Australian Politics Forum - the meaning of freedom

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #420 - Dec 8^th, 2015 at 11:45am

FD can you at least stop playing dumb and just say you didn't like my explanation - instead of pretending there is none? Is that so hard? You do this all the time:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:20pm:

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive because they want to? = not self censorship

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive - against their will purely by the fear (real or perceived) of what someone else might do in reaction (ie intimidated into doing so)? = self censorship.

The newspaper who refrains from "fanning the flames" falls into the former. Your spineless insistence that people should not, in the interests of freedom, speak their mind about Muhammad cartoons through fear of agreeing with the terrorists = self censorship.

It really is that straight forward FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 11:54am:

- "merely" avoiding having your head hacked off - is indeed self censorship, *IF* you otherwise believe expressing your view is a right and worthwhile thing to do - whether its because they have a genuine desire to stimulate a constructive debate through controversy, or whether they're just a dick who have no qualms with being a dick. A bit like if Soren suddenly refrained from posting personal abuse if he was convinced that doing so would earn himself a permanent ban - since we all know he sees nothing inherently wrong with hurling abuse.

- It is not self-censorship if you are struck by a sudden bout of empathy and you realise (by your own volition) that, hey, you know what? I wouldn't like being insulted like that, so I shouldn't do it to others - therefore I won't make this insulting expression. Or, in the case of the newspaper, realising that its not a responsible thing for a public news medium to stoke the flames of tension unnecessarily. Of course, if the newspaper refrained from publishing something they believed was worthy of being published *ONLY* because of fear of violence, and not because they believed it was the right thing to do, then that would be self-censorship.

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

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #421 - Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:21pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

And wonder why you Musllms are distrusted and avoided. You are simply not honest. You cannot trusted. You are aliens, your minds turn in an alien and unfathomable way, you take offence and turn violent over the crusades,cartoons, beards, a joke - who knows what's next.

Interesting. Here we see you cannot even explain your own assertion that muslims must "stand up" to the terrorists. I invited you several times to clarify what it means in practice. I thought we might actually get somewhere - you know some actual solutions. But in the end, we just end up where we always do - mindless abstract verbal bashing of the musselman.

You cannot sustain your own rhetoric because you know full well that when it comes down to it, what you demand of me is unreasonable. Your bigoted rhetoric only works in the abstract - targeted at some vague fictional caricature of your own imagination - a caricature who is wholly unreasonable and wholly sinister. Ranting and raving works against such a foe, but when its directed at an actual law-abiding human being who harbours no ill-will towards anyone, and is deserving of the same respect as anyone else, it crumbles apart for the bitter and prejudiced nonsense that it is. And I think you understand this, which is why you default to abstract ranting mode whenever you are confronted with actual human beings and their legitimate concerns.

Even your asking me, a kuffar, about how to win back your religion from the head hackers and rapists is telling.

Your and your 'vast majority' habibis should be protesting at the Hizb ul Tahrir gatherings, you should get rid of your non-English speaking imams and muftis, you should protest in front of every mosque and prayer house where radicals gather, you should show that you ARE a force to be reckoned with, not just a load of cowardly sheep.

You should not have a reflexive victim mentality but finally come out and examine your faith critically and publicly.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #422 - Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:33pm

Soren wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

And wonder why you Musllms are distrusted and avoided. You are simply not honest. You cannot trusted. You are aliens, your minds turn in an alien and unfathomable way, you take offence and turn violent over the crusades,cartoons, beards, a joke - who knows what's next.

Interesting. Here we see you cannot even explain your own assertion that muslims must "stand up" to the terrorists. I invited you several times to clarify what it means in practice. I thought we might actually get somewhere - you know some actual solutions. But in the end, we just end up where we always do - mindless abstract verbal bashing of the musselman.

You cannot sustain your own rhetoric because you know full well that when it comes down to it, what you demand of me is unreasonable. Your bigoted rhetoric only works in the abstract - targeted at some vague fictional caricature of your own imagination - a caricature who is wholly unreasonable and wholly sinister. Ranting and raving works against such a foe, but when its directed at an actual law-abiding human being who harbours no ill-will towards anyone, and is deserving of the same respect as anyone else, it crumbles apart for the bitter and prejudiced nonsense that it is. And I think you understand this, which is why you default to abstract ranting mode whenever you are confronted with actual human beings and their legitimate concerns.

Even your asking me, a kuffar, about how to win back your religion from the head hackers and rapists is telling.

Your and your 'vast majority' habibis should be protesting at the Hizb ul Tahrir gatherings, you should get rid of your non-English speaking imams and muftis, you should protest in front of every mosque and prayer house where radicals gather, you should show that you ARE a force to be reckoned with, not just a load of cowardly sheep.

You should not have a reflexive victim mentality but finally come out and examine your faith critically and publicly.

In short, you should become a Lutheran.

Always absolutely never ever.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49264
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #423 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:16pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

FD can you at least stop playing dumb and just say you didn't like my explanation - instead of pretending there is none? Is that so hard? You do this all the time:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:20pm:

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive because they want to? = not self censorship

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive - against their will purely by the fear (real or perceived) of what someone else might do in reaction (ie intimidated into doing so)? = self censorship.

The newspaper who refrains from "fanning the flames" falls into the former. Your spineless insistence that people should not, in the interests of freedom, speak their mind about Muhammad cartoons through fear of agreeing with the terrorists = self censorship.

It really is that straight forward FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 11:54am:

- "merely" avoiding having your head hacked off - is indeed self censorship, *IF* you otherwise believe expressing your view is a right and worthwhile thing to do - whether its because they have a genuine desire to stimulate a constructive debate through controversy, or whether they're just a dick who have no qualms with being a dick. A bit like if Soren suddenly refrained from posting personal abuse if he was convinced that doing so would earn himself a permanent ban - since we all know he sees nothing inherently wrong with hurling abuse.

- It is not self-censorship if you are struck by a sudden bout of empathy and you realise (by your own volition) that, hey, you know what? I wouldn't like being insulted like that, so I shouldn't do it to others - therefore I won't make this insulting expression. Or, in the case of the newspaper, realising that its not a responsible thing for a public news medium to stoke the flames of tension unnecessarily. Of course, if the newspaper refrained from publishing something they believed was worthy of being published *ONLY* because of fear of violence, and not because they believed it was the right thing to do, then that would be self-censorship.

It's not that I didn't like it. It's that it is hard to make sense of.

What is the difference between not wanting to fan the flames and a fear of violence? Is it the emotional aspect of the decision? Is it not self censorship if the decision to self censor is based on a rational choice to avoid violence rather than an emotion-laden fear of it?

Is it acceptable to you for newspapers to refrain from linking the Islamic ideology to violence, not because they think it reflects the truth, but because society is threatened by Islamic terrorism - so long as the decision is 'rational' rather than driven by 'fear' of having their employees killed?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #424 - Dec 9^th, 2015 at 7:12pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

And wonder why you Musllms are distrusted and avoided. You are simply not honest. You cannot trusted. You are aliens, your minds turn in an alien and unfathomable way, you take offence and turn violent over the crusades,cartoons, beards, a joke - who knows what's next.

Interesting. Here we see you cannot even explain your own assertion that muslims must "stand up" to the terrorists. I invited you several times to clarify what it means in practice. I thought we might actually get somewhere - you know some actual solutions. But in the end, we just end up where we always do - mindless abstract verbal bashing of the musselman.

You cannot sustain your own rhetoric because you know full well that when it comes down to it, what you demand of me is unreasonable. Your bigoted rhetoric only works in the abstract - targeted at some vague fictional caricature of your own imagination - a caricature who is wholly unreasonable and wholly sinister. Ranting and raving works against such a foe, but when its directed at an actual law-abiding human being who harbours no ill-will towards anyone, and is deserving of the same respect as anyone else, it crumbles apart for the bitter and prejudiced nonsense that it is. And I think you understand this, which is why you default to abstract ranting mode whenever you are confronted with actual human beings and their legitimate concerns.

Even your asking me, a kuffar, about how to win back your religion from the head hackers and rapists is telling.

Your and your 'vast majority' habibis should be protesting at the Hizb ul Tahrir gatherings, you should get rid of your non-English speaking imams and muftis, you should protest in front of every mosque and prayer house where radicals gather, you should show that you ARE a force to