Silence the Lambs

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:16 am

Well it is interesting to read that the Home Secretary is banning certain people from entering the UK, not for what they do, rather for what they say:

http://SmallerLink.com/qj

So will this be the new thought control and will the Obama admin. pick up on this by banning Osama bin Laden from entering the US as a means to safeguard America? How soon before the internet is likewise controlled?

Octopus · Post by **Octopus** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:49 am

Politicians will someday start regulating the internet. And it will be trough some scare tactic. I wouldn't worry about it, since it will happen, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed May 06, 2009 7:04 am

Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.

I agree with her 100% and I hope Obama follows suit. And, no Woodchip, it's what they do...not what they say.

Bee

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed May 06, 2009 7:55 am

Bettina wrote:it's what they do...not what they say.

Michael Savage hasn't DONE anything except speak. His speech is annoying, stupid, and offensive. But, at least as far as I can find, he hasn't taken any ACTIONS against anyone.

I'm torn on this one, because I happen to find the people on the "forbidden" list to be the kind of people I'd like to have forbidden.

BUT, there is a terrible danger here.

Bettina wrote:I agree with her 100% and I hope Obama follows suit

I'm going to say the same thing here that I said to the conservatives back when Bush was in charge. You LIKE the idea of the president having this kind of power, ONLY while your guy happens to be in office. The other side will be back in office eventually, and then you'll discover the new power very distasteful.

For example, the kind of people that George W. Bush would have found incredibly immoral and offensive might have included Richard Dawkins.

We are ALL safest when everyone is allowed to have their own say, even if it is offensive. I personally heard Michael Savage once state that America would never be safe until we had dropped this silly idea of Religious Freedom. You can't IMAGINE how offensive, and DANGEROUS, I find a statement like that. BUT, the same right that protects Michael Savage's ability to spew ignorance protects my right to argue against him.

A nation has every right to filter out undesirables who are asking permission to enter it's borders. When they start filtering based on speech, I get nervous, because there is no telling what speech they will find offensive next. A new administration is always only a vote away.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed May 06, 2009 9:23 am

Kilarin wrote:Michael Savage hasn't DONE anything except speak.

Kilarin, why are you "torn" on most of the important issues and never take a stand? I understand freedom of speech and what it means but there has to be some limits when what they say begins to hurt. Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, for example, is a form of free speech so are you "torn" on that too" Where is your limit? I just want to know.

If a person wants to stand up and speak against our government that's ok with me and that right should be defended. But, when a person speaks simply...

... To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot....

they should be kicked out. Did you read that link? Did you see the list of people on it?

Bee

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed May 06, 2009 9:34 am

Bet51987 wrote:If a person wants to stand up and speak against our government that's ok with me and that right should be defended. But, when a person speaks simply...

... To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot....

they should be kicked out. Did you read that link? Did you see the list of people on it?

Bee

WRONG

Who sets the standards? and how do they set them??
What arouses, urges, provokes, encourages, spurs, goads stirs-up and instigates, one person will not do so to the next. so who sets those standards. hell even our own supreme court cannot agree what meets certain criteria from one court decision to the next. it is virtually impossible to regulate speach.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed May 06, 2009 11:24 am

Bettina wrote:Kilarin, why are you "torn" on most of the important issues and never take a stand?

I don't like to just pick a side based on gut feeling and then stick with it no matter what. I think it's very important to examine all angles on an issue, and that leaves me sometimes having to admit that I have not yet found a definitive argument that settles the issue for me. Smarter people can figure things out faster. I have to think them through a lot, and some issues are VERY complex when you really dig into them.

I don't think it's rational to assume there are easy answers to every problem, and I don't try to pretend that I know the answers when I don't.

THIS, however, is not one of those cases. I should have been clearer. I'm not torn over the logical arguments, I'm EMOTIONALLY torn. Emotionally, I world prefer to have those jerks as far away from me as possible. Logically, I realize that if I don't protect their rights, everyone's rights are in danger.

Bettina wrote:Yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, for example, is a form of free speech so are you "torn" on that too" Where is your limit? I just want to know.

