Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Speaker to Animals]

That was what was responded to, and his response to the obvious rebuttal was ad hominem fallacy. He has no argument

[SuburbanFarmer]

So you want radical Islamic preachers free to incite hatred of Western civilisation?
You don't see the link between that and mowing down pedestrians on Westminister bridge?

Your problem is in equating the danger to words and not the people themselves.

What you call radical preachers is normal in the Muslim world.

If the Arab states caught the multicult AIDS like you did, and tens of millions of white Christians began to colonize their country, they'd rail against radical Christian preachers, who keep demanding women be treated as the equals of men, etc.

But they are not so stupid. Nobody else on this anet is doing this. It's cultural and racial suicide. The Muslims in Britain openly mock you people. They know they will replace you.

Telling them they cannot openly state their intentions is not going to stop them from killing you. You cannot possibly believe that, right?

Here's where you started talking past each other.

Monte posed 2 hypothetical questions to make a point about freedom of speech. You immediately veer off into panic-monkey racial mode, avoiding the point made, and warning us all for the 1,000th time about the coming Muslim Genocide.

[Montegriffo]

So you want radical Islamic preachers free to incite hatred of Western civilisation?
You don't see the link between that and mowing down pedestrians on Westminister bridge?

Your problem is in equating the danger to words and not the people themselves.

What you call radical preachers is normal in the Muslim world.

If the Arab states caught the multicult AIDS like you did, and tens of millions of white Christians began to colonize their country, they'd rail against radical Christian preachers, who keep demanding women be treated as the equals of men, etc.

But they are not so stupid. Nobody else on this anet is doing this. It's cultural and racial suicide. The Muslims in Britain openly mock you people. They know they will replace you.

Telling them they cannot openly state their intentions is not going to stop them from killing you. You cannot possibly believe that, right?

Meh, you just launched into your usual screeching about no such thing as a moderate Muslim and the tired old rhetoric about England being conquered by the Calliphate.
No rebuttal there just you talking over me to spew out your usual cliche riddled word salad.

[Montegriffo]

I don’t happen to agree with either of his stances, but I can certainly come up with better than 2 pages of name calling and panic-monkey.

Are your objections to removing the right to incite hatred based on thin end of the wedge arguments and fear of overreach or do you think the right to preach division is a freedom worth the adverse consequences?

[Speaker to Animals]

So you want radical Islamic preachers free to incite hatred of Western civilisation?
You don't see the link between that and mowing down pedestrians on Westminister bridge?

Your problem is in equating the danger to words and not the people themselves.

What you call radical preachers is normal in the Muslim world.

If the Arab states caught the multicult AIDS like you did, and tens of millions of white Christians began to colonize their country, they'd rail against radical Christian preachers, who keep demanding women be treated as the equals of men, etc.

But they are not so stupid. Nobody else on this anet is doing this. It's cultural and racial suicide. The Muslims in Britain openly mock you people. They know they will replace you.

Telling them they cannot openly state their intentions is not going to stop them from killing you. You cannot possibly believe that, right?

Meh, you just launched into your usual screeching about no such thing as a moderate Muslim and the tired old rhetoric about England being conquered by the Calliphate.
No rebuttal there just you talking over me to spew out your usual cliche riddled word salad.

More nonsense.


I said that banning their speech isn't going to put a dent in their will to commit these atrocities against your people. Nor can you ban speech in practicality. People will say it privately and, in any case, the only thing your censorship managed to do was to lend credence to the ideas you censored. After all, if you had a good argument you wouldn't need to silence your opposition... If it was merely about words, anyway (which it is not).

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don’t happen to agree with either of his stances, but I can certainly come up with better than 2 pages of name calling and panic-monkey.

Are your objections to removing the right to incite hatred based on thin end of the wedge arguments and fear of overreach or do you think the right to preach division is a freedom worth the adverse consequences?

It's far too vague, and will inevitably lead to overreach. You cannot 'moderate speech' legally, unless you're going to define EXACTLY what you're moderating. Otherwise, any special interest group can claim ownership of any facet of language, and claim that it's "racially sensitive".

This is an example of the worst kind of legislation. It's like children write these things.

[Montegriffo]

So your argument boils down to "if you can't stop someone stirring up racial hatred at home they should be able to stand on a street corner with a megaphone doing it".
Would you apply that twisted logic to any other crimes?

You can't catch every speeding car so my freedom to drive at 100 mph in the school district shouldn't be impeded.

[Speaker to Animals]

The fact that you now have a sizable foreign population of people who want to murder you and rape your daughters should be of more concern to you than their propensity to express those motives.

[SuburbanFarmer]

So your argument boils down to "if you can't stop someone stirring up racial hatred at home they should be able to stand on a street corner with a megaphone doing it".
Would you apply that twisted logic to any other crimes?

You can't catch every speeding car so my freedom to drive at 100 mph in the school district shouldn't be impeded.

Does the legislation include a provision for doing it in public? Or does it prohibit ANY hate speech ANYWHERE?

[Montegriffo]

I don’t happen to agree with either of his stances, but I can certainly come up with better than 2 pages of name calling and panic-monkey.

Are your objections to removing the right to incite hatred based on thin end of the wedge arguments and fear of overreach or do you think the right to preach division is a freedom worth the adverse consequences?

It's far too vague, and will inevitably lead to overreach. You cannot 'moderate speech' legally, unless you're going to define EXACTLY what you're moderating. Otherwise, any special interest group can claim ownership of any facet of language, and claim that it's "racially sensitive".

This is an example of the worst kind of legislation. It's like children write these things.

The way I see it is...

On one extreme you have radical preachers inciting hatred towards the West leading directly to the July 7th bombings and on the other you have far right extremists inciting hatred towards multiculturalism leading to the murder of Joe Cox and a van ploughing into a crowd of worshippers waiting to pray.
I think that limiting the opportunities to incite hatred in public will lead to fewer people becoming hate filled extremists.