Australian Politics Forum - the meaning of freedom

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Extremism Exposed › the meaning of freedom

(Moderator: Jasin)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 32

the meaning of freedom (Read 38823 times)

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96294
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #15 - Sep 10^th, 2015 at 2:00pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2015 at 7:27am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 9^th, 2015 at 10:58pm:

Only the terrorists aren’t arguing against offence for offence’s sake, G. They’re just saying offending them is haram.

Of course - by "agree" I mean as in inverted commas.

I was just trying to make it more poignant for FD - you don't have to feel bad about saying something is wrong just because the terrorists are also saying its wrong (for whatever reason). You say whats right because its right, not because you're terrified by who else might be saying it.

Well yes, but FD does seem rather sensitive about you saying he said things he didn't say.

You know, after 8 years of FD saying things Abu didn't say.

Take the rape in marriage argument. FD argues that raping wives is a common Islamic practice because there is no proscribed punishment for wife-rape under Islamic law. When Abu showed Islamic texts that don't support rape in marriage, FD did his nit-picky thing with the quotes and ended up framing Abu as a serial wife raper.

You're one too, G. You're a Muslim. And do you know? FD can make you guilty of whatever he wants. This, you see, is Freeeeeedom.

And don't you ever forget it.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49280
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #16 - Sep 11^th, 2015 at 12:56pm

Gandalf do you think that responding to terrorist attacks targetted at achieving self censorship by calling for self censorship and rejecting the solidarity movement is consistent with being a standard bearer for freedom of speech?

Quote:

Its not about promoting self-censorship

So you keep saying, yet apparently that is all you have been talking about.

Quote:

its standing up for what you think is right

Is this the western liberal morals you also claim to be a standard bearer for? Because last time I asked you what you meant, you claimed to mean freedom of speech, while apparently meaning that all satire is evil if you can find someone who takes offense.

Quote:

I'm not going to stop saying what I believe is wrong is wrong just because the terrorists happen to agree with me

Here we go again Gandalf. This is the same thing I keep telling you. I said it about a dozen times in the previous post, to no avail. I am not asking you to say it is right or wrong. I am suggesting that if you really were the standard bearer for freedom of speech, you would refrain from calling for self censorship in response to terrorist attacks targeted at achieving self censorship and instead show some solidarity in support of freedom of speech. This has nothing at all to do with whether the speech is right or wrong. In fact it is most important to defend freedom of speech when you disagree with what is being said, and there is nothing contradictory in disagreeing with someone while defending their right to say it. The contradiction arises in calling for self censorship in response to terrorist attacks targeted at achieving self censorship while claiming to be a standard bearer for freedom of speech. This is why I keep accusing you of ignoring what I am actually saying, because you are ignoring what I am actually saying.

Quote:

Thats why your freeeedom is spineless - you sacrifice standing up for what is right

Earth to Gandalf - I am not doing this, nor suggesting you do it.

Quote:

Politically it is stable. Political Islam kills rapists, murderers, bans drugs and cuts off the hands of thieves.

Political Islam kills people who have sex outside of the recognised marriage/slavery institutions. Whether it was rape only seems to affect who gets punished (ie the woman gets off if she is not a willing participant, in theory at least if not in practice), not what the punishment is.

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #17 - Sep 11^th, 2015 at 4:04pm

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

I am suggesting that if you really were the standard bearer for freedom of speech, you would refrain from calling for self censorship in response to terrorist attacks targeted at achieving self censorship and instead show some solidarity in support of freedom of speech.

Thats correct FD - true followers of freeeeeedom engage in self-censorship, thats what I've been saying all along.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49280
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #18 - Sep 11^th, 2015 at 7:27pm

Freedom contains the seeds of it's own destruction Gandalf - the right of people like you to try to undermine it. Calling for self censorship may be a protected part of freedom of speech, but is not the promotion of freedom of speech.

Rather than actually supporting freedom of speech, you seem to merely tolerate it, and have somehow convinced yourself that this makes you a standard bearer for it, because you are so much more civilised than your fellow Muslims.

When you say that these victims of terrorism were wrong, do you mean you disagree with the content, or that you take issue with the fact that they published the content?

Also, when you describe yourself as the standard bearer for western liberal morals, do you mean anything other than freedom of speech? Like that certain things (eg, mocking Muhammed) are simply wrong and should not be said, for example?

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #19 - Sep 11^th, 2015 at 10:15pm

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2015 at 7:27pm:

When you say that these victims of terrorism were wrong, do you mean you disagree with the content, or that you take issue with the fact that they published the content?

Both of course.

You seem stubbornly unprepared to appreciate the difference between "should not have the right to publish" and "should not publish". You seem determined to morph the two together. This is completely nonsensical to me as I think the distinction is absolutely crucial.