There is a difference between faking a disaster, and being an idiot. Michael Savage thinks 99% of autism is fake. He's a moron. An offensive moron. He isn't shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Bettina wrote:Did you read that link? Did you see the list of people on it?

Yep, and like I said, they are a bunch of scumbuckets. But for the non criminals it boils down to, "we don't want THOSE kind of people here!".
I LIKE this list, but, as Cuda said, who makes the list? Who decides what is offensive?

Bettina wrote:If a person wants to stand up and speak against our government that's ok with me and that right should be defended. But, when a person speaks simply...
... To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot....
they should be kicked out.

This confuses me a bit. Are you saying that ONLY speech against the government should be protected? It would be ok for someone to stand on the street corner and shout "The Fed is evil! Shoot your congressman!", but the guy who holds up a sign saying gays are going to hell is out? That doesn't make sense. I think you must be saying that speech against the government, people, or ideas is ok, as long as it is constructive, not just "inciting" ???

How do you draw a hard line between someone who is speaking constructively, and someone who is speaking only to "incite" ???

Dan Brown has offended millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians) with "The DaVinci Code" and "Angels and Demons". They find it beyond insulting. Should he be banned? (Besides, Dan Brown spreads bad cryptography. God can forgive you for bad Theology, but NO ONE can forgive you for bad math)

Ezra Levant wasn't just banned, he was actively prosecuted for daring to publish cartoons that Muslims felt were "inciting". I'm sure many Islamic nations would forbid him entry, do you think they are right?

Richard Dawkins has stated that raising a child Christian is tantamount to child abuse. Dawkins has connected ALL religious belief with 9/11 terrorism:

Richard Dawkins wrote:Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.

.
And he has called religion a disease that needs to be wiped out:

Richard Dawkins wrote:It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

So, what do we do about all the theist who feel that Dawkins is guilty of "inciting"? Should the next right wing dominated US government ban Dawkins since the currently left leaning UK government banned Michael Savage?

Just to clarify, I think Michael Savage is much more of a jerk than Dawkins, but it doesn't MATTER what I think. It matters what the guy making the decision thinks, and we can't trust them to make the same decision we would.

Governments are idiots. If you are going to give them a set of rules to follow, you have to make them VERY detailed, or they WILL mess them up. If you tell the government to ban "bad" people, or "people who say bad things", they will have to decide for themselves who those bad people are, or what are bad things to say. Simple rules like "no convicted criminals", that they can follow. Anything more complicated, and I guarantee you they WILL mess it up. Badly.

Thats why I will continue to defend Richard Dawkins right to say things that are offensive to me. And I would object and protest if the US Government denied him entry to the country on the basis of those statements. I extend the same right to Michael Savage and OTHER idiots who say offensive things. Defending the rude idiots is IMPORTANT, because there are a LOT of people who think *I* am a rude idiot.

<edit>Important clarification here. I'm speaking specifically about the exclusion of Michael Savage, who, as far as I know, has committed no criminal actions. Fred Phelps has been arrested multiple times. Most of the rest of the list were convicted criminals. Excluding convicted criminals from entry into your country is standard practice. If Michael Savage has assaulted anyone and I missed it on the news, let me know. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, he's being excluded only for being a jerk.</edit>

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Wed May 06, 2009 12:20 pm

... To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot....

Nearly every imam in mosques across Britain do exactly that- and they advocate violence against/rape/pilliage of the infidel. You can see pictures of large crowds of muslims chanting for the destruction of Britain and death to any that oppose them. Why aren't they kicked out?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed May 06, 2009 1:25 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:Nearly every imam in mosques across Britain do exactly that- and they advocate violence against/rape/pilliage of the infidel.

Valid point.

AND it made me rethink what Bettina was saying:

Bettina wrote:I understand freedom of speech and what it means but there has to be some limits when what they say begins to hurt.

The more I think about it, the more I think we may not be in disagreement, but only in a state of misunderstanding here. when you say "begins to hurt", I hear "hurts peoples feelings", which I do NOT think is valid grounds for excluding someone from the country.

