Australian Politics Forum - FREEDOM OF SPEECH..

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #660 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:27am

Quote:

whats you take on people who do not follow..
whats laughingly called main stream thinking....

Do you mean the terrorists who want to scare people into abandoning freedom of speech, or those who want to spinelessly appease them? There are a lot of ways that people can think differently cods. This is a bit different from not thinking at all. Hence the question, what do you think would be the likely consequences of adopting your approach of spineless appeasement?

When you said you would walk away, you did not mean you would stop posting, did you?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #661 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:29am

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:27am:

Quote:

whats you take on people who do not follow..
whats laughingly called main stream thinking....

Do you mean the terrorists who want to scare people into abandoning freedom of speech, or those who want to spinelessly appease them? There are a lot of ways that people can think differently cods. This is a bit different from not thinking at all. Hence the question, what do you think would be the likely consequences of adopting your approach of spineless appeasement?

do you thinks its alright for people to say bad things about people who do not follow mainstream blindmans bluff.....its my way or no way...very aggressive Angry

do you think its all right to do that?????

Back to top

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #662 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:30am

So, when all is said and done, many of you here totally support Cods right to express her opinions about this issue?

Of course you do, otherwise you would not be supporting freedom of speech...

Now, for my part, while I do not agree with much of what Cods has said, or rather perhaps, the way she has expressed it, I see no valid reason or argument to make the attack quite so personal. Of course, given we are rabidly defending this fluid concept of freedom, obviously how you choose to go about expressing your defense of course is up to you.

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time. To be frank, going on the attack seems to be further cementing Cods into her position and, quite honestly, I cannot blame her for that. But then I am betting at least a few of you have already considered that - which gives some insight into your real position on freedom of speech.

Appeasement does not work. That has been demonstrated throughout history.

There is some irony here too.

To stop drawing cartoons would be to appease those who use an affront to their perverse view of their religion to commit acts of violence (or at the very least threat), yet conversely, we have the current situation with two blokes on death row in Indonesia, yet we shouldn't say anything or do anything about that because,

a) That is Indonesia's law...
b) They have a big military...

Now that is appeasement in spades. Of course, I realise it is much safer to attack the Cods of the world because their expressed opinion is somehow a greater threat to our well being, or you simply don't like it.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

stryder

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4545
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #663 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:34am

cods wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:29am:

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:27am:

Quote:

whats you take on people who do not follow..
whats laughingly called main stream thinking....

Do you mean the terrorists who want to scare people into abandoning freedom of speech, or those who want to spinelessly appease them? There are a lot of ways that people can think differently cods. This is a bit different from not thinking at all. Hence the question, what do you think would be the likely consequences of adopting your approach of spineless appeasement?

do you thinks its alright for people to say bad things about people who do not follow mainstream blindmans bluff.....its my way or no way...very aggressive Angry

do you think its all right to do that?????

I wonder Cods.

Did you feel that same way when people kicked christianity, when people like madonna, martin scorcesee or the monty python gang ALL WHO MOCKED, CRITICISED OR JUST WANTED TO SHOW ANOTHER VERSION OF CHRIST.

DID YOU HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT CODS, why dont you be fair for once ????????

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:39am by stryder »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #664 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:36am

Quote:

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.

Quote:

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time.

Cods has already rejected this "thinking" nonsense as hypothetical pedantry. She prefers to post her thoughts rather than think about them.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

stryder

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4545
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #665 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:38am

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

So, when all is said and done, many of you here totally support Cods right to express her opinions about this issue?

Of course you do, otherwise you would not be supporting freedom of speech...

Now, for my part, while I do not agree with much of what Cods has said, or rather perhaps, the way she has expressed it, I see no valid reason or argument to make the attack quite so personal. Of course, given we are rabidly defending this fluid concept of freedom, obviously how you choose to go about expressing your defense of course is up to you.

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time. To be frank, going on the attack seems to be further cementing Cods into her position and, quite honestly, I cannot blame her for that. But then I am betting at least a few of you have already considered that - which gives some insight into your real position on freedom of speech.

Appeasement does not work. That has been demonstrated throughout history.

There is some irony here too.