For you, the fact that my conviction that publishing bigoted and hateful material is wrong just happened to coincide with the terrorists campaign to force them to stop - automatically makes my conviction incompatible with free speech. Presumably you would be ok with calls for self-censorship as long as there weren't any terrorists around? That seems to be what you are saying.

Either way, my point stands - anyone who believes in and stands up for free speech shouldn't feel conflicted in any way for saying that hateful and bigoted speech is wrong and should be avoided. You simply can't get around the fact that "refraining" - as you say - from such expression for no other reason than being scared of sounding like the terrorists, is nothing less that self-censorship.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49280
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #20 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 9:50am

Quote:

You seem stubbornly unprepared to appreciate the difference between "should not have the right to publish" and "should not publish".

How is this different from the distinction between censorship and self censorship?

Quote:

Presumably you would be ok with calls for self-censorship as long as there weren't any terrorists around? That seems to be what you are saying.

Sure. The opening posts go into great detail on this. Given the context, it is hard to take you seriously as a standard bearer for free speech when you think it is more important to call for self censorship that to show solidarity in defence of freedom of speech.

Quote:

Either way, my point stands - anyone who believes in and stands up for free speech shouldn't feel conflicted in any way for saying that hateful and bigoted speech is wrong and should be avoided.

Are you still talking about the Muhammed cartoons? In what way are you standing up for freedom of speech? The only aspect you are defending is your right to undermine freedom of speech at the same time as your fellow Muslims are slaughtering people in an effort to undermine freedom of speech. You ridicule the suggestion that there is even a threat to freedom of speech.

Quote:

You simply can't get around the fact that "refraining" - as you say - from such expression for no other reason than being scared of sounding like the terrorists, is nothing less that self-censorship.

The reason you might refrain from undermining freedom of speech is because you actually support it and recognise the insidious threat of self censorship in response to these terrorist attacks. You would put aside your agenda in defense of your core values. If the tables were turned and people were being killed for criticising the Muhammed cartoons you might have a point, buy you are merely revealing your ambivalence to these attacks on freedom of speech.

Now is the time to stand in solidarity with the cartoonists, not kick them while they are down. That is of course if you truly value freedom of speech above getting people to shut up about Muhammed. Which do you think is more important Gandalf?

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

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #21 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:11am

Not much about the meaning of freedom. Ah well, yet another headline OP title I suppose...

Here's the thing, the very moment one utilises violence for to make their "point" their point becomes worthless and irrelevant to any other issue. Now violence is not limited to the overt and extreme violence demonstrated by terrorists (regardless of their religion by the way...). Economic sanction is a form of violence, Corporate interference, any kind of influence or meddling with socio-political systems of any other sovereign state. The list can and does go on.

As such, neither the West, Muslims, British, Irish or any other social, religious or national group who have used violence to inflict their will has any high moral ground to fall back on.

As to freedom, firstly, it seems to me that freedom means you are free to come and go as you please, free to chose what you do with your life, free to chose what you wear, the work you do (this of course has some limits thanks to the economy lots of us worship).

However, there are some natural limits to freedom... We never seem to consider these for ourselves now do we. We only want to ever limit the freedoms of others - ironically, we are not actually free to do this - people are funny like that, they push back. Perhaps the moment someone limits the freedom of another they forfeit their rights...

Of course that won't work though, we already know that more "power" to inflict one's will equates to more access to freedom - particularly that freedom that limits others freedom.

As I see it, neither the west nor the radical Muslims who use violence to express their point of view or to inflict their freedoms onto the rest of us have any moral, social or ethical grounds to back themselves up on.

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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #22 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:28am

I have no idea why you keep insisting that not being afraid to say what you think is wrong is undermining free speech. Thats why your version of freedom is spineless and counter to true freedom - you must be dictated by what the terrorists do: "don't dare say that bigotry is wrong and should be avoided - thats what the terrorists want" - is basically your philosophy.

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 9:50am:

How is this different from the distinction between censorship and self censorship?

No one is talking about self-censorship except you. As far as I'm concerned you only self-censor when you are coerced against your will to not say what you want to say. The only person advocating this is you - when you insist that being dictated to by the terrorists and "refraining" from saying what you believe should be done in the interests of free speech (go figure!). I am not interested in coercing anyone - all I would do is express my conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided. But thats not calling for self-censorship - of course I would hope that they would desist from it, but only as a result of them coming to the realization on their own that its wrong.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49280
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #23 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:41am

Quote:

I have no idea why you keep insisting that not being afraid to say what you think is wrong is undermining free speech.

If you think the exercising of free speech is wrong, and make these pronouncements in the aftermath of people being slaughtered for what they published while ridiculing the solidarity movement, then you are undermining freedom of speech. If you do this while claiming to be a standard bearer for freedom of speech, then you are a hypocrite.