BUT, if what you meant was people who advocate violence, then I think I'm in agreement. I am not aware that Michael Savage has advocated violence. Most of the rest of the folks on the list have not only advocated it, but participated in it. It seems entirely reasonable to me to exclude people who are advocating violence, but NOT people who only say things that are offensive. Does that answer your question on where I draw the line Bettina?

One further point. I think this list was mainly a bunch of silly grandstanding. Surely Britain already has laws in place that exclude convicted criminals from coming into the country?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed May 06, 2009 1:26 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:

... To arouse; urge; provoke; encourage; spur on; goad; stir up; instigate; set in motion; as in to incite a riot....

Nearly every imam in mosques across Britain do exactly that- and they advocate violence against/rape/pilliage of the infidel. You can see pictures of large crowds of muslims chanting for the destruction of Britain and death to any that oppose them. Why aren't they kicked out?

Because of the free expression protectionists.

To borrow something from Batman... "Some people just want to see the world burn". Luckily, in Britain and America, they will eventually win because of the free expression protectionists.

I find no difference between them and those who protect their rights to do it. There all in the same bottle with me.

And, Kilarin, you've had more than enough time to decide what's right and what's wrong. These issues have been going on here for years.

I'm not mad at you but God, I wish you could choose one way or another.

Bee

Edit: Kilarin... I didn't see your post when I posted mine... I need to think about that.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed May 06, 2009 2:46 pm

Bettina wrote:Kilarin, you've had more than enough time to decide what's right and what's wrong. These issues have been going on here for years.

So, there are NO moral issues that you are uncertain on? No gray or foggy areas at all? That's fascinating.

I certainly believe in an absolute right and wrong, but I find many moral issues to be very complex, complex enough to admit areas of confusion and doubt that are in need of further study and thought. I now look back and am horrified by some stances I took when I was 20. Further thought, learning, and reflection have actually caused me to do complete 180's. That may be one reason I'm a bit hesitant to declare the absolute "truth" on some issues now.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that conservative Christian is arguing for clearly defined areas of doubt and confusion, while the avowed Atheist is insisting on absolute certainty? Life is strange.

Bettina wrote:I wish you could choose one way or another

I thought I HAD made my position clear on this issue. Even in the earlier post. No wishywashiness here. I object to excluding someone from entry into a country on the sole grounds that they are rude and offensive.

Let me know if I still am not clear on the point after you've had time to think about the message we crossposted on.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed May 06, 2009 5:37 pm

Kilarin, First, I want to apologize for being testy. You of all people didn't deserve that and I slapped myself in your honor.

On some subjects like God, the Taliban, child killers and rapists, to name a few, my thinking has always been absolute. Yes, I have gray or foggy areas but my encompassing bubble is nowhere near as large as yours.

I think we're somewhat in agreement here but the cloudy term is \"hurt\". Yes, I wouldn't kick out a person for making fun of Gays or hurting someone's feelings or marching on Washington, burning effigies of Obama or Bush, or carrying signs of protest. However when what you do begins to look more like inciting hate then I draw the line. Inciting hate breeds fanatics, fanatics breed violence, violence breeds death. I think I agree with you about Michael Savage but I also agree with what the UK is doing.

Bee

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed May 06, 2009 6:19 pm

The UK has the right to exclude anybody they want, using any criteria they wish, as they are a sovereign country. On the other hand they do not have the right to “kick out” anybody, simply because that would just make those people someone elses problem.

As this applies to the US, well I would have to be against excluding anybody based on their beliefs, unless they are specifically detrimental to the US, and that person can be considered a threat.

On a different note, I sure wish we would deny the visa to that ahole the BBC calls “The Ethical Man”.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed May 06, 2009 9:12 pm

Bettina wrote:First, I want to apologize for being testy.

Please! No no! I don't mind being challenged. Makes me sit down and think about how I make decisions.

Bettina wrote:when what you do begins to look more like inciting hate then I draw the line. Inciting hate breeds fanatics, fanatics breed violence, violence breeds death.

To me, making fun of Gays or burning effigies IS inciting hate. But I think I understand what you mean. Some white supremacists just hate, skin heads are actively violent.

Spidey wrote:The UK has the right to exclude anybody they want, using any criteria they wish, as they are a sovereign country.

Absolutely. But the "right" to do it, doesn't make it "right".

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed May 06, 2009 9:48 pm

I didn’t say whether it was right or wrong, and I think we as a country should stop judging other countries by our standards, hasn’t that got us into enough trouble already…it’s none of our business.

How other cultures behave has little or nothing to do with your notions of right and wrong.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed May 06, 2009 10:33 pm

Spidey wrote:How other cultures behave has little or nothing to do with your notions of right and wrong.

I have no control over what Briton or Canada does, but discussing what they've done, the right and the wrong of it, and the long term effects of it, helps me to make choices about what I want to happen HERE.

The same is true in the other direction, of course. Other countries look at the US and argue about our policies and whether they are good or bad, and should be emulated or shunned.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu May 07, 2009 2:54 am

didn’t say whether it was right or wrong, and I think we as a country should stop judging other countries by our standards, hasn’t that got us into enough trouble already…it’s none of our business.

How other cultures behave has little or nothing to do with your notions of right and wrong.

People need to wakeup and quit living in the past. At this point...., everything is directly related and affected together. Something happens to China, Britain, Russia the list goes on, we are directly affected. Same goes for them. Therefore this false sense of nationalism that people still carry with them blinds them to things of the present.
Do you think that since there is a trend towards Globalization, which was just an ideal 20 years ago and now has picked up general consensus, that there will not be a globalization of whats right and wrong?

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Thu May 07, 2009 6:02 am

LOL! Ya'll are freakin' nutcases. Free speech is an \"INALIENABLE\" right. However you think and the things you say, so long as it does not incite widespread panic, is a right to die for.

How much longer are the free speaking people of this nation going to allow a few to dictate what, and when, we may speak?

Personally, I am sick and tired of the namby pamby self righteous politicos and their do as I say, not as I do mentality.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 07, 2009 6:28 am

Bet51987 wrote:

Because of the free expression protectionists.
Luckily, in Britain and America, they will eventually win because of the free expression protectionists.

Will they win? We now have the Obama Admin. going after a select few individuals who simply expressed a "opinion" that incited no one to to riot. Lawyers who counseled the bush Admin. on what may or may not be legal in the areas of torture, are now in the process of being barred from their livelihood:

"(Senator)Levin recommended that the Justice Department select up to three people outside the department, such as retired federal judges, to recommend any charges or other actions against lawyers and others who developed the policies."

"A draft report by the office does not call for prosecuting those lawyers, The Times said, but is likely to ask state bar associations to consider disciplinary action."

So now we have gone from people who have extreme radical views and simply barring them entry as punishment, to a govt. that is sending a chilling message to it's own citizens that even opinions are subject to punishment. To me this scenario has more impact on free speech than what Britain is doing.
If I voice my opinion that Obama is a war criminal by sending troops to Afghanistan and said troops wantoningly kill innocent theres, will I be subject to a federal investigation?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu May 07, 2009 6:56 am

woodchip wrote: If I voice my opinion that Obama is a war criminal by sending troops to Afghanistan and said troops wantoningly kill innocent theres, will I be subject to a federal investigation?

probably, but make no doubt if an administration comes along and doesn't like what Obama did then they can charge him with genocide and charge every soldier that killed a Taliban member with murder Post-facto

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Thu May 07, 2009 7:38 am

woodchip wrote:So now we have gone from people who have extreme radical views and simply barring them entry as punishment, to a govt. that is sending a chilling message to it's own citizens that even opinions are subject to punishment. To me this scenario has more impact on free speech than what Britain is doing.
If I voice my opinion that Obama is a war criminal by sending troops to Afghanistan and said troops wantoningly kill innocent theres, will I be subject to a federal investigation?

I love how you spin. I really wonder whether you believe yourself what you are saying.

