Paris Attack | Page 25 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Paris Attack

shahfaisal said:
you know exactly what i mean.. you dont have the right to say someone has WMD's when in reality they don't and you know it.. look bush jr got away with it..
Click to expand...

Okay well i think thats kinda outside of the realm of what we are talking about. im talking about human rights not legalisms within political structures.

shahfaisal said:
since you are speaking in legal terms.. no one has the right to intentionally misrepresent facts.. hows that
Click to expand...

No again i cant agree with in personal parlance i can do that as i please. I could even publish them as long as its not getting into liable.
Lies are protected speech with exceptions that are already legally defined.
 
Last edited:
we can debate these for a 100 years but the truth is a lot of the rights are blanket and with out responsibility...

eastern world looks at it differently than us.. it doesn't mean they are wrong.. what they have is right for them what we have has already shown us to be flawed... but in s away its right for us... this charlie situation uncovered a major issue.. freedom of speech does not include hate speech.. you may not consider it hate speech but the MAJORITY of the human population lives by those ideals... things cannot be allowed to be intentionally offensive..
and what right does the minority have to force their beliefs on the majority of the worlds population..muslims+chinese+south america+ africa..

obviously i am generalizing..

human rights have to be agreed by consensus..minority of the world cannot tell what the majorities human rights are going to be. its called imperialism
 
Last edited:
Two50noob said:
Okay well i think thats kinda outside of the realm of what we are talking about. im talking about human rights not legalisms within political structures.



No again i cant agree with in personal parlance i can do that as i please. I could even publish them as long as its not getting into liable.
Lies are protected speech with exceptions that are already legally defined.
Click to expand...

so i can say my peanut butter cures cancer even though i know it doesn't?
 
shahfaisal said:
so i can say my peanut butter cures cancer even though i know it doesn't?
Click to expand...

Yes Natural News does this all the time. You cant make that claim on a product you are selling as there are sets of laws around making medical claims. But yes on your peanut butter blog you can say it all you want
 
shahfaisal said:
we can debate these for a 100 years but the truth is a lot of the rights are blanket and with out responsibility...

eastern world looks at it differently than us.. it doesn't mean they are wrong.. what they have is right for them what we have has already shown us to be flawed... but in s away its right for us... this charlie situation uncovered a major issue.. freedom of speech does not include hate speech.. you may not consider it hate speech but the MAJORITY of the human population lives by those ideals... things cannot be allowed to be intentionally offensive..
Click to expand...

Lampooning religious figures isn't hate speech even if it offends %95 of the planet. Things can and should be allowed to be offensive and you can be offended by them. You cant murder people for it.

i'm also not a fan of hate speech and blasphemy laws. I think only a direct calls to violence should be the limit.
 
Two50noob said:
Yes Natural News does this all the time. You cant make that claim on a product you are selling as there are sets of laws around making medical claims. But yes on your peanut butter blog you can say it all you want
Click to expand...

That is the difference between western beliefs and eastern beliefs right their... you can because you are here... in Iran you can't.. in Malaysia you can't
 
Last edited:
Two50noob said:
Lampooning religious figures isn't hate speech even if it offends %95 of the planet. Things can and should be allowed to be offensive and you can be offended by them. You cant murder people for it.

i'm also not a fan of hate speech and blasphemy laws. I think only a direct call to violence should be the limit.
Click to expand...

i can only agree with the fact that the shouldn't be murdered for it.. the rest is disagreeable to me... it the laws duty to protect the 95% if not why did we bother fighting the nazi's? we should have let those lunatic 5% DICTATE the terms to the 95%
 
Two50noob said:
Its not illegal to lie in Malaysia or Iran ? Post your source?
Click to expand...
i was talking about restrictions on freedom of speech as you posted it yourself.

the group gathering restrictions apply to blogs as well as its a modern form of public appearance.. so you make such claims in a blog to sell a product you get charged with fraud just so you know.. especially if it can cause harm
 
Last edited:
shahfaisal said:
i can only agree with the fact that the shouldn't be murdered for it.. the rest is disagreeable to me... it the laws duty to protect the 95% if not why did we bother fighting the nazi's? we should have let those lunatic 5% DICTATE the terms to the 95%
Click to expand...