To stop drawing cartoons would be to appease those who use an affront to their perverse view of their religion to commit acts of violence (or at the very least threat), yet conversely, we have the current situation with two blokes on death row in Indonesia, yet we shouldn't say anything or do anything about that because,

a) That is Indonesia's law...
b) They have a big military...

Now that is appeasement in spades. Of course, I realise it is much safer to attack the Cods of the world because their expressed opinion is somehow a greater threat to our well being, or you simply don't like it.

We are argueing against Cods position, not telling her to stop saying what she wants to say about it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29670
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #666 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:50am

stryder wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

So, when all is said and done, many of you here totally support Cods right to express her opinions about this issue?

Of course you do, otherwise you would not be supporting freedom of speech...

Now, for my part, while I do not agree with much of what Cods has said, or rather perhaps, the way she has expressed it, I see no valid reason or argument to make the attack quite so personal. Of course, given we are rabidly defending this fluid concept of freedom, obviously how you choose to go about expressing your defense of course is up to you.

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time. To be frank, going on the attack seems to be further cementing Cods into her position and, quite honestly, I cannot blame her for that. But then I am betting at least a few of you have already considered that - which gives some insight into your real position on freedom of speech.

Appeasement does not work. That has been demonstrated throughout history.

There is some irony here too.

To stop drawing cartoons would be to appease those who use an affront to their perverse view of their religion to commit acts of violence (or at the very least threat), yet conversely, we have the current situation with two blokes on death row in Indonesia, yet we shouldn't say anything or do anything about that because,

a) That is Indonesia's law...
b) They have a big military...

Now that is appeasement in spades. Of course, I realise it is much safer to attack the Cods of the world because their expressed opinion is somehow a greater threat to our well being, or you simply don't like it.

We are argueing against Cods position, not telling her to stop saying what she wants to say about it.

Yes & after 45 pages of going around in circles isn't it time the light bulb popped on in your head & said "I'm/we're wasting our time"?

There's only so many ways you can re-frame your position in telling Cods hers is one of appeasement & cowardice.

Seems in this case you should take a leaf out of her book & give it away .....

sadly it's been a monumental waste of reasoning.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #667 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:52am

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:36am:

Quote:

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.

Nor have I suggested otherwise, particularly in that which you chose to quote.

As such, clearly the stupid thing you said is worthy of criticism, however, I would respectfully suggest you take note of the difference in how I criticise what you said, rather than simply attack you as an individual... that was, in effect, the actual point I made, which somehow you misinterpreted. I suppose that means I did not express it clearly enough.

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:36am:

Quote:

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time.

Cods has already rejected this "thinking" nonsense as hypothetical pedantry. She prefers to post her thoughts rather than think about them.

Not at all, what it appears that Cods has rejected, is the methodology used to criticise her, on the basis of her stated position.

Posting her thoughts would be, afterall, exercising her freedom of speech, whether or not she has actually put thought into them (her thoughts that is, yeah doesn't it look kind of strange, no thought into her thoughts....) is merely speculation on your part. I make not comment as to whether or not it is valid speculation, but the fact is, it is just speculation. Once again, this merely attacks Cods and does not address the debate.

As per Freedom of Speech, of course, you are at liberty to attack Cods, obviously, likewise, others, like myself, are at liberty to criticise your methods. In short, you can keep trying to brow beat Cods to change her mind, or, you can adopt a bit of live and let live in the hope that with time, Cods may come to see things differently in time.

I note that Cods has not really taken a backward step in this debate with you and few others, kind of makes the "appeaser" label look a wee bit silly if you look at it closely. Even despite Cods stated position being very much that of appeasment with regard specifically to nutjobs....It needs to be acknowledged she has not appeased you and others here.

Credit where it is due...

I guess the challenge is, I am not particularly disagreeing with your overall position, however, I am pointing out I don't think you are going about defending that position with any degree of credibility or integrity.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #668 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:53am

Gnads wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

stryder wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

So, when all is said and done, many of you here totally support Cods right to express her opinions about this issue?

Of course you do, otherwise you would not be supporting freedom of speech...

Now, for my part, while I do not agree with much of what Cods has said, or rather perhaps, the way she has expressed it, I see no valid reason or argument to make the attack quite so personal. Of course, given we are rabidly defending this fluid concept of freedom, obviously how you choose to go about expressing your defense of course is up to you.

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time. To be frank, going on the attack seems to be further cementing Cods into her position and, quite honestly, I cannot blame her for that. But then I am betting at least a few of you have already considered that - which gives some insight into your real position on freedom of speech.

Appeasement does not work. That has been demonstrated throughout history.

There is some irony here too.

To stop drawing cartoons would be to appease those who use an affront to their perverse view of their religion to commit acts of violence (or at the very least threat), yet conversely, we have the current situation with two blokes on death row in Indonesia, yet we shouldn't say anything or do anything about that because,

a) That is Indonesia's law...
b) They have a big military...

Now that is appeasement in spades. Of course, I realise it is much safer to attack the Cods of the world because their expressed opinion is somehow a greater threat to our well being, or you simply don't like it.

We are argueing against Cods position, not telling her to stop saying what she wants to say about it.

Yes & after 45 pages of going around in circles isn't it time the light bulb popped on in your head & said "I'm/we're wasting our time"?

There's only so many ways you can re-frame your position in telling Cods hers is one of appeasement & cowardice.

Seems in this case you should take a leaf out of her book & give it away .....

sadly it's been a monumental waste of reasoning.

To my mind that would be because reasoning has not been applied in very liberal doses....

A waste none the less...

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

stryder

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4545
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #669 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:57am

Gnads wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

stryder wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

So, when all is said and done, many of you here totally support Cods right to express her opinions about this issue?

Of course you do, otherwise you would not be supporting freedom of speech...

Now, for my part, while I do not agree with much of what Cods has said, or rather perhaps, the way she has expressed it, I see no valid reason or argument to make the attack quite so personal. Of course, given we are rabidly defending this fluid concept of freedom, obviously how you choose to go about expressing your defense of course is up to you.

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time. To be frank, going on the attack seems to be further cementing Cods into her position and, quite honestly, I cannot blame her for that. But then I am betting at least a few of you have already considered that - which gives some insight into your real position on freedom of speech.

Appeasement does not work. That has been demonstrated throughout history.

There is some irony here too.

To stop drawing cartoons would be to appease those who use an affront to their perverse view of their religion to commit acts of violence (or at the very least threat), yet conversely, we have the current situation with two blokes on death row in Indonesia, yet we shouldn't say anything or do anything about that because,

a) That is Indonesia's law...
b) They have a big military...

Now that is appeasement in spades. Of course, I realise it is much safer to attack the Cods of the world because their expressed opinion is somehow a greater threat to our well being, or you simply don't like it.

We are argueing against Cods position, not telling her to stop saying what she wants to say about it.

Yes & after 45 pages of going around in circles isn't it time the light bulb popped on in your head & said "I'm/we're wasting our time"?

There's only so many ways you can re-frame your position in telling Cods hers is one of appeasement & cowardice.

Seems in this case you should take a leaf out of her book & give it away .....

sadly it's been a monumental waste of reasoning.

That would be if you give up your belief and position.

BUT I HAVENT, I believe in what im stating here, and so do others here on this thread, and so it is not really a waste of time.

BUT IF IT IS FOR YOU ?? YOU DONT HAVE TO READ IT, Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #670 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 10:15am

Quote:

Not at all, what it appears that Cods has rejected, is the methodology used to criticise her, on the basis of her stated position.

She has squirmed every way she can think of. However when I did get through to her about whether there might be consequences to her appeasement, her response was that I was being pedantic and that such questions are hypothetical and thus not worth thinking about.

Quote:

Posting her thoughts would be, afterall, exercising her freedom of speech, whether or not she has actually put thought into them (her thoughts that is, yeah doesn't it look kind of strange, no thought into her thoughts....) is merely speculation on your part.

No, she has made several justifications for not thinking about the consequences of her position, and everything else she posts reinforces this.

Quote:

I note that Cods has not really taken a backward step in this debate with you and few others, kind of makes the "appeaser" label look a wee bit silly if you look at it closely.

The irony is not lost on us.

There are additional consequences to the discussion with cods. You for example, are being very careful to state your support for freedom of speech, in case people think you are like cods. I have not seen you do this before.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11505
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #671 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 10:36am

Peter Panner wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

Dream, I enjoyed the story. An ability to communicate honestly without fear of censure can be a great starting point for understanding. The story seems familiar, though.

Thanks.

BTW ...... the fear, believe me, initially it was there, but fortunately it wasn't so obvious at the time.

Familiar ........... You have similar event(s) in your life?

I've had more than one myself, but this is the one that came to mind at the time.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 14^th, 2015 at 10:42am by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29670
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #672 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 10:38am

stryder wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:57am:

Gnads wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

stryder wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

Phemanderac wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 9:30am:

So, when all is said and done, many of you here totally support Cods right to express her opinions about this issue?

Of course you do, otherwise you would not be supporting freedom of speech...

Now, for my part, while I do not agree with much of what Cods has said, or rather perhaps, the way she has expressed it, I see no valid reason or argument to make the attack quite so personal. Of course, given we are rabidly defending this fluid concept of freedom, obviously how you choose to go about expressing your defense of course is up to you.

It just seems to the casual observer, more than a little bit like the chosen method of expression to disagree with Cods position is to bully her into submission, as it were. As such, that is hardly being respectful of the very concept of free speech.

Bottom line is, I don't agree with much of how Cods has framed her position, however, I see no value in either attacking her (on a personal level), or for that matter, counter arguing, I think if Cods is to reconsider, reflect on this perspective, or even go as far as changing it, that will be up to her and in her own time. To be frank, going on the attack seems to be further cementing Cods into her position and, quite honestly, I cannot blame her for that. But then I am betting at least a few of you have already considered that - which gives some insight into your real position on freedom of speech.

Appeasement does not work. That has been demonstrated throughout history.

There is some irony here too.

To stop drawing cartoons would be to appease those who use an affront to their perverse view of their religion to commit acts of violence (or at the very least threat), yet conversely, we have the current situation with two blokes on death row in Indonesia, yet we shouldn't say anything or do anything about that because,

a) That is Indonesia's law...
b) They have a big military...

Now that is appeasement in spades. Of course, I realise it is much safer to attack the Cods of the world because their expressed opinion is somehow a greater threat to our well being, or you simply don't like it.

We are argueing against Cods position, not telling her to stop saying what she wants to say about it.

Yes & after 45 pages of going around in circles isn't it time the light bulb popped on in your head & said "I'm/we're wasting our time"?

There's only so many ways you can re-frame your position in telling Cods hers is one of appeasement & cowardice.

Seems in this case you should take a leaf out of her book & give it away .....

sadly it's been a monumental waste of reasoning.

That would be if you give up your belief and position.

BUT I HAVENT, I believe in what im stating here, and so do others here on this thread, and so it is not really a waste of time.

BUT IF IT IS FOR YOU ?? YOU DONT HAVE TO READ IT, Grin

You missed my point .... but if ground hog day futility is your thing ... I'm not standing in your way.

As for reading it .... most I don't ..... I can skip 10 pages to find it the same as the initial 10 ...

I made a contribution early on ... so I check to see if there has been any resolution to the debate ...

yet 45 pages later it continues ... with nothing new to say ...standing up for belief or no belief.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH..
Reply #673 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 10:39am

freediver wrote on Feb 14^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

There are additional consequences to the discussion with cods. You for example, are being very careful to state your support for freedom of speech, in case people think you are like cods. I have not seen you do this before.

With all due respect, you simply have not read what I have posted closely enough, that would be point one....

Secondly, I do not do so because of what or who people might think I am like, as you put it - that is your assumption. I do so because, posters such as you have labelled my position previously without any basis in fact, but simply by making either unfounded accusation or, assumptions, also with no sound basis.

I don't expect you to concede that point, it would be totally inconsistent with your previously stated positions and those positions you have ascribed to others. I have merely chosen to be much more specific, so you are slightly less enabled to ascribe a fallacious position to that which I actually say.

I guess that therefore, removes one of those unintended consequences to some degree, not withstanding your own position on this of course.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Peter Panner Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 111 Gender:	Re: FREEDOM OF SPEECH.. Reply #674 - Feb 14^th, 2015 at 11:29am Sorry, I meant the story is familiar. I remember reading it somewhere.
Back to top	IP Logged