(a) the lawyers are NOT considered to be barred for voicing their opinion. From the article you stole your quotes from (but did not acknowledge):

Wednesday’s Times reported that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded that the lawyers were guilty of serious lapses of judgment when they argued that detainees could be subjected to interrogation methods long banned by American law, military doctrine and international treaties.[...] They deliberately contorted the law to justify decisions that had already been made, making them complicit in those decisions.

edit: and this is not new. It has for a long time been the job of the OPR to make these judgements about the lawyers. And, as your article states, they made these judgements while Bush was still in office, so there is nothing to tie this to Obama.

The Office of Professional Responsibility, which reports directly to the Attorney General, is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys that relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when they are related to allegations of attorney misconduct within the jurisdiction of OPR. [...] The objective of OPR is to ensure that Department of Justice attorneys continue to perform their duties in accordance with the high professional standards expected of the Nation's principal law enforcement agency

(b) So this was a specific thing for lawyers, and from this you extrapolate of your own voicing your opinion. Do you have any evidence that your personal right for free speech is interfered with?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu May 07, 2009 8:06 am

Kilarin, flip, you need to stop seeing everything thru the prism of right and wrong…sometimes things just are. In order for there to be a wrong in this case there must be an assumption that someone has a right to enter a country, they don’t.

An Analogy…

Your house as a country…does someone have the right to enter into your house…no. Can you deny someone entry into your house…yes. Do you need a good reason…no. Can a person be wronged because you denied their entry…no.

Now if someone had the right to enter, and you denied this right, then there would be a case for there being a wrong.

The speech issue is separate, from the “entry” issue here… Go ahead and debate that all you want, but if someone doesn’t want you in their country, that’s just too bad, and they don’t need a good reason, and your not a victim as a result.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Thu May 07, 2009 8:18 am

what Spidey said.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu May 07, 2009 12:22 pm

Spidey wrote:Kilarin, flip, you need to stop seeing everything thru the prism of right and wrong…sometimes things just are.

I'll mostly have to disagree with you on that one.

Spidey wrote:Your house as a country…does someone have the right to enter into your house…no. Can you deny someone entry into your house…yes. Do you need a good reason…no. Can a person be wronged because you denied their entry…no.

I think you are confusing two issues. There is a difference between what is legal (a legal right) and what is actually ethical (the correct moral thing to do).

Your house example works perfectly. You have every right to exclude people from coming into your home. (Barring police with a warrant etc.). Now, suppose you choose to exercise that right by excluding people from your house on the basis of race. No Italians are allowed in your house, for example. I don't deny your right to make that decision. I'll even fight to DEFEND your legal right to make and enforce that decision. But I also will not hesitate to say that the decision you have made is unethical. It's legal, but it's WRONG.

The situation with a democratic nation is actually a bit more complicated than your home. The policies of the nation are not just the decisions of an individual, but are influenced by the opinions of all of the voters. This makes it even MORE important to discuss what is ethical and what is not because the voters in that country can change the people in charge if they don't approve of the policy.

You can have a right to do something that is ethically wrong. There is nothing pointless or silly about discussing whether something someone had a legal right to do was actually ethically wrong.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu May 07, 2009 1:50 pm

Spidey wrote:I didn’t say whether it was right or wrong, and I think we as a country should stop judging other countries by our standards, hasn’t that got us into enough trouble already…it’s none of our business.

How other cultures behave has little or nothing to do with your notions of right and wrong.

What about the Taliban who want Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other parts of the world. Should what they do to women and young girls be none of our business?

And, wouldn't you say that the Taliban's way of life compared to the UK is a good example of what is right or wrong?

Bee

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu May 07, 2009 1:59 pm

Kilarin wrote: Your house example works perfectly. You have every right to exclude people from coming into your home. (Barring police with a warrant etc.). Now, suppose you choose to exercise that right by excluding people from your house on the basis of race. No Italians are allowed in your house, for example. I don't deny your right to make that decision. I'll even fight to DEFEND your legal right to make and enforce that decision. But I also will not hesitate to say that the decision you have made is unethical. It's legal, but it's WRONG.

The situation with a democratic nation is actually a bit more complicated than your home. The policies of the nation are not just the decisions of an individual, but are influenced by the opinions of all of the voters. This makes it even MORE important to discuss what is ethical and what is not because the voters in that country can change the people in charge if they don't approve of the policy.

