This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Nastiness and Hate in the Wake of a Tragedy
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
This justifies wars for "democracy" like Libya, too. And while I am at it.... Who allowed Americans to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and represent democracy on this planet? The person, whose actions we are discussing, is not open-minded and democratic, therefore, until U.S gets rid of people like him, they have no right to interfere in the domestic issue of any other country, under premise of "bringing the democracy"
Way to completely miss the point. My point is, unless you want to be unable to say what you want rather than what the government wants you to say (let's say in a dystopian Orwellian type of setting, here), you shouldn't argue that we need less freedom of speech, as that's a slippery slope. Furthermore, I
don't
agree with the fact Gaddafi was killed, it sets a tone that doesn't seem overly democratic and just for the new Libya. I've never justified the intervention in Afghanistan, or particularly Iraq. So, what was your point again?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
O.K. English is not my first language, cut me some slack. To your explanation, I would like to say that this "slippery slope" concept is questionable. If we just limit racists, sexist and any other comments plus publicizing secret governmental papers, it is hard to slip from there. And I don't mean ban, but severe fines and community service.
And I am sorry.
No it's not. And if a controlling Dictatorship emerges in your country, when you've already begun the process of signing your civil liberty away? That's what I mean about a slippery slope. The government could decide to ban anything that they don't want to be talked about, say criticism of the way the country's being ran. Furthermore, it's not realistic to monitor every single person's actions, and that would be one hell of a start to a totalitarian regime. I know this is an exaggeration, but it puts my point into context quite clearly. Never ask for somebody, regardless of who they are, to be treated in a way you would disagree with being treated, because that could be used as a precedent used to treat you in the future.
Furthermore, sometimes secret government papers
do
need to be released. 22 years later, after suspecting a cover up, families of the victims of Hillsborough disaster (an event where during a football game, 96 LFC fans died due to overcrowding) are still asking for papers on an investigation into the event to be released in full. Why should they be denied that information?
Post by
138532
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Disgutsting. Yet, that's all America is about...
What? That comment is no better than the comment the teacher made.
Well, America really isn't know for it's tolerance, is all I'm trying to say.
Are you American? If not then you are just stating what you learn from the media. The media in any country isn't always very reliable. They usually only give one side.
You are giving one side too...
And where did I do that? I am just pointing out that you appear to be making media driven assumptions.
And so do you.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
138532
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
Google: Uzbekistan. That is where I am from. I am just saying. And this disaster thing... if it is kept secret, it supposed to stay secret. If you don't think that is right, then, move out, or overthrow government and unearth every secret you want and see what it will start...
And it's never crossed your mind that information can be withheld to try and save face, rather than because that is what is best for the country? And why are those two my only options? I live in a pretty free and stable country (UK), so why should I have to leave rather than use my civil rights to do what I think is right? It comes across that you have too much faith in politicians, which are consummate liars by profession.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
You elected those politicians. So, you used your civil right, already. So, again, if government withholds something from you, it is your fault.
Wrong. I don't believe in the policy of legitimate reprisals: the citizens of the country *do not* deserve their Government. Even if they are complicit in paying tax (and using that argument, Americans have paid for the death of 100 000 Iraqis in less than a decade), the citizens should not be targeted or blamed as a result.
Not to mention that almost every poll shows that the majority of Americans are in agreement on most issues when they're explained to them (such as healthcare, war and education) but the goal of the media and politicians is to defraud voters as to political platforms, base campaigns on non-issues and when they're forced to express a concrete opinion on an issue, ensure that it is an issue that is essentially insubstantial to the continued survival of most Americans.
This argument would hold a modicum of credibility if politicians were voted in under proportional representation and every issue on their platform went to referendum. Even then, there's still the "two wrongs" fallacy, where just because people voted for bad politicians doesn't mean they don't deserve to speak freely about the crimes of their politicians (as wikileaks does).
Not to mention that America's commitment to freedom of speech is the best argument against Azazel's comment.
Those arguing against freedom of speech are in the absurd position that if their wishes were fulfilled, they may be the first to be silenced and their death and oppression would probably go unreported.
Anyway, what argument do you have against your country? Why do you think it got that way? Do you have any evidence for that statement and where did you get that evidence? What right have you to criticise your country or anyone else's country, for that matter?
These aren't rhetorical questions. Well, they are in one sense. I want you to think about the answers.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
And so do you.
Yeah OK.
After growing up hearing my grandfather talking about the joy of growing up in a communist country and then seeing people who have probably never been to America painting all Americans with the " that's all America is about..." paintbrush.