The Nazi's were not doing things that were just offending jews (we didn't fight them for doing this either). They are actively killing and discriminating against them. Laws should protect not 95% but 100% equally with discrimination. Drawing a picture of Muhammed does not discriminate against you it just offends you. Forbaying a drawing is a discrimination.
 
Two50noob said:
The Nazi's were not doing things that were just offending jews (we didn't fight them for doing this either). They are actively killing and discriminating against them. Laws should protect not 95% but 100% equally with discrimination. Drawing a picture of Muhammed does not discriminate against you it just offends you. Forbaying a drawing is a discrimination.
Click to expand...
forbaying a drawing depicting a religious figure as homosexual or a terrorist is protection of the public

no body would have cared if they simply drew a stick figure and said Mohammed.. they did a lot more than that( all the cartoons in questions)
 
shahfaisal said:
i was talking about restrictions on freedom of speech as you posted it yourself.

the group gathering restrictions apply to blogs as well as its a modern form of public appearance.. so you make such claims in a blog to sell a product you get charged with fraud just so you know
Click to expand...

The restrictions in both states on blogs are used to prevent minority political opinions for being able to practice free speech. Your really reaching to approve of the government control of political speech
 
Last edited:
shahfaisal said:
forbaying a drawing depicting a religious figure as homosexual or a terrorist is protection of the public
Click to expand...

No its not. Its a discrimination about of political view or speach(specifically using satire). the law would only protect form offence and again you don't have the right to not be offended.
 
Two50noob said:
The restrictions in both on blogs are used to prevent minority political opinions for being able to practice free speech. Your really reaching to approve of the government control of political speech
Click to expand...

that is a possibility.. not an only fact.. rights can't be left unchecked because of a possibility.. greater good of the masses takes priority over potential possibilities in my view
 
Two50noob said:
No its not. Its a discrimination about of political view or speach(specifically using satire). the law would only protect form offence and again you don't have the right to not be offended.
Click to expand...

how is mockery of someone else's religious figures a political view? is that a fancy way of not saying racist views?
 
shahfaisal said:
that is a possibility.. not an only fact.. rights can't be left unchecked because of a possibility.. greater good of the masses takes priority over potential possibilities in my view
Click to expand...

Awesome you don't support Freespeach then so you would support the Canadian government deleting your posts throwing you in jail because you said something they didn't like then.
 
you are stuck in a fundamental flaw.. you can't compare both sides from with in one side or by sticking to views of one side.. if you wanna compare western views on human rights with eastern views on human rights you have to drop you prejudices and current values for academic purposes and view it as a neutral party..

in all the previous posts you are applying western laws and ethics to both sides.. which does not result in a neutral analysis
 
shahfaisal said:
you are stuck in a fundamental flaw.. you can't compare both sides from with in one side or by sticking to views of one side.. if you wanna compare western views on human rights with eastern views on human rights you have to drop you prejudices and current values for academic purposes and view it as a neutral party..
Click to expand...

You arn't arguing from a neutral side why should I? Also i don't except that all european laws are the best set of rights for everyone there is probably stuff that I don't agree with and your right i'm saying that the Iranian and Malaysian restrictions on political speech are bad because i hold the view that restrictions on most speech is bad as its in violation of a freedom. Im also saying that persecution of Homosexuals and religious minorities in the 2 states are bad.
 
Last edited:
If Iran and Malaysia are the best examples of successful Islamic states, I'd still rather live in Canada.

in secular states, citizens have the power to elect polititians who create and change the laws under which we live, to reflect new knowledge and social awareness. In a religious state, rules and laws which may have made sense centuries ago, or which may have been the best that culture could have come up with based on the evolution of social awareness at that time, are forced onto today's citizens. Questioning these rules is sacrilegious.

yeah, even with all its warts, I'd much rather live in Canada !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom