On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: ....I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset....
....It has to stand for freedom of thought....
I think you need to think this through a little more...
On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote: you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned. I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism. It has to stand for freedom and liberty. It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion. The equal rights of all humans.
???
No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just.
Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
Your reasoning is flawed. Lets just say there is a person who runs around claiming Hitler wasn't that bad and sympathizes with Nazis. Defends their ideology and what not. Lets say that person may have even been arrested once for something but has not yet killed any Jew or committed any act of terror.
Why shouldn't this person be arrested and reeducated?
Because that's called the thought police where you have to have people that judges what is good thinking and what is bad thinking. That's authoritarian by definition. It's easy when you take extreme example (almost) everyone agrees on, like you do. It's not on many other matters.
On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote: you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned. I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism. It has to stand for freedom and liberty. It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion. The equal rights of all humans.
???
No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just.
Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
Your reasoning is flawed. Lets just say there is a person who runs around claiming Hitler wasn't that bad and sympathizes with Nazis. Defends their ideology and what not. Lets say that person may have even been arrested once for something but has not yet killed any Jew or committed any act of terror.
Why shouldn't this person be arrested and reeducated?
Because he's committed no crime. You can't espouse "Freedom and liberty, freedom of thought, freedom of religion" then in the same breath say people should be imprisoned for thought crime. That is the absolute polar opposite of freedom of thought.
Freedom of speech is not to protect speech everyone agrees with. It is to protect the speech that no one agrees with.
On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote: you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned. I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism. It has to stand for freedom and liberty. It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion. The equal rights of all humans.
???
No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just.
Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
Your reasoning is flawed. Lets just say there is a person who runs around claiming Hitler wasn't that bad and sympathizes with Nazis. Defends their ideology and what not. Lets say that person may have even been arrested once for something but has not yet killed any Jew or committed any act of terror.
Why shouldn't this person be arrested and reeducated?
this person shouldnt be arrested and reeducated because this person hasn't done anything wrong. "evil" thoughts are not punishable under any just system of law.
On January 09 2015 09:17 ahswtini wrote: you don't see the disconnect in reasoning between
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Yes, I simply do not understand why people like this aren't just rounded up and imprisoned. I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset.
So why not just arrest and reeducate them until they no longer pose a threat at all? One of them was even arrested for his ideology?
and
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: Europe has to champion the values it learned during its age of enlightenment and rationalism. It has to stand for freedom and liberty. It has to stand for freedom of thought, freedom of religion. The equal rights of all humans.
???
No. Your reasoning is like: we must be just, therefore we won't send anyone to jail. Sending guilty people to jail IS being just.
Guilty of what though? Just having a certain ideology? Because that's what Holy_AT made it sound like.
Your reasoning is flawed. Lets just say there is a person who runs around claiming Hitler wasn't that bad and sympathizes with Nazis. Defends their ideology and what not. Lets say that person may have even been arrested once for something but has not yet killed any Jew or committed any act of terror.
Why shouldn't this person be arrested and reeducated?
Haha. Every gun show I've gone to those people have their own row of booths! I'd love to see you tell them in the parking lot that they should go to jail for what they think.
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: ....I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset....
....It has to stand for freedom of thought....
I think you need to think this through a little more...
No I think you have to give it more thoughts. For example freedom of religion and combating fundamentalism are not exclusive.
You seem to be of the opinion that there should be no exception to what ideologies should be harbored in Europe. You seem to think that it is a good idea that there are people with fundamentalists thought or fascist thoughts in Europe living free to do what ever they want?
In my opinion a line has to be drawn here. Europe can not become a harbor for the ideas of fundamentalists and other despicable ideologies all under the guise of freedom of thought or religious freedom. Freedom of thought yes, as long as they are not against the main ideas of enlightenment and rationalism. Giving freedom of thought to religious fundamentalists or fascist who oppose this very idea is just wrong.
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: ....I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset....
....It has to stand for freedom of thought....
I think you need to think this through a little more...
No I think you have to give it more thoughts. For example freedom of religion and combating fundamentalism are not exclusive.
You seem to be of the opinion that there should be no exception to what ideologies should be harbored in Europe. You seem to think that it is a good idea that there are people with fundamentalists thought or fascist thoughts in Europe living free to do what ever they want?
In my opinion a line has to be drawn here. Europe can not become a harbor for the ideas of fundamentalists and other despicable ideologies all under the guise of freedom of thought or religious freedom. Freedom of thought yes, as long as they are not against the main ideas of enlightenment and rationalism. Giving freedom of thought to religious fundamentalists or fascist who oppose this very idea is just wrong.
Freedom of thought. As long as you think like us. Otherwise arrest and reeducate!
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: ....I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset....
....It has to stand for freedom of thought....
I think you need to think this through a little more...
No I think you have to give it more thoughts. For example freedom of religion and combating fundamentalism are not exclusive.
You seem to be of the opinion that there should be no exception to what ideologies should be harbored in Europe. You seem to think that it is a good idea that there are people with fundamentalists thought or fascist thoughts in Europe living free to do what ever they want?
In my opinion a line has to be drawn here. Europe can not become a harbor for the ideas of fundamentalists and other despicable ideologies all under the guise of freedom of thought or religious freedom. Freedom of thought yes, as long as they are not against the main ideas of enlightenment and rationalism. Giving freedom of thought to religious fundamentalists or fascist who oppose this very idea is just wrong.
Freedom of thought. As long as you think like us. Otherwise arrest and reeducate!
Exactly, otherwise you are against opposing fascism and fundamentalism.
I mean freedom of though can not be taken anyways. Even if there are laws against it. But what I think is that there have to be laws against people who openly sympathize with these ideologies to show that we as a people do not agree with them.
Europe does not agree with fascism, so why not reeducate people who promote it? Europe is against religious fundamentalists, so why not outlaw it and reeducate them?
Otherwise you are just acknowledging their believes.
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: ....I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset....
....It has to stand for freedom of thought....
I think you need to think this through a little more...
No I think you have to give it more thoughts. For example freedom of religion and combating fundamentalism are not exclusive.
You seem to be of the opinion that there should be no exception to what ideologies should be harbored in Europe. You seem to think that it is a good idea that there are people with fundamentalists thought or fascist thoughts in Europe living free to do what ever they want?
In my opinion a line has to be drawn here. Europe can not become a harbor for the ideas of fundamentalists and other despicable ideologies all under the guise of freedom of thought or religious freedom. Freedom of thought yes, as long as they are not against the main ideas of enlightenment and rationalism. Giving freedom of thought to religious fundamentalists or fascist who oppose this very idea is just wrong.
This is just xenophobic thinking branded, poorly, as being about the protection of the majority and enlightenment.
fascism and fundamentalism are already outlawed in almost any European country, both directly by prohibiting unconstitutional/undemocratic acts and indirectly through hate speech laws which stops promotion of racism,fundamentalism or whatever.
It's like the "we need to stop uncontrolled immigration!" nonsense. No we don't because immigration is already controlled.
So we should respect this guy propaganda otherwise we are fascists? I see
No one has to respect anything. You don't have to respect anyone's religion or beliefs at all if you don't want to. You've got the freedom to call him a fucking lunatic piece of shit if you like. Just as he's got the freedom to believe the crazy shit he believes. But you can't imprison someone based on their beliefs alone. If he doesn't commit a crime he's just some guy that is talking crazy.
So we should respect this guy propaganda otherwise we are fascists? I see
You can disrespect, mock, satirize or better yet (in my opinion) simply disagree with that guy all you want. I disagree with almost everything he said. However, he's very careful in what he says- he never specifically condones the violence nor does he condemn it- he says many words in order to avoid condemning it. However, he committed no crime and there is no reason to throw him in prison. Not unless it could be proven he is doing something illegal like recruiting for terrorist organization. Freedom of belief and expression by its very nature has to allow for some very reprehensible beliefs.
(As an aside, he somehow linked in 'freedom from insult' when talking about freedom of expression. That's no freedom I've ever heard of.)
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: ....I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset....
....It has to stand for freedom of thought....
I think you need to think this through a little more...
No I think you have to give it more thoughts. For example freedom of religion and combating fundamentalism are not exclusive.
You seem to be of the opinion that there should be no exception to what ideologies should be harbored in Europe. You seem to think that it is a good idea that there are people with fundamentalists thought or fascist thoughts in Europe living free to do what ever they want?
In my opinion a line has to be drawn here. Europe can not become a harbor for the ideas of fundamentalists and other despicable ideologies all under the guise of freedom of thought or religious freedom. Freedom of thought yes, as long as they are not against the main ideas of enlightenment and rationalism. Giving freedom of thought to religious fundamentalists or fascist who oppose this very idea is just wrong.
This is just xenophobic thinking branded, poorly, as being about the protection of the majority and enlightenment.
Please explain what is xenophobic on the idea of outlawing fascism and religious fundamentalists? It is the extremists and the agitators that must be opposed not the normal people who go about their everyday lives. I don't care if they go to church or a temple if they eat pork/cow don't eat pork/cow if they thing people should wear spaghetti hats or the burka, unless they want to enforce their ideas.
I mean take Neville Chamberlain he did more or less nothing to oppose the fascism in Germany Austria and Italy. It needed men like Churchill who knew how dangerous that ideology was long before others did to oppose it.
This is what I don't like - to allow for freedom of speech of people who do not give a f*** about western world and who want to see it burn, we prefer to sacrifice lifes of honest citizens. This has not worked, is not working and will not work. Do people really believe that by being more open and supportive terrorism will stop?
On January 09 2015 10:09 SoSexy wrote: This is what I don't like - to allow for freedom of speech of people who do not give a f*** about western world and who want to see it burn, we prefer to sacrifice lifes of honest citizens. This has not worked, is not working and will not work. Do people really believe that by being more open and supportive terrorism will stop?
do you feel that by oppressing more people, terrorism will stop?
On January 09 2015 10:09 SoSexy wrote: This is what I don't like - to allow for freedom of speech of people who do not give a f*** about western world and who want to see it burn, we prefer to sacrifice lifes of honest citizens. This has not worked, is not working and will not work. Do people really believe that by being more open and supportive terrorism will stop?
No. I for one do not believe that being more open and supportive that terrorism will stop. Humans do evil things and will continue to do evil things. But I believe a society that protects freedom of speech is better than one that does not- even if I have to agree with Levant and Hannity when they debate Choudry.
So we should respect this guy propaganda otherwise we are fascists? I see
You can disrespect, mock, satirize or better yet (in my opinion) simply disagree with that guy all you want. I disagree with almost everything he said. However, he's very careful in what he says- he never specifically condones the violence nor does he condemn it- he says many words in order to avoid condemning it. However, he committed no crime and there is no reason to throw him in prison. Not unless it could be proven he is doing something illegal like recruiting for terrorist organization. Freedom of belief and expression by its very nature has to allow for some very reprehensible beliefs.
(As an aside, he somehow linked in 'freedom from insult' when talking about freedom of expression. That's no freedom I've ever heard of.)
He only commited no crime because there are no laws against it. A law makes a crime not the doings of some person. For example if I was to parade in a Nazi uniform wearing the Hakenkreuz and making the Hitler Gruß in Austria all in the open I would get arrested and I would have broken the law and I would have committed a crime. The same would happen if I would publicly deny the Holocaust or do other despicable things.
So why not extend these things and arrest people who come back from fighting their war in Syria or promote that the Sharia should be the law of the land?
I mean their are enough laws against hate speech even in america the land of the free. I just think that it is wrong to only arrest them and release them without any thought behind it. Why not arrest someone who was guilty of hate speech and release him after some psychology sessions or until he has seen the light of day? When he has proven that his ideology has sufficiently changed and that he recognizes the error in his ways?
On January 09 2015 08:44 Holy_AT wrote: ....I mean okay they may not have yet committed a terrorist attack (before their attack of course), but their mindset and their ideas were a threat and not in accord with the European mindset....
....It has to stand for freedom of thought....
I think you need to think this through a little more...
No I think you have to give it more thoughts. For example freedom of religion and combating fundamentalism are not exclusive.
You seem to be of the opinion that there should be no exception to what ideologies should be harbored in Europe. You seem to think that it is a good idea that there are people with fundamentalists thought or fascist thoughts in Europe living free to do what ever they want?
In my opinion a line has to be drawn here. Europe can not become a harbor for the ideas of fundamentalists and other despicable ideologies all under the guise of freedom of thought or religious freedom. Freedom of thought yes, as long as they are not against the main ideas of enlightenment and rationalism. Giving freedom of thought to religious fundamentalists or fascist who oppose this very idea is just wrong.
Freedom of thought. As long as you think like us. Otherwise arrest and reeducate!
Exactly, otherwise you are against opposing fascism and fundamentalism.
I mean freedom of though can not be taken anyways. Even if there are laws against it. But what I think is that there have to be laws against people who openly sympathize with these ideologies to show that we as a people do not agree with them.
Europe does not agree with fascism, so why not reeducate people who promote it? Europe is against religious fundamentalists, so why not outlaw it and reeducate them?
Otherwise you are just acknowledging their believes.
To the gulag with those fascist swine! Let the reeducation commence!
On January 09 2015 10:09 SoSexy wrote: This is what I don't like - to allow for freedom of speech of people who do not give a f*** about western world and who want to see it burn, we prefer to sacrifice lifes of honest citizens. This has not worked, is not working and will not work. Do people really believe that by being more open and supportive terrorism will stop?
do you feel that by oppressing more people, terrorism will stop?
By oppressing more people? no. By oppressing people who say things like 'I remain in England because when the Caliphate will reach its shores, I'll already be here fighting'? yes.
Similarly, do you think that by oppressing more people murders will stop?
By oppressing more people? no. By oppressing people who say things like 'I'll kill you for cheating on me, whore'? yes.
Edit: of course by stop here I mean 'reduced'. There's always an element of chance which is unpredictable (or, as I say, even in Heaven someone rebelled)
EPT