All I did was point out the prejudice of the comment. How would someone not form America come to such a conclusion? I guess I just assumed it was from the media outlets in their country.
Open your mind.
I love how the moment I question your view, you flipped out and started yelling about how I need to open my mind.
Did I ever do anything to suggest my mind may be closed?
Post by
Sweetscot
How does "freedom of speech" get drug into it anyway? A teacher has all the free speech they want, they won't go to jail for being a bigot d-bag...but they might get fired for it. Nowhere does freedom of speech say that you can say whatever horrible thing you want and still keep your job if your employer finds out and wants to fire you for it. Especially if your job entails working with children and teens who are impressionable by nature.
People also need to get it through their heads that facebook is a PUBLIC place, do not post anything there that you do not want people to know...very simple. Would this same person walk out into a grocery store and carry on a loud conversation on the phone containing these same comments? No? Then they shouldn't post it on fb.
Post by
gamerunknown
My country has the same president for almost two decades. But, I still love it that way. I have nothing against it.
What if the government decided that your parents or cousins or brothers or friends were enemies of the state and arrested them, tortured them and killed them without a trial? You're viewing subversive material right now, maybe you constitute an internal threat. Better to be safe than sorry, right?
There are problems, everyone knows about them, but no one complains about their civil rights suppression.
Actually, there was an uprising in 2005 (reported by the international media - speaking freely in a manner that the Uzbek government would oppose) that was violently suppressed. People do complain, they just get tortured and killed.
I am afraid that someone will come and bring "freedom" there with guns and bombs. I am afraid that Libyan crisis will be repeated, because some people cannot understand that they cannot intervene in other countries internal matters. And please, let's keep it away from international issues and "democratic" wars, we might get this thread locked.
I doubt it, I've only ever seen a thread locked here due to several pages of ad hominem remarks or baiting comments despite repeated warnings by the mods to desist, or if the OP broke one of the forum rules. Besides, it's a bit of a cop-out to respond then say that any further responses aren't merited. The criterion for invading a foreign country and deposing its leader (according to the UN) are listed
here
. Uzbekistan wouldn't qualify, but it does have a PPP lower than Iraq and a life expectancy lower than North Korea.
I don't demand that freedom of speech should be eliminated, just monitored in case someone really crosses the line. Implement punishments for those who use freedom as cover for their own bigotry.
I think the speech of the government should be monitored even more closely than that of the people. Lloyd George for example: " At Geneva other countries would have agreed not to use aeroplanes for bombing purposes, but we insisted on reserving the right, as D. puts it, to bomb... ". Or Theodore Roosevelt: ""I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
1. Our government does not do that, unless you present the danger to the regime. Yet. So, if we keep low, we are fine.
Except they're perfectly capable of defining anyone they want as a danger to the regime and making sure they're never seen again. You probably don't consider yourself a danger to the regime, but should you be killed by them, your pro-Communist or fascist tendencies and predilection for animal abuse would surface - that's if the government even bothers to acknowledge your death, let alone come up with some barely even plausible propaganda for why it was necessary.
2. What media did not report was that the uprising was funded from outside. I have no idea who did that. But, rebels (I don't know better word for that) had firearms, which is hard to come by in my country. So, someone gave them guns and told to do that. Besides, investigation show that majority of them were drug addicts. Easy to manipulate by waving drugs in front of them.
Or maybe the official channels wanted to justify their violent suppression of a native democratic movement by demonising them enough that the propaganda becomes internal. When that occurs, the state doesn't even have to lift a finger, the meme of "violent subversives" becomes ingrained and the citizen becomes obedient.
3. I am good with continuing this debate, I am just afraid we might derail it enough for the lock. About your video, though, it justifies Iraq, barely justifies Afghanistan, but does not justify Libyan intervention. There was no genocide, only a civil war, so therefore no one had right to intervene from outside.
Libya would qualify on 2 and 3, harbouring international terrorists and repeatedly instigating wars with its neighbours. It's a little unctuous of the West to reverse their Bush/Blair pact with Gaddafi so violently though.
Edit: Sodomy is illegal in Uzbekistan. If I were gay, I'd far rather live in a country where a teacher can avoid prison for mocking the dead and where I could avoid prison for having sex with the consenting adult that I love than the inverse.
Post by
Meggie
I recall the state of Texas being punished by federal government for raiding gay couple homes with a police force. This happened in the mid 1990s, only 15 years ago.
Somewhat longer ago, I recall state enforced race separation as late as the 1970s.
The mid-west is one of the most retarded "white" regions in the world.
Post by
Interest
Sums up my reaction.
Also, that guy best get fired.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.