You can have a right to do something that is ethically wrong. There is nothing pointless or silly about discussing whether something someone had a legal right to do was actually ethically wrong.

Say the nation as whole voted and approved something 'morally unethical' and made it legal. What then? They still have that democratic right to do so even though it may not be morally ethical in some people's eyes. It's called the 'tyranny of the majority'. Since you are the majority in your own home, your will and law rules, but when it's a nation, there will always be people that get marginalized or mistreated by the will of the majority. How does that get made right for the few when the majority believes it's in the right?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu May 07, 2009 2:11 pm

Tunnelcat wrote:How does that get made right for the few when the majority believes it's in the right?

Good point. And only by people speaking up and saying it's wrong.

Bettina wrote:What about the Taliban who want Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other parts of the world. Should what they do to women and young girls be none of our business?

Along with what Tunnelcat was saying, I'd like to make a clarification. There are two levels of "wrong" here. For example, I think its WRONG for someone to decide exclude a certain race from entering their home. But I think it's RIGHT that the law allows them to do this.

On the other hand, I not only think it's ethically wrong to own a slave, I think it's wrong for the government to make it legal.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu May 07, 2009 2:47 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Spidey wrote:I didn’t say whether it was right or wrong, and I think we as a country should stop judging other countries by our standards, hasn’t that got us into enough trouble already…it’s none of our business.

How other cultures behave has little or nothing to do with your notions of right and wrong.
What about the Taliban who want Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other parts of the world. Should what they do to women and young girls be none of our business?

And, wouldn't you say that the Taliban's way of life compared to the UK is a good example of what is right or wrong?

Bee

Bee your making your own point, on one hand your saying its OK for the UK to forbid people to enter the country based on what they say. and on the other hand your wanting Afghanistan and Pakistan to allow people in after telling them what they feel about their country.

your being inconsistant. Just because You dont like something doesnt make it wrong for everyone

again who sets the standards??

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu May 07, 2009 4:48 pm

Bee…you are asking me to answer an obviously ethical question, with the parameters of what I believe is not an ethical issue. (keeping people out) It’s what is called a baited question.

But I will answer it anyway…I believe the mistreatment of people is “everyones” business, but who is let into some country is not. Try not to take what I say and apply it too broadly, please note the context. I rarely speak in absolutes.

Kilarin…I’m not confused, maybe you are…I totally understand the difference between something that is wrong on a philosophical level, and something that is wrong at the legal level…THAT WAS MY POINT!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu May 07, 2009 4:49 pm

CUDA wrote:Bee your making your own point, on one hand your saying its OK for the UK to forbid people to enter the country based on what they say. and on the other hand your wanting Afghanistan and Pakistan to allow people in after telling them what they feel about their country.

your being inconsistant. Just because You dont like something doesnt make it wrong for everyone

again who sets the standards??

The U.K. part is correct but I think you have the Afghanistan part wrong. There is no inconsitancy.

Bee

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu May 07, 2009 7:58 pm

Spidey wrote:Kilarin...I'm not confused, maybe you are...

Well, I usually am.

But allow me to explain my confusion so you can enlighten me.

My position thus far has been:

Kilarin wrote:A nation has every right to filter out undesirables who are asking permission to enter it's borders. When they start filtering based on speech, I get nervous, because there is no telling what speech they will find offensive next.

Bettina said:

Bettina wrote:I agree with her 100% and I hope Obama follows suit.

and I said:

Kilarin wrote:Should the next right wing dominated US government ban Dawkins since the currently left leaning UK government banned Michael Savage?

So, two issues here, the UK, and the US. ON the UK, I've said that as a sovereign nation, they can do what they want. BUT, I think that what they are doing is wrong, with a very high probability of leading to abuse.

On the US, I object strongly to them following the lead of the UK in this

You said:

Spidey wrote:Kilarin, flip, you need to stop seeing everything thru the prism of right and wrong

And this is where I get confused. As happens frequently to an old man like me.

Which part of the above do you object to? It sounded to me like you were saying that we had no business discussing whether the UK was ethically wrong, even if they were legally right. And that's the point I addressed in my reply to you.

