Fundamental Mormons seek recognition for polygamy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by chuck.ells, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    How about Bald-White guys, we protected also?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech


    Arguments against legal restrictions

    ....

    Freedom of speech is argued by many writers to be the most basic freedom. The essayist and novelist George Orwellsaid “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Orwell argues that a society that is too careful not to offend cannot be truthfully expressive, artistic, or diverse. Taking offense to speech is an arbitrary response. To account for every possible way a phrase may be found offensive is not only impossible, but a hindrance to freedom of expression and even thought.

    ...

    In a related story: (Another chicken-or-the-egg ...)


    John Leo
    Let the Segregation Commence
    Separatist graduations proliferate at UCLA.
    13 June 2007

    Commencement weekend is hard to plan at the University of California, Los Angeles. The university now has so many separate identity-group graduations that scheduling them not to conflict with one another is a challenge. The women’s studies graduation and the Chicana/Chicano studies graduation are both set for 10 AM Saturday. The broader Hispanic graduation, “Raza,” is in near-conflict with the black graduation, which starts just an hour later.

    Planning was easier before a new crop of ethnic groups pushed for inclusion. Students of Asian heritage were once content with the Asian–Pacific Islanders ceremony. But now there are separate Filipino and Vietnamese commencements ....

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-13jl.html


    (traderNik, ... he labels someone "Orwellian" in one breath, and in the very next advocates scrambling infant brains and criminalizing thoughts)
     
    #61     Jun 16, 2007
  2. jem

    jem

    hey neophyte that was a very clear explanation of why people like nik don't belong in the U.S.

    Can you imagine being proud of the fact you have lost basic human rights in name of "progress" and being confused enough to call the other side Orwellian. The irony would be funny if it were not so sickening.
     
    #62     Jun 16, 2007
  3. neophyte321

    neophyte321 Guest

    he is an interesting study in contrasts.

    On the one hand, he uses perfect grammar and spells impeccably, and one can only assume he speaks in perfect diction, on the other hand, most of his conclusions are so riddled with predisposition it's humorous, yet maddening because we all know the halls of bureaucracy are filled with like-minded folk.
     
    #63     Jun 16, 2007
  4. jem

    jem

    I am not sure what you mean. If you are for criminalizing an expressed idea - I completely disagree with you. You are paving the way for the complete destruction of freedom.

    You have the free market place of ideas to compete with bad ideas.

    If you are for criminalizing the act of telling someone to kill someone - we already have criminal conspiracy laws.
     
    #64     Jun 16, 2007
  5. I can see that you are unclear.

    My point was that unless we can show damages, or future damages as a result of hate speech, then it should not be controlled in general.

    What I am saying in reference to Hitler, however, is that if a very popular politician rose to power on the basis of hate speech, I don't think that is a good thing...as once in power they might just use that power to act on what was only hate speech, turning it into hate actions...

    I would truly think about leaving America if a hate filled man like Michael Savage ever rose to high levels of political power. Should his speech be controlled? No, but there is some degree of incitement for others to hate in what he does, which I also don't think is a great situation.

     
    #65     Jun 16, 2007
  6. Is the blastocyst a 'baby'? If it is, we'd better get working on that ban on masturbation, because it's babies all the way back.

    (Hate to say it but that's a pretty good example of the kind of rhetoric we expect from the anti-choice people).

    Yes, I understand it, and not only that, I am glad that there are people at the other end of the rope pulling us the other way from my own direction. For example, I am all for taking it slow and easy when it comes to reproductive technologies and genetic engineering. Those who claim that that there are no moral issues to be pondered and resolved are fooling themselves. I say this even though I have openly mocked the ID/Creationists, who have floundered around the issue, first decrying the results of science then trying to claim that they have scientific proof of Creation. I love the scientific method, since it's the driving force behind human progress.

    I am also glad that there are people out there fighting for the rights of animals even though I don't agree with everything they say and I think it's ludicrous, for example, to say that aboriginal people living traditional lifestyles should be banned from taking animals which they use for subsistence.

    With regard to the allegation that I'm anti-free speech... it's fascinating. God knows how many times I have posted that I value free speech above all and that in my view, one ill effect of the so called 'war on terror' has been the erosion of the very freedoms that made America great. I even defend the right of those who accuse me of being a bureaucracy-loving (???? - I hate bureaucracy and bureaucrats more than anyone here!!), knee-jerk liberal or a 'commie' (that's a new one) to make such an accusation.

    In fact the faith-mongers only make themselves look ridiculous with their arbitrary moralizations (this sexual act is okay, this one is not, this liaison is okay, this one is not, this decision between two consenting adults is okay, this one is not, this way for a woman to decide her own fate is okay, this one is not). I encourage them to carry on.

    Like I said, in a few hundred years, these faith-based arguments will mostly be historical oddities.
     
    #66     Jun 17, 2007
  7. I have never uttered a hateful word. You must be stoned again.
    Maybe you just can not comprehend another person's point of view.
    That's okay. Your problem.

    I guess I could also say you are irrational as your moral (or lack of morals)
    point of view can be harmful to all of society.

    I bet you believe AIDS is just a nice little side effect of gay sex.

    I would bet when Jesus said Love your brother, he did not mean
    it literally. Get my drift?
     
    #67     Jun 17, 2007
  8. Why do you think it is ridiculous? Maybe AIDS is a nice little signal
    that maybe gay sex is a no no.

    I once knew a friend who was a hemophiliac who got AIDS infected
    blood back in the late 80's. He is dead now. He died a nasty,
    terrible death.

    I guess it is one of the reasons why I have no respect for gay people.

    And never will. If it wasn't for them, he would most likely be still alive.
     
    #68     Jun 17, 2007
  9. jem

    jem

    notice how nik changes the subject.

    Nik are you for partial birth abortion. Do you consider that progressive.

    Are you for criminalizing hate speech against gays. do you still thank that is progressive?
     
    #69     Jun 17, 2007
  10. Fine, then they need to stop subsidizing these idiot, inbred child-molesting degenerates. Don't kid yourself, these are mostly a bunch of slime.

    Read "Under the Banner of Heaven" to get some idea of what is really going on. Bad for our society...very bad.

    Colorado City pulls in 3 million plus dollars a year in welfare. They contribute nothing. Cut them off. They produce genetically defective offspring at an alarming rate because of all the inbreeding and daughter rape. They pray for Downs syndrome children because that guarantees them a tidy income from the govt.

    You don't know shit if you think these fundamental polygs deserve to be left to their own ways.

    bt
     
    #70     Jun 17, 2007