EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
| ||
|
SlammerIV
United States526 Posts
On October 03 2017 11:54 MoonfireSpam wrote: Their words only condemn them if they aren't listened to by fucktards. All of those dregs of humanity are in some way created / encouraged by each other in some kind of silly circle jerk which is the "harm". That is still besides the point, how can it EVER be O.K. for a the government to imprison someone or shoot them if the resist for expressing an opinion differing from the majority group think? | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
On October 03 2017 11:33 SlammerIV wrote: Read my response above for rationale. Also I am not sure why your are bringing up the harmful racial/religious insults, I do not get the connection. I would quickly say that outlawing any speech is in my opinion VERY dangerous as basically that means if the majority decide something is "hate speech" they can than than oppress the minority opinion creating a culture of group think. Yea I never knew about the whole protection against government thingy. Personally think this is outdated and like you said, civilians probably stand little chance against the military anyway. Time to be pragmatic perhaps? As for the hate speech part, Singapore has primarily 3 races - Chinese, Malay and Indians. We also have mainly 4 religions - Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism. In a small country with a multiracial and multireligious community, we interact a lot with people of different groups in our everyday lives. That's why the country has to manage the relations between religious/racial groups. Tensions will affect everyone of us in our everyday activities. We have had a history of racial riots before, efforts are made to prevent it from happening again. It's a misconception that it means opinions on other races/religions are not allowed. You can express opinions on why Christians tithing makes no sense, or that Muslim women should not wear Hijab/Burka in public spaces. You can say that the Chinese should not burn incense in the streets because of pollution. What you cannot do is insult the religion itself, like drawing the Prophet sucking Jesus dick, or calling Indians to be dirty black thrash etc. So yes if 30%, 50%, 60% of your speech is hate speech, then yes you can be prosecuted. Constructive opinions are welcome, insults are not OK. I don't see how this is any different from other speeches meant to convince. You do not simply accuse someone to be corrupt or evil without evidence. But if you were to present arguments that may point to that direction, it is perfectly fine. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 03 2017 12:02 SlammerIV wrote: That is still besides the point, how can it EVER be O.K. for a the government to imprison someone or shoot them if the resist for expressing an opinion differing from the majority group think? Is this a parody? | ||
|
SlammerIV
United States526 Posts
On October 03 2017 12:24 DucK- wrote: Yea I never knew about the whole protection against government thingy. Personally think this is outdated and like you said, civilians probably stand little chance against the military anyway. Time to be pragmatic perhaps? As for the hate speech part, Singapore has primarily 3 races - Chinese, Malay and Indians. We also have mainly 4 religions - Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism. In a small country with a multiracial and multireligious community, we interact a lot with people of different groups in our everyday lives. That's why the country has to manage the relations between religious/racial groups. Tensions will affect everyone of us in our everyday activities. We have had a history of racial riots before, efforts are made to prevent it from happening again. It's a misconception that it means opinions on other races/religions are not allowed. You can express opinions on why Christians tithing makes no sense, or that Muslim women should not wear Hijab/Burka in public spaces. You can say that the Chinese should not burn incense in the streets because of pollution. What you cannot do is insult the religion itself, like drawing the Prophet sucking Jesus dick, or calling Indians to be dirty black thrash etc. So yes if 30%, 50%, 60% of your speech is hate speech, then yes you can be prosecuted. Constructive opinions are welcome, insults are not OK. I don't see how this is any different from other speeches meant to convince. You do not simply accuse someone to be corrupt or evil without evidence. But if you were to present arguments that may point to that direction, it is perfectly fine. Fair enough, I think if you curtail speech like that you better have some strict limitations in place, such as limiting the law to very specific types of insulting speech. The problem we are having in Canada and the US is the that the situation you described is being used to shut down debate over issues like abortion, immigration and gay rights issues. | ||
|
SlammerIV
United States526 Posts
I take it you feel this is an acceptable role of government, deciding what opinions are allowed? I disagree. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8648 Posts
the "right" to freedom is imo, a privilege that many people seem to take for granted and have a sense of entitlement to. historically individuals in ancient and modern civilisations have never been completely free and for good reason. to me the US is the only country that uses the term "freedom" like its their god given right and national pride, unlike many other developed countries that have stricter restrictions on various topics in comparison to the US. imo governments (the US in particular) are going to have to realise that the granting citizens the "right" to freedom for whatever may actually be impacting the "right" to safety for citizens, exactly because of my first paragraph. having complete freedom is nothing but a fantasy and a false sense of entitlement. governments exist for a reason and civilisation has evolved with laws and regulations in place because the general population cannot and should not be entrusted to make good decisions for themselves and for the rest of society. i dont think anyone is suggesting that any additional laws and regulations will bring about optimal results instantly, but its about taking action and developing a culture and understanding within society. most countries with bans on gun ownership dont have lower gun violence and death stats simply due to the regulations, everyone who lives in the country have an understanding ingrained into their brain that guns are not part of their country's culture. america may wish to hold on to that because of its history and the enjoyment some people find out of that particular 'sport', but you have to consider at what cost you are keeping that culture alive. | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong but NYT stated it openly that Mandalay Bay Securty didn't check culprit's baggage he was bringing into his private room at all (23 guns in 10 baggages! and not a single one of them, it's absurd!) simply because he was sort of VIP/regular client. Well, this sounds exactly like a billion dollars case for the court in my mind. It's not really about guns, it's the highlight of the opposite effect: well-prepared psychopaths can wait for years and will easily bypass extensive checking or even obtain the rifles illegally because that's what they are determined to do. If lazy security officers allow to bring all the deadly arsenal to the public places, the tragedies will continue. I am eagerly awaiting statements from MGM CEO and hope the hotel managers would take all the responsibility up to a public sentence because I am pretty damn sure they violated their own security code. 99% times nothing happens, people get lenient and then bam, it turned out strict rules are written for a reason. It's kind of cynically symbolic that kind of thing could only have happened in Las-Vegas. Multi-billion real estate dream industry where customer service goes beyond imaginable. In my eyes, It will be justified if someone paid for the criminal security breach which led to a nations biggest gun massacre with something worth a little bit more than a finished career. The guy might as well brought a kilos of C-4 and blow the whole place up to pieces because someone decided he isn't requred to check guest's luggage anymore, but let's blame guns anyways. | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
On October 03 2017 18:39 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Let's abort a gun control discussion for a moment. Correct me if I am wrong but NYT stated it openly that Mandalay Bay Securty didn't check culprit's baggage he was bringing into his private room at all (23 guns in 10 baggages! and not a single one of them, it's absurd!) simply because he was sort of VIP/regular client. Well, this sounds exactly like a billion dollars case for the court in my mind. It's not really about guns, it's the highlight of the opposite effect: well-prepared psychopaths can wait for years and will easily bypass extensive checking or even obtain the rifles illegally because that's what they are determined to do. If lazy security officers allow to bring all the deadly arsenal to the public places, the tragedies will continue. I am eagerly awaiting statements from MGM CEO and hope the hotel managers would take all the responsibility up to a public sentence because I am pretty damn sure they violated their own security code. 99% times nothing happens, people get lenient and then bam, it turned out strict rules are written for a reason. It's kind of cynically symbolic that kind of thing could only have happened in Las-Vegas. Multi-billion real estate dream industry where customer service goes beyond imaginable. In my eyes, It will be justified if someone paid for the criminal security breach which led to a nations biggest gun massacre with something worth a little bit more than a finished career. The guy might as well brought a kilos of C-4 and blow the whole place up to pieces because someone decided he isn't requred to check guest's luggage anymore, but let's blame guns anyways. Just wondering, is it standard procedure for luggages to be checked in hotels in USA/Vegas? From my own experience from visiting many countries, I never once had to have my luggage checked. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44276 Posts
On October 03 2017 19:15 DucK- wrote: Just wondering, is it standard procedure for luggages to be checked in hotels in USA/Vegas? From my own experience from visiting many countries, I never once had to have my luggage checked. I've never had my luggage checked, ever, when walking into a hotel. Only when boarding planes. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8648 Posts
On October 03 2017 18:39 ForTehDarkseid wrote: Let's abort a gun control discussion for a moment. Correct me if I am wrong but NYT stated it openly that Mandalay Bay Securty didn't check culprit's baggage he was bringing into his private room at all (23 guns in 10 baggages! and not a single one of them, it's absurd!) simply because he was sort of VIP/regular client. Well, this sounds exactly like a billion dollars case for the court in my mind. It's not really about guns, it's the highlight of the opposite effect: well-prepared psychopaths can wait for years and will easily bypass extensive checking or even obtain the rifles illegally because that's what they are determined to do. If lazy security officers allow to bring all the deadly arsenal to the public places, the tragedies will continue. I am eagerly awaiting statements from MGM CEO and hope the hotel managers would take all the responsibility up to a public sentence because I am pretty damn sure they violated their own security code. 99% times nothing happens, people get lenient and then bam, it turned out strict rules are written for a reason. It's kind of cynically symbolic that kind of thing could only have happened in Las-Vegas. Multi-billion real estate dream industry where customer service goes beyond imaginable. In my eyes, It will be justified if someone paid for the criminal security breach which led to a nations biggest gun massacre with something worth a little bit more than a finished career. The guy might as well brought a kilos of C-4 and blow the whole place up to pieces because someone decided he isn't requred to check guest's luggage anymore, but let's blame guns anyways. im pretty sure someones brought it up before, but its not customary for hotels to screen bags unless they have a specific reason to increase their security (political conference, for example). im not even sure if hotels are legally allowed to check bags tbh | ||
|
dankobanana
Croatia237 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 03 2017 12:44 SlammerIV wrote: I take it you feel this is an acceptable role of government, deciding what opinions are allowed? I disagree. Are you a real person? Like how is this a question? | ||
|
_fool
Netherlands677 Posts
On October 03 2017 19:49 Plansix wrote: Are you a real person? Like how is this a question? Technically it wasn't a question. A few shootings back (quite some, actually) a guy explained that guns are part of US culture, and as non-US citizens it's not our place to tell the US that they should get rid of guns even though we see huge disadvantages of having them. I think he made a fair point. So I'm mainly interested in how US citizens view this matter. Is it something that can be discussed publicly? Can you be vocal about your point of view regarding guns? Is there a taboo on being critical about gun ownership? | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8648 Posts
On October 03 2017 20:17 _fool wrote: Technically it wasn't a question. A few shootings back (quite some, actually) a guy explained that guns are part of US culture, and as non-US citizens it's not our place to tell the US that they should get rid of guns even though we see huge disadvantages of having them. I think he made a fair point. So I'm mainly interested in how US citizens view this matter. Is it something that can be discussed publicly? Can you be vocal about your point of view regarding guns? Is there a taboo on being critical about gun ownership? i remember seeing this point brought up before in this thread also. what an absolute load of shit lol i would actually be in hysterics if he also thought the US was justified in going to war or conducting military interventions in the middle east despite the countries not wanting it. as for your other questions i think if you read back youll find your answers. from memory opinions were divided even amongst US citizens | ||
|
Zrana1
Netherlands45 Posts
If no guns = people don't get shot If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). | ||
|
sCuMBaG
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On October 03 2017 20:57 Zrana1 wrote: How can opinions be divided? If no guns = people don't get shot If you think random members of the public should be allowed to carry devices specifically designed to kill or severely injure at long range with the twitch of a finger, you are saying that it's OK for people to get shot a lot. Because that's what will happen (is happening). exactly. and the whole "right to bear arms" crap to protect yourself/your home - why on earth would you need fully automatic weapons for that. it's way way too easy to get a gun in the us anyways. It is not fully gun laws, it is partly mentality and culture as well though. Just looking at Canada or Switzerland (any Swiss person who completed their military service takes their service gun home - so gun to population ratio is really high), the amount of guns around is quite similar, but gun violence is so much lower - it completely baffles me. Apparently there are countries in which gun ownership works well - but history has shown time and time again, that Americans just can't fucking handle owning guns. | ||
|
yB.TeH
Germany414 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
On October 03 2017 20:17 _fool wrote: Technically it wasn't a question. A few shootings back (quite some, actually) a guy explained that guns are part of US culture, and as non-US citizens it's not our place to tell the US that they should get rid of guns even though we see huge disadvantages of having them. I think he made a fair point. So I'm mainly interested in how US citizens view this matter. Is it something that can be discussed publicly? Can you be vocal about your point of view regarding guns? Is there a taboo on being critical about gun ownership? The NRA and its role as lobbyist bully should be front and center if one wants to understand why Americans have been tricked into thinking that clutching their weapons is an American thing to do. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 03 2017 17:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: at some point citizens and governments alike have to realise that you cant let everyone have their own way. the truth is there is a very good number of people who are simply too ignorant, stupid, uneducated, mentally disabled or genuinely bad to be entrusted with complete freedom and free will. the "right" to freedom is imo, a privilege that many people seem to take for granted and have a sense of entitlement to. historically individuals in ancient and modern civilisations have never been completely free and for good reason. to me the US is the only country that uses the term "freedom" like its their god given right and national pride, unlike many other developed countries that have stricter restrictions on various topics in comparison to the US. imo governments (the US in particular) are going to have to realise that the granting citizens the "right" to freedom for whatever may actually be impacting the "right" to safety for citizens, exactly because of my first paragraph. having complete freedom is nothing but a fantasy and a false sense of entitlement. governments exist for a reason and civilisation has evolved with laws and regulations in place because the general population cannot and should not be entrusted to make good decisions for themselves and for the rest of society. i dont think anyone is suggesting that any additional laws and regulations will bring about optimal results instantly, but its about taking action and developing a culture and understanding within society. most countries with bans on gun ownership dont have lower gun violence and death stats simply due to the regulations, everyone who lives in the country have an understanding ingrained into their brain that guns are not part of their country's culture. america may wish to hold on to that because of its history and the enjoyment some people find out of that particular 'sport', but you have to consider at what cost you are keeping that culture alive. I really love your eulogy on government regulations. Higher degrees of personal freedom are not some ethereus luxury of the United States, they are the foundation of western civilization and the reason the west has higher standard of living than the rest of the world. Seriously, you could replace government with "king" on your text and it would be exactly the same. Benjamin Franklin revolts on his grave. Moving on to your second paragraph and actual argument, could you elaborate more on your percieved "gun culture"? It makes no sense to me what you are saying. This guy went on to shoot a bunch of people because he likes gun? Instead of saying "we should regulate guns" maybe you should have actual propositions so we could discuss them. Like the ones that would stop a nutjob who had guns illegaly, from acquiring them. Personally I believe the government has a duty to take care of mentally ill people on all levels and that it should end the war on drugs. Accordingly, I would shift the budget dramatically from social security (people who can actually take care of themselves) to mental institutions and screening, and would de regulate drug usage to end gang violence. THAT would actually reduce gun violence and poverty (most bums are mentally ill people and/or drug addicts who are not taken care off) However that would probably not have prevented this particular incident, but would be great general policy. | ||
| ||
