|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 19 2016 03:39 DucK- wrote:Yep expected the replies, when I said this earlier. "Then there's the whole check and balance, democracy thingy which Americans I believe dislike their government to be wielding too much power. Who is the government to determine that this issue is for the greater good etc." Hypothetically let's say if such a sedition law is implemented. In Singapore we have exactly that in our Penal Code. Show nested quote +Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person
298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. Ignoring concerns with government oversight on such matters, I would really like to understand what the average citizen would lose out when his 'freedom' to do such stuff is removed. Please do away with the snide remarks, because I'm truly curious to know your perspectives.
the other perspective is that you grow a thick skin and not be so offended by words/art. This is a price you have to pay so that you can freely say the things you want. This is common sense for most people, unless you are highly religious it can seem foreign. Your feelings are not to be protected by the law, that's for you to take care of on your own.
|
On July 19 2016 03:49 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 03:39 DucK- wrote:Yep expected the replies, when I said this earlier. "Then there's the whole check and balance, democracy thingy which Americans I believe dislike their government to be wielding too much power. Who is the government to determine that this issue is for the greater good etc." Hypothetically let's say if such a sedition law is implemented. In Singapore we have exactly that in our Penal Code. Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person
298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. Ignoring concerns with government oversight on such matters, I would really like to understand what the average citizen would lose out when his 'freedom' to do such stuff is removed. Please do away with the snide remarks, because I'm truly curious to know your perspectives. the other perspective is that you grow a thick skin and not be so offended by words/art. This is a price you have to pay so that you can freely say the things you want. This is common sense for most people, unless you are highly religious it can seem foreign. Your feelings are not to be protected by the law, that's for you to take care of on your own.
When the government starts regulating butthurt, then we know society is doomed.
|
On July 19 2016 03:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:
As an athiest, if the USA put any law into place that said I couldn't pick on crazy religious people, I would lose my fucking mind. Religion is not sacred. It should be discussed, mocked, studied, or ignored just like anything else. Religion should absolutely not be protected, and I don't just mean because it's made up bullshit. Race on the other hand, I'm inclined to agree with. Being a racist asshole and causing problems should probably warrant a fine or something. Same should go for homophobes. Man, that would be delicious.
Yea this is pretty much how i feel about it, well said.
Religion is a choice.
|
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society.
|
There is a diffrence between outright hatespeak, satire and ridiculing something. The laws in most of europe only condemn hatespeech.
|
Discussed, studied, I agree.
Mocking? I disagree. This is what creates friction. You making fun of something I hold of utmost value. You'd feel offended if one calls your mom/wife/gf etc a whore, or if there's indecent photoshopped pictures of her in being distributed. Satire borderlines on it, because it can so easily be interpreted as an insult.
I think it's a misconception that having such laws mean you can't talk about the matter at all. The said sedition law doesn't forbid any of these. Just like any proper discussion, you lose validity and credibility if you have to resort to using insults to portray your point. A discussion/study on religion/race can be done without mockery.
On July 19 2016 03:49 biology]major wrote:
the other perspective is that you grow a thick skin and not be so offended by words/art. This is a price you have to pay so that you can freely say the things you want. This is common sense for most people, unless you are highly religious it can seem foreign. Your feelings are not to be protected by the law, that's for you to take care of on your own.
For the freedom of enjoying something you're not likely to want to use (guns, racial/religious insults etc), you pay the price of a much more volatile unsafe environment. The good old freedom vs greater good. For me I'd pick the latter always. Which is why I said I don't quite understand the Western view, and likewise you probably can't understand mine. Having lived in a country where these 'freedom' are not available to me, I don't see how my life would change one bit if I were to enjoy such liberty.
|
Honestly if you don't care about personal freedom then that is your prerogative. Don't lump the rest of us with you. Just because you don't give a shit doesn't mean that that applies to the rest of us. Honestly when I read your comments I'm wondering if you're trolling and just trying to get a negative response out of people or something.
No one is interested in going to jail for bullshit like "mockery". "Price to pay for a volatile unsafe environment" ? Get real... OK, how about this.
You're offending the motherfucking shit out of me right now. You're mocking and making fun out of something I hold of utmost value. Freedom and freedom of speech are something which I hold on to very, very much. By spouting your nonsense, you're offending the god damn shit out of me. That someone would even think like you do is offensive to me, because you want other people to abide by your rules and live under a 1984'ish society. You think I'm posting satire by saying this but I'm not, you're genuinely pissing me off.
Can you please stop derailing the topic now?
|
I hate how I am not free to produce and sell chemical and biological weapons.
|
On July 19 2016 05:34 DucK- wrote:Discussed, studied, I agree. Mocking? I disagree. This is what creates friction. You making fun of something I hold of utmost value. You'd feel offended if one calls your mom/wife/gf etc a whore, or if there's indecent photoshopped pictures of her in being distributed. Satire borderlines on it, because it can so easily be interpreted as an insult. I think it's a misconception that having such laws mean you can't talk about the matter at all. The said sedition law doesn't forbid any of these. Just like any proper discussion, you lose validity and credibility if you have to resort to using insults to portray your point. A discussion/study on religion/race can be done without mockery. Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 03:49 biology]major wrote:
the other perspective is that you grow a thick skin and not be so offended by words/art. This is a price you have to pay so that you can freely say the things you want. This is common sense for most people, unless you are highly religious it can seem foreign. Your feelings are not to be protected by the law, that's for you to take care of on your own. For the freedom of enjoying something you're not likely to want to use (guns, racial/religious insults etc), you pay the price of a much more volatile unsafe environment. The good old freedom vs greater good. For me I'd pick the latter always. Which is why I said I don't quite understand the Western view, and likewise you probably can't understand mine. Having lived in a country where these 'freedom' are not available to me, I don't see how my life would change one bit if I were to enjoy such liberty.
If i'm halfway informed your country is the one where smoking is restricted enourmously and even chewing gum isn't exactly "easy".
You talking about freedom is like me talking about having a period.
|
On July 19 2016 06:43 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 05:34 DucK- wrote:Discussed, studied, I agree. Mocking? I disagree. This is what creates friction. You making fun of something I hold of utmost value. You'd feel offended if one calls your mom/wife/gf etc a whore, or if there's indecent photoshopped pictures of her in being distributed. Satire borderlines on it, because it can so easily be interpreted as an insult. I think it's a misconception that having such laws mean you can't talk about the matter at all. The said sedition law doesn't forbid any of these. Just like any proper discussion, you lose validity and credibility if you have to resort to using insults to portray your point. A discussion/study on religion/race can be done without mockery. On July 19 2016 03:49 biology]major wrote:
the other perspective is that you grow a thick skin and not be so offended by words/art. This is a price you have to pay so that you can freely say the things you want. This is common sense for most people, unless you are highly religious it can seem foreign. Your feelings are not to be protected by the law, that's for you to take care of on your own. For the freedom of enjoying something you're not likely to want to use (guns, racial/religious insults etc), you pay the price of a much more volatile unsafe environment. The good old freedom vs greater good. For me I'd pick the latter always. Which is why I said I don't quite understand the Western view, and likewise you probably can't understand mine. Having lived in a country where these 'freedom' are not available to me, I don't see how my life would change one bit if I were to enjoy such liberty. If i'm halfway informed your country is the one where smoking is restricted enourmously and even chewing gum isn't exactly "easy". You talking about freedom is like me talking about having a period.
so we can basically all shut up and let american people talk about freedom. thats not how it works man
edit: the fact that he is from singapore may impact his views but that doesnt mean his opinion cant play a role in this discussion. im not from singapore and i would probably lean towards his view without going into every small detail it includes
|
according to some people in this thread prohibition is a-ok!
to paraphrase (since i don't remember) one of the sky news reporters during the turkey coup "if you don't have the guns, you don't have the power". it's a simple truth that people can't skirt around.
being armed is an essential hedge against coercion. if you want to volunteer your own rights that's fine, but i'd prefer to keep mine 
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On July 19 2016 05:34 DucK- wrote:
Discussed, studied, I agree.
Mocking? I disagree. This is what creates friction. You making fun of something I hold of utmost value. You'd feel offended if one calls your mom/wife/gf etc a whore, or if there's indecent photoshopped pictures of her in being distributed. Satire borderlines on it, because it can so easily be interpreted as an insult.
do u call the police because someone called u a name?
|
On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society.
France has strict gun laws.
Paris especially.
137 dead in a mass shooting last November.
Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns.
|
On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns.
Precisely. When are we going to learn that if people have malicious intent
If you don't want massacres, then what you do is not take away firearms from people, what you do is make sure they never find themselves in situations where they would WANT to commit mass murder. That's the reality of it.
That goes through, probably, education.
|
On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns.
good example. im sure guns would have changed the outcome.
just a friendly reminder: this thread is mainly used to discuss shootings that occur in a country that has lax guns laws
|
On July 19 2016 05:34 DucK- wrote:Discussed, studied, I agree. Mocking? I disagree. This is what creates friction. You making fun of something I hold of utmost value. You'd feel offended if one calls your mom/wife/gf etc a whore, or if there's indecent photoshopped pictures of her in being distributed. Satire borderlines on it, because it can so easily be interpreted as an insult. I think it's a misconception that having such laws mean you can't talk about the matter at all. The said sedition law doesn't forbid any of these. Just like any proper discussion, you lose validity and credibility if you have to resort to using insults to portray your point. A discussion/study on religion/race can be done without mockery. Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 03:49 biology]major wrote:
the other perspective is that you grow a thick skin and not be so offended by words/art. This is a price you have to pay so that you can freely say the things you want. This is common sense for most people, unless you are highly religious it can seem foreign. Your feelings are not to be protected by the law, that's for you to take care of on your own. For the freedom of enjoying something you're not likely to want to use (guns, racial/religious insults etc), you pay the price of a much more volatile unsafe environment. The good old freedom vs greater good. For me I'd pick the latter always. Which is why I said I don't quite understand the Western view, and likewise you probably can't understand mine. Having lived in a country where these 'freedom' are not available to me, I don't see how my life would change one bit if I were to enjoy such liberty.
Hivemind-mentality vs. Individualism.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns.
Today a crazy person tried to kill people in Germany. But with our moderately tight gun laws all he could get his hands on was an axe and a knife, resulting in a couple of injuries, but no deaths (except his own).
See you can come up with these examples either way.
|
On July 19 2016 10:30 dontforgetosmile wrote:according to some people in this thread prohibition is a-ok! to paraphrase (since i don't remember) one of the sky news reporters during the turkey coup "if you don't have the guns, you don't have the power". it's a simple truth that people can't skirt around. being armed is an essential hedge against coercion. if you want to volunteer your own rights that's fine, but i'd prefer to keep mine
Coercion from who? From the state? Do you really think assault rifles will do shit in a modern warfare? If you want to protect yourself against coercion, you need the right to have tanks and jet fighters in this case. Coercion from an individual? He will have a gun too, I don't see in which case being armed give you any hedge in our Western societies.
|
To be honest, promoting extreme individualism comes off as blindly egoistic and childish. Promoting "freedom" is to me a foreign idea. And no, I am not from China or Russia, but Finland. I'm not gonna go full essay on this, but rather briefly promote some of the values I hold.
Sure, it's great when you get to do what you want. But noone can ever be wholly "free". You are always related to some context, cultural, geographical, racial, social.. and so on. And why would one want to be free from all of this, float in empty space without origin or destination? Regulations are for our own good, whether we like it or not. Sure, some regulations might be perceived as bad later on, but I'm sure even those were not upheld with malicious intent.
If the world now is so primal that responding with mindless violence is the only way to not get killed, I'm willing to lose that battle. The whole gun-debate has a feel of "kids not wanting to let go off their toys" to me.
|
On July 19 2016 18:52 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2016 18:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 19 2016 03:54 Sent. wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of European countries has laws like that since decades (if not longer), I don't feel like I'm living in a doomed society. France has strict gun laws. Paris especially. 137 dead in a mass shooting last November. Still you don't really even need guns to kill massive numbers of people.We saw that with Nice last week when the madman killed 84 with a truck.We saw that with 9/11 where the hijackers used freaking box-cutters.If some crazy guy wants to kill mass numbers of people he can, guns or no guns. Today a crazy person tried to kill people in Germany. But with our moderately tight gun laws all he could get his hands on was an axe and a knife, resulting in a couple of injuries, but no deaths (except his own). See you can come up with these examples either way.
Thats a perfect example. What people dont understand about gun control its that it work trough power of numbers. Statistics. Its not a way to prevent every killing or terrorist act. Its a way to lower deaths on nation level. Some people dont kill anyone becuse they couldnt even get access to one. Some dont even commit crime becuase getting a gun is not easy and they change their mind while getting one. Or in some cases they cant even get enough money to get one.
Statistics/general level thats how gun control work - its not and should be think off as a way of preventing every crime. Gun control cannot prevent everyone from getting a gun. But it prevents some people and thats a net gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