Quote:

you must be dictated by what the terrorists do: "don't dare say that bigotry is wrong and should be avoided - thats what the terrorists want"

If the terrorists are making a direct attack on freedom of speech, and you are a standard bearer for freedom of speech, the choice is pretty clear Gandalf. Do you respond to the threat by showing solidarity in defense of freedom of speech, or do you mock the solidarity movement and continue calling for self censorship like nothing has happened?

Quote:

No one is talking about self-censorship except you.

I quoted you in the OP and accused you of promoting self censorship. Is that not a call for self censorship?

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned you only self-censor when you are coerced against your will to not say what you want to say.

So being a standard bearer for freedom of speeech involves being oblivious to direct attacks on freedom of speech, until they come after you personally, like the "first they came for the hippies" story? You are a standard bearer for your own freedom of speech and no-one elses? Is this what you mean by western liberal morals? Stay out of other people's battles?

Quote:

I am not interested in coercing anyone - all I would do is express my conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided.

Perhaps now would be a good time to list them Gandalf.

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #24 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 11:19am

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

So being a standard bearer for freedom of speeech involves being oblivious to direct attacks on freedom of speech,

No it means staying true to your principles despite the attacks that are happening. Whats interesting here is that I've put it to you that you are engaging in self-censorship about 5 times now, and you continue to ignore it. You actually make a good case for self-censorship - or "refraining", as you put it, from saying what you believe, but you are understandably very reluctant to acknowledge it for what it is.

Would you like to clear the air now FD and acknowledge that you are calling for self-censorship? And if not, I suggest you come up with an explanation for why "refraining" from saying what you believe in, is not self-censorship.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #25 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 11:28am

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

I quoted you in the OP and accused you of promoting self censorship. Is that not a call for self censorship?

I just said, my understanding of self-censorship is stopping yourself from saying something - not because you believe its the right thing to do, but because you are coerced or intimidated into doing so (albeit not necessarily overtly). If you can find a quote of me stating that I agree with this behaviour, then I'll happily concede that I am a promoter of self-censorship.

But you won't, because I never promoted such behaviour. I want people to stop saying bigoted things because they arrive at the conclusion themselves that it is bigoted and inappropriate.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49280
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #26 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 12:09pm

Quote:

No it means staying true to your principles despite the attacks that are happening.

So what are these western liberal morals you are a standard bearer for? The only answer you have given is freedom of speech, yet you insist that your conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided is more important, even in the context of your fellow Muslims trying to intimidate people into the self censorship you are promoting.

And what are these expressions that are wrong and should be avoided?

Quote:

Whats interesting here is that I've put it to you that you are engaging in self-censorship about 5 times now, and you continue to ignore it.

Disagreeing with you is not self censorship.

Quote:

You actually make a good case for self-censorship - or "refraining", as you put it, from saying what you believe,

If you actually think your "conviction that certain expressions are wrong and should be avoided" is more important than freedom of speech, then go ahead and say it. Just don't expect us to accept your sincerity when you also claim to be a standard bearer for freedom of speech.

Quote:

Here you go Gandalf:

Quote:

Am I an apologist for terrorists, and therefore a de-facto enemy of freedom if I don't militantly declare my 'solidarity' with victims of terrorists who felt offended - and instead call on people to act more respectfully and that such attacks reflect genuine grievances felt by a segment of society that should be addressed?

Quote:

But you won't, because I never promoted such behaviour. I want people to stop saying bigoted things because they arrive at the conclusion themselves that it is bigoted and inappropriate.

Because the people who threaten to kill them for saying these things have "genuine grievances"?

Can you list the bigoted things you think are wrong and should be avoided? Does it include Muhammed cartoons?

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

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: the meaning of freedom Reply #27 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 12:26pm freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 12:09pm: Here you go Gandalf: Thats not self-censorship. As I've already explained.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49280
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #28 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:38pm

Because you want people to refrain from mocking Muhammed out of respect for Muslim terrorists and their "genuine grievances" rather than fear?

What are these grievances that are more important than the threat to freedom of speech posed by self censorship in response to these attacks? If it is so important to address them instead, why can you not say what they are?

Do you think that getting people to "freely" refrain from mocking Muhammed will assist the terrorists in getting them to refrain out of fear?

What are these expressions that "are wrong and should be avoided." Is this more important that standing in solidarity with victims of Islamic terrorism?

What, other than tolerating freedom of speech and pretending to support it, are these western liberal morals that you are the standard bearer for?

Do you see any value in the solidarity movement that arose from the Charlie Hebdo massacre in defending freedom of expression?

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

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96294 Gender:	Re: the meaning of freedom Reply #29 - Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:47pm Questions, questions.
Back to top	IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 32

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page