I presumed that you were NOT objecting to my interest in the ethics of the US emulating the UK, since obviously I am directly concerned in that decision.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu May 07, 2009 10:43 pm

You’re saying there are 2 kinds of wrong here…Legal and ethical. And I say it’s philosophical and legal.

So we can cancel out the “legal” and are left with philosophical vs. ethical.

I can’t use the term “ethical” without a victim, it just doesn’t pass the test. I just can’t see discrimination in this case as a moral issue, without a victim. You have to make the contention that discrimination is inherently immoral, and not conditional.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri May 08, 2009 4:21 pm

Whether it's right or wrong, illegal or unethical, the very act of banning these guys only makes them into victims in some group's eyes. Is that what Britain wants? A bunch of idiot headcases crying foul and raising a ruckus, getting even MORE exposure and publicity?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri May 08, 2009 5:20 pm

Yea, but not in the UK, those crybabies are still someone else’s problem.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat May 09, 2009 8:39 pm

Spidey wrote:I can’t use the term “ethical” without a victim, it just doesn’t pass the test. I just can’t see discrimination in this case as a moral issue, without a victim. You have to make the contention that discrimination is inherently immoral, and not conditional.

I'm afraid our views on right and wrong may be separated by a gulf to wide to bridge.

I think that Lothar's concept of morality being based on values has some merit. Values can be violated without having a specific victim who has their rights violated.

I believe that racisim is wrong, whether you ever act on it or not. That even if you have a RIGHT to be racist, such as in denying people access to your home, it's still wrong to do so. Heck, it goes further than that. I believe it is wrong to HATE someone, even if you never act on it.

It appears that this is a difference of basic assumptions, not secondary principles. So I'm not certain we can GET anywhere on this particular part of the discussion.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat May 09, 2009 9:23 pm

What you are describing are called “Thought Crimes”, and indeed that is a gulf that I will never cross.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat May 09, 2009 10:09 pm

Spidey wrote:What you are describing are called “Thought Crimes”, and indeed that is a gulf that I will never cross.

One important clarification here. "Thought Crimes" is usually used to refer to PROSECUTING people for thoughts instead of actions. I am, of course, completely opposed to that. Where we differ (I believe) is on whether thoughts (or actions) can be wrong, even if they are both legal and do not violate anyone else's rights.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat May 09, 2009 10:25 pm

Correct, for the most part.

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Sun May 10, 2009 6:14 am

My thoughts on the matter (for what they're worth).

Without wanting to fall into intractable \"ethical vs moral vs legal vs religous\" arguements, My view is that freedom of speech is the only manefestation of thought that should remain unchecked. Thoughts themselves do no harm - the manifestations of thought is what does harm (or good, depending upon your viewpoint).

Take away the right to express a particular view (from anyone) and immediately you take away a dissenting voice and dissenting ideas. Yes - complete freedom of speech is a dangerous thing to do socially when you combine extremeism (in any ideology) and the presense of naieve, ignorant or suscptable individuals who may be swayed by extreme ideas to such an extent that they take extreme actions (and yes - where to draw the 'extreme' line is an obvious problem too).

Thing is, I am personally unaware of any attempt at policing human thought (historical or otherwise) that has worked categorically. Everything from religious doctinations, to political/moral/legal ramifications has been put into place - and stil, dissenting opinions (both extereme and moderate) still thrive.

I think attempts to expell/bar people on the basis of their voiced opinion is futile. The ideas pass borders and barriers to take root in other people's minds - or spring up in isolated populations spontaneously nonetheless. Bar people on the basis of the *actions* they have taken by all means - but baring people on the basis of controlling public opinion is unenforceable. Worse, it creates a thought vacum, reenforces hegemony and inhibits paradigm shifts and intellectual evolution. (New ideas sometimes take root more firmly in places where such thoughts are genuinely novel).

Just my two cents - feel free to dispute/argue at will.

(I also think the retreat into intellectual/cultural/moral enclaves with physical boundaries often has more to do with fear than we care to admit - but that's another thread

).

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun May 10, 2009 3:48 pm

Gekko71 is very wise indeed.

Silence the Lambs

Silence the Lambs

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: