that sort of implies that his audience knows what he is
>> referring to. And that implies that someone somewhere did his best to
>> misinform the public and succeeded. That worries me a bit. Remember the
>> Dutch are in general allies of the US. How misinformed are they about
>> their enemies? (assuming this person is from the USA)
>
>    He's British.

interesting

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell
>
>>> Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
>>> mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
>>> like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
>>> phenomenon.
>
>> So what is his frustration with the Dutch criminal courts? I might have
>> missed it by being too close.
>
>    I suppose he sees the whole lawsuit as a travesty against freedom of
> speech.

(So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another 
country. Interesting.)

I think you have to really understand who complained, who prosecutes, 
who is defending on what grounds and in particular what the result of 
the trial is to judge if it is a travesty or not.

The whole issue with freedom of speech is that you are not allowed to 
call 'fire' in a crowded cinema. But where to draw the line. This case 
was centered on finding out if what Wilders said was over the line or 
not. He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of 
people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole 
group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not 
racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened 
to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would 
be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what 
he does.
The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on 
freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of 
speech.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of 
> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole 
> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not 
> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened 
> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would 
> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what 
> he does.
> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on 
> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of 
> speech.

  Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.

  Why would someone create a video critical of islam and islamic culture?
There's only one possible reason: To provoke violence towards muslims and
to anger them. Given this axiom and law of nature, the only remaining
question is how to punish such a person for such a despicable act.

  Of course at the same time videos criticizing eg. christians and
christian culture is ok, and completely under freedom of expression.

  Double standard much?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I think he says: "Faith disqualifies reason the way a 
> Dutch criminal court disqualifies truth and witnesses and for much the 
> same reason". Which seems to suggest that it is a common if not 
> necessary thing in the Dutch law system.

One of his much-earlier rants went on about this. I remember him talking 
about it at the time it happened (six months or more ago?) but I don't feel 
like trolling thru his videos to find it.

Eventually google will start indexing spoken videos, at which point it'll be 
easy to find. :-)

> expression used by US lawyers. 

I don't think so.

> Sort of like the concept of a Dutch party 
> where everyone brings his own food and drinks 

Oh. For a second there I thought you meant a Dutch political party. Heh.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>
> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another
> country. Interesting.)

What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 21:48, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of
>> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole
>> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not
>> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened
>> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would
>> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what
>> he does.
>> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on
>> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of
>> speech.
>
>    Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.

I try not to be, indeed. (unless you meant it cynical, in which case I 
would be interested to know on which side my prejudices are)

>    Why would someone create a video critical of islam and islamic culture?
> There's only one possible reason: To provoke violence towards muslims and
> to anger them. Given this axiom and law of nature, the only remaining
> question is how to punish such a person for such a despicable act.

There are a few others:
- because he really believes it
- because more people will vote for him (increased influence and another 
4 years of income)
- because it is the consequence of the path he has taken and he can not 
go off that path anymore.

>    Of course at the same time videos criticizing eg. christians and
> christian culture is ok, and completely under freedom of expression.

That really depends on the content. There have been cases of opinions of 
Imams ('you should throw gay people from the high buildings') that were 
not considered to be free to be expressed. Interestingly that lead to 
the concept that tolerance of gay people is part of being Dutch and gay 
rights to be defended by extreme right wing people.

>    Double standard much?

In general the majority in a country has to be able to get more 
criticism than a minority. If that minority is more vulnerable. Which 
means that jews, muslim, hindus and perhaps even atheists get more 
protection in western Europe from attacks by someone from the majority. 
I wouldn't call that a double standard.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 21:55, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:

>> Sort of like the concept of a Dutch party where everyone brings his
>> own food and drinks
>
> Oh. For a second there I thought you meant a Dutch political party. Heh.
>
Dutch political parties are not well funded so it may be advisable to 
take some food and drink with you if you go to a meeting of a political 
party.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 23:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another
>> country. Interesting.)
>
> What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)

I am Dutch, we have no sense of history. We are famous for it actually.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2010 10:27 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 20-12-2010 23:17, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>
>>> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another
>>> country. Interesting.)
>>
>> What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)
>
> I am Dutch, we have no sense of history. We are famous for it actually.
>
>

Pardon me for contradicting you, but the Dutch are famous for being 
“plain spoken”. Maybe it is just Hollanders that do not have a sense of 
history. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 20-12-2010 23:56, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 10:27 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 20-12-2010 23:17, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 20/12/2010 8:31 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in
>>>> another
>>>> country. Interesting.)
>>>
>>> What! Have you no sense of history, Andrel? ;-)
>>
>> I am Dutch, we have no sense of history. We are famous for it actually.
>>
>>
>
> Pardon me for contradicting you, but the Dutch are famous for being
> “plain spoken”.

That too. I try to live up to that here in this group.

> Maybe it is just Hollanders that do not have a sense of
> history. ;-)
>

I think it is much broader them just the main cities in the west. Ask a 
Dutchman to cite a bit of Joost van den Vondel and you probably have to 
explain that he is for Dutch literature what Shakespeare is for the 
English. Ask to name the Dutch Nobel prize winner at the beginning of 
the 20th century 'were there any?'.
In short: I am Dutch, I can't cite any Dutch poems or other literature, 
I don't know any influential Dutch people from before I was born outside 
my own field, I assume that the industrial revolution started in 
England, I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two 
centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.

In my experience English people often know more from Dutch history than 
we do. I know other countries are also in the process of loosing 
historical knowledge in the young generation. Yet I think are still 
better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it. 
(Or have we?)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.

I think you just proved your point. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 20-12-2010 21:48, Warp wrote:
> > andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of
> >> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole
> >> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not
> >> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened
> >> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would
> >> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what
> >> he does.
> >> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on
> >> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of
> >> speech.
> >
> >    Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.

> I try not to be, indeed. (unless you meant it cynical, in which case I 
> would be interested to know on which side my prejudices are)

  I was referring to your *assertion* that he was "trying to provoke
violence" etc, as if it was a given and something clear to everybody, in
the same vein as if someone had broken a window with twenty eyewitnesses
and five security cameras clearly testifying about it without any possible
doubt. It sounded like you were saying "he did that, and the only remaining
question is if he should be punished and how much".

  There are many other reasons why someone would publish a critique of
a phenomenon (regardless of whether that critique is accurate or not, or
whether it's presented in a misleading way or not, either intentionally
or not). Outright claiming "it was made to provoke violence" is prejudice.

> In general the majority in a country has to be able to get more 
> criticism than a minority.

  That's an interesting assertion, and something I don't necessarily fully
agree with. The main reason why I don't fully agree with it is because it
is contradictory with the basic tenet of equal rights: Everybody should have
the same rights and duties regardless of background, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, and so on. Everybody should be judged equally before the law.
This is one of the fundamental principles of human rights and constitutional
freedom and equality.

  A country which claims in its constitution (or otherwise) that everybody
is equal before the law, but at the same time applies law differently on
different groups of people based eg. on background, has a double standard.

  Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
of a "minority" is a double standard and, as said, contradictory with the
fundamental principle of equality.

> If that minority is more vulnerable.

  More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?

  Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
standard.

  (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?
There was once an article, I think it was on a major British newspaper
website, that over 50% of the population of the UK belongs to a protected
minority. Ironically this means that less than 50% of the population
belongs to the sector that gets no special protection from the law,
making them effectively a minority themselves.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 20/12/2010 11:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>
>> Maybe it is just Hollanders that do not have a sense of
>> history. ;-)
>>
>
> I think it is much broader them just the main cities in the west. Ask a
> Dutchman to cite a bit of Joost van den Vondel and you probably have to
> explain that he is for Dutch literature what Shakespeare is for the
> English. Ask to name the Dutch Nobel prize winner at the beginning of
> the 20th century 'were there any?'.

I'm sure that the same goes, here.

> In short: I am Dutch, I can't cite any Dutch poems or other literature,
> I don't know any influential Dutch people from before I was born outside
> my own field, I assume that the industrial revolution started in
> England,

We think so but prefer to say it started in Britian. :-P

> I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two
> centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.
>

They both had a profound influence on British culture and history so we 
know a bit about them.

> In my experience English people often know more from Dutch history than
> we do.

That could be that the Brits you have met took the trouble to find out 
about the country they were visiting. I did when I worked for Philips in 
Eindhoven and did the same in other countries. The only exception was 
when I was working in Zagreb, I thought it best not to know :-)

> I know other countries are also in the process of loosing
> historical knowledge in the young generation.

True. :-(

> Yet I think are still
> better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it.
> (Or have we?)

Do you?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2010 11:07, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 20-12-2010 21:48, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of
>>>> people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole
>>>> group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not
>>>> racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened
>>>> to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would
>>>> be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what
>>>> he does.
>>>> The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on
>>>> freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of
>>>> speech.
>>>
>>>     Good to see you are not prejudiced in the least.
>
>> I try not to be, indeed. (unless you meant it cynical, in which case I
>> would be interested to know on which side my prejudices are)
>
>    I was referring to your *assertion* that he was "trying to provoke
> violence" etc, as if it was a given and something clear to everybody, in
> the same vein as if someone had broken a window with twenty eyewitnesses
> and five security cameras clearly testifying about it without any possible
> doubt. It sounded like you were saying "he did that, and the only remaining
> question is if he should be punished and how much".
>
>    There are many other reasons why someone would publish a critique of
> a phenomenon (regardless of whether that critique is accurate or not, or
> whether it's presented in a misleading way or not, either intentionally
> or not). Outright claiming "it was made to provoke violence" is prejudice.

When I read your remark I realized that I did something that I should 
not do in a conversation with you. I deliberately overstated and added 
'just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of speech'. Which was 
intended as a signal that I also don't believe what I wrote in the 
preceding paragraph. From previous experience I should have known that 
you are likely to miss that, so I should not have done that, my 
apologies for that.

To be clear: what I wrote is what some people believe, e.g. the ones 
that wanted to prosecute Wilders. It does not reflect what I think.

>> In general the majority in a country has to be able to get more
>> criticism than a minority.
>
>    That's an interesting assertion, and something I don't necessarily fully
> agree with. The main reason why I don't fully agree with it is because it
> is contradictory with the basic tenet of equal rights: Everybody should have
> the same rights and duties regardless of background, ethnicity, sexual
> orientation, and so on. Everybody should be judged equally before the law.
> This is one of the fundamental principles of human rights and constitutional
> freedom and equality.
>
>    A country which claims in its constitution (or otherwise) that everybody
> is equal before the law, but at the same time applies law differently on
> different groups of people based eg. on background, has a double standard.
>
>    Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
> of a "minority" is a double standard and, as said, contradictory with the
> fundamental principle of equality.

I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for 
philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.

>> If that minority is more vulnerable.
>
>    More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?

physical violence, economic exclusion, that sort of thing.

>    Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
> to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
> minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
> standard.
>
>    (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?

In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
Only if there is no democracy and the ruling class is a minority a 
majority needs protection. A situation that happens in various places in 
this world an in such a context people might refer to the larger group 
as a minority, which would confuse nobody except the nerd.

> There was once an article, I think it was on a major British newspaper
> website, that over 50% of the population of the UK belongs to a protected
> minority. Ironically this means that less than 50% of the population
> belongs to the sector that gets no special protection from the law,
> making them effectively a minority themselves.)

Women as a group have less access to resources than men. That is why 
they are generally considered a 'minority' that might need special 
protection. So even without immigrants and homosexuals, and with no 
other religion than the state religion, male chauvinist pigs are always 
a numerical minority even though they are the sociological majority.

I think you are also assuming that being a minority is a property of a 
person and not of the context.

If you read something like what you refer to from that paper, be 
careful. It might be a convert attempt to justify current discriminatory 
practices.

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2010 14:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2010 11:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe it is just Hollanders that do not have a sense of
>>> history. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I think it is much broader them just the main cities in the west. Ask a
>> Dutchman to cite a bit of Joost van den Vondel and you probably have to
>> explain that he is for Dutch literature what Shakespeare is for the
>> English. Ask to name the Dutch Nobel prize winner at the beginning of
>> the 20th century 'were there any?'.
>
> I'm sure that the same goes, here.
>
>> In short: I am Dutch, I can't cite any Dutch poems or other literature,
>> I don't know any influential Dutch people from before I was born outside
>> my own field, I assume that the industrial revolution started in
>> England,
>
> We think so but prefer to say it started in Britian. :-P

Actually it didn't. It started with windmills in the area that I live in ;)

>> I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two
>> centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.
>>
>
> They both had a profound influence on British culture and history so we
> know a bit about them.

See, precisely my point. (only I meant the first one, the founder of our 
dynasty, so it might not be my point. But I do not know which William is 
the one that you probably mean, so I win in the end)

>> In my experience English people often know more from Dutch history than
>> we do.
>
> That could be that the Brits you have met took the trouble to find out
> about the country they were visiting. I did when I worked for Philips in
> Eindhoven and did the same in other countries. The only exception was
> when I was working in Zagreb, I thought it best not to know :-)
>
>> I know other countries are also in the process of loosing
>> historical knowledge in the young generation.
>
> True. :-(
>
>> Yet I think are still
>> better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it.
>> (Or have we?)
>
> Do you?

how can I know? I know nothing about what happened in the past. [go back 
to 20/12/2010 23:27 and repeat].

Post a reply to this message

On 21/12/2010 3:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 21-12-2010 14:47, Stephen wrote:
>> On 20/12/2010 11:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>>>

>>
>> We think so but prefer to say it started in Britian. :-P
>
> Actually it didn't. It started with windmills in the area that I live in ;)


That’s a moot point as windmills were used in Europe in the 12th century 
long before the industrial revolution. And to add insult to injury, the 
fantail which turns the windmill into the wind was invented by an 
Englishman in 1745.

>
>>> I cannot date when William of Orange lived to within one or two
>>> centuries, Napoleon wasn't that a French general? etc.
>>>
>>
>> They both had a profound influence on British culture and history so we
>> know a bit about them.
>
> See, precisely my point. (only I meant the first one, the founder of our
> dynasty, so it might not be my point. But I do not know which William is
> the one that you probably mean, so I win in the end)

I meant William III or King Billy not William the silent. And if you 
know which one I meant then you refute your point hence I win.

>>
>>> Yet I think are still
>>> better than the others because we have a much longer experience with it.
>>> (Or have we?)
>>
>> Do you?
>
> how can I know? I know nothing about what happened in the past. [go back
> to 20/12/2010 23:27 and repeat].
>

I must admit to making an assumption with what you wrote as it did not 
make complete sense. I assumed that you meant “Yet I think [we, the 
Dutch]  are still better than the others because we have a much longer 
experience with it [history]. (Or have we?)”

Or you might have meant "we", older people.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
> of a "minority" is a double standard 

Not necessarily. If the minority of 10 people say something that offends 
10,000 people, should they be punished 1000 times as much as if the 10,000 
people say something that offends the 10 people?

In other words, it doesn't come down to "lenient" or "strict" unless someone 
gets offended. If I criticize you in a way that doesn't upset you, we don't 
have this sort of conversation.

But if I issue criticism that offends some people, I'm much more likely to 
offend someone in a "majority" than a "minority."  I might say something 
that offends some minority of which there are 5000 who might hear it, take 
offense, and complain about it. Or I might say something equally offensive 
that any of 100million people might hear, take offense, and complain about. 
If there's a 0.001% chance of anyone being sufficiently offended as to take 
it to court, then guess which criticism is treated more strictly?

So, basically, I think you have to count the number of people who might be 
offended in with the severity of the offense to make any sense out of 
"strict" or "lenient".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for 
> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.

  Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)

  Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.

  The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
(Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)

> >> If that minority is more vulnerable.
> >
> >    More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?

> physical violence, economic exclusion, that sort of thing.

  Basically what you are suggesting is that the solution to violence and
discrimination is censorship: Limiting people's freedom of speech when
it happens to be criticism of a minority.

  Well. I don't believe that the ultimate solution to violence and
discrimination is censorship. Double standards are not the answer. That
only fights the symptoms, not the core problem. In fact, oftentimes it
*aggravates* the symptoms rather than removing them.

> >    Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
> > to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
> > minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
> > standard.
> >
> >    (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?

> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 

  *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
necessary?

  As I said, double standards, besides being hypocrisy, are only fighting
symptoms (sometimes even just perceived symptoms), not the core problems.
A working society should need any double standards.

  (And here when I'm talking about "a minority that requires special
protection" I'm referring to otherwise completely normal and abled
people whose only difference to the "majority" is inconsequential with
respect to their role in society, such as eg. ethnicity, background or
sexual orientation. Of course there are people who need special treatment
because of practical reasons, eg. because of being handicapped. I'm not
talking about those.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
> > of a "minority" is a double standard 

> Not necessarily. If the minority of 10 people say something that offends 
> 10,000 people, should they be punished 1000 times as much as if the 10,000 
> people say something that offends the 10 people?

  No. The severity of "hate speech" (however you want to define it) and the
punishment imposed should be completely independent of the size of the
group of people being targeted.

  There's not only a logical reason for that, but also a practical one.
The practical reason is that if some group is an "acceptable target" for
heavy criticism while other groups get special protection, that will only
cause resentment and animosity, aggravating the underlying problem.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
> 
>   *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
> necessary?

I would think this is obvious. If you have a pure democracy, you have two 
wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Even in the USA's limited democracy (i.e., constitutional republic sort of 
democracy), it took a war to get the voting majority to let the minority 
have their say.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
>>> of a "minority" is a double standard 
> 
>> Not necessarily. If the minority of 10 people say something that offends 
>> 10,000 people, should they be punished 1000 times as much as if the 10,000 
>> people say something that offends the 10 people?
> 
>   No. The severity of "hate speech" (however you want to define it) and the
> punishment imposed should be completely independent of the size of the
> group of people being targeted.
> 
>   There's not only a logical reason for that, but also a practical one.
> The practical reason is that if some group is an "acceptable target" for
> heavy criticism while other groups get special protection, that will only
> cause resentment and animosity, aggravating the underlying problem.
> 

I feel you've missed the point I was making, which is that if your hate 
speech targets a sufficiently powerful majority, you're going to get slapped 
around for much milder hate speech than if your hate speech targets a much 
smaller weaker minority.

Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford 
lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
> > 
> >   *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
> > necessary?

> I would think this is obvious. If you have a pure democracy, you have two 
> wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

  Bad example. You seem to be arguing that a wolf eating the other wolf
is ok, only a wolf eating the sheep is bad, and hence the sheep requires
special protection.

  The law should be the same for everybody. Subject A eating subject B is
illegal, regardless of who A and B are. In fact, having a double standard
here would be the horrendously bad thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford 
> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?

  That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.

  I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
regardless of income. (Also, I don't know how it's there, but here if
you win you don't pay anything. The loser pays the winner's lawyer fees.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
>> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
>
>    Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
> politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
> society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
> inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
> people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)

I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the 
majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.

>    Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
> you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
> democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
> we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
>
>    The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
> society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
> (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)

It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.

>>>> If that minority is more vulnerable.
>>>
>>>     More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?
>
>> physical violence, economic exclusion, that sort of thing.
>
>    Basically what you are suggesting is that the solution to violence and
> discrimination is censorship: Limiting people's freedom of speech when
> it happens to be criticism of a minority.

Not even close. So much off that I even hesitate to respond.
But let me put it this way: when I say that all christians are 
pedophiles everybody knows that is not true and it won't affect their 
attitude against any christian that they meet. When I say that all 
muslims are thieves and potential terrorists then that is just as much 
nonsense but it might affect people. Simply because of the fact that 
most people mainly meet people that are alike. So most people from the 
majority know almost exclusively people from that majority. The only way 
they 'meet' minorities is in the papers when someone from that minority 
commits a crime. Hence it is too easy to believe my bogus claim. 
Therefore you have to be more careful when speaking about a minority 
that about a majority. You can of course say what is true, but you 
should avoid half truths cherry picking and white lies to make a point, 
if that point is negative for the whole group. (You should never treat a 
person as just a representative of a group in stead of as an individual, 
but that is obvious).
If you ever wondered why even the most die hard xenophobes say of people 
from abroad that they know personally: sure all ... are ..., but not 
this one. This is why.
People from a minority in general know relatively more from the 
majority, so there the problem is not so great. Though there are closely 
knit minorities with all sorts of strange ideas about how the majority 
thinks. It is from these groups that sometimes things are said and 
written that also leads to prosecution for hate mongering. (which is a 
limitation to free speech here).

I have in this discussion never used the words 'censorship' or 
'criticism' and would prefer it if you also don't use them, especially 
when explaining what you think I have said. I don't want another endless 
discussion about straw man arguments.

>    Well. I don't believe that the ultimate solution to violence and
> discrimination is censorship. Double standards are not the answer. That
> only fights the symptoms, not the core problem. In fact, oftentimes it
> *aggravates* the symptoms rather than removing them.
>
>>>     Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
>>> to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
>>> minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
>>> standard.
>>>
>>>     (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?
>
>> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does.
>
>    *Why* does the minority need special protection?

because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as 
that.

> Why are double standards necessary?

I would not call them 'double standards', you do. That is probably a 
reflection of our different understanding of how a society works. Let's 
leave it at that.

>    As I said, double standards, besides being hypocrisy, are only fighting
> symptoms (sometimes even just perceived symptoms), not the core problems.
> A working society should need any double standards.
>
>    (And here when I'm talking about "a minority that requires special
> protection" I'm referring to otherwise completely normal and abled
> people whose only difference to the "majority" is inconsequential with
> respect to their role in society, such as eg. ethnicity, background or
> sexual orientation. Of course there are people who need special treatment
> because of practical reasons, eg. because of being handicapped. I'm not
> talking about those.)
>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
>>>   *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
>>> necessary?
> 
>> I would think this is obvious. If you have a pure democracy, you have two 
>> wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
> 
>   Bad example. You seem to be arguing that a wolf eating the other wolf
> is ok, only a wolf eating the sheep is bad, and hence the sheep requires
> special protection.

No, I'm arguing that the majority will vote to take advantage of the 
minority without additional protections the majority can't overrule.

>   The law should be the same for everybody. 

Sure. Let's make it the law that you can't criticize islam, and the penalty 
is death. Fair, right? Very democratic. The law is the same for everyone, 
muslims and christians and atheists alike.

Again, the point I'm trying to make is that a minority with less power needs 
more ability to defend itself than a majority with a great amount of power 
needs to defend itself against a small minority.

Now, you may simply disagree with that, but I haven't seen you give any good 
arguments beyond assertions, and I'm not sure that you're disagreeing as 
opposed to misunderstanding me.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford 
>> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?
> 
>   That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. You're talking about abstract 
rights, in which case yes I agree. I'm talking about the reality of the 
situation in which there's often a lack of justice due to the way the system 
works.

It would be nice if the legal system were set up in such a way that everyone 
is equally protected. But it's not. Hell, our previous president has 
confessed in writing to committing war crimes and knowingly violating the 
constitution, and nobody is even going to look into it, let alone punish him 
for it.

>   I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
> regardless of income. 

Only for crimes. Which is to say, only when you're accused by the government 
itself of breaking some law for which the punishment might be jail time.

If you get sued by some company for copyright infringement (to pull an 
example out of the air), you have to pay for your own lawyer.

 > (Also, I don't know how it's there, but here if
> you win you don't pay anything. The loser pays the winner's lawyer fees.)

It depends on the details of the case and what you're accused of and etc. 
Basically, there has to be something in the law books that say you get 
lawyer fees, and it's not a global kind of default that you do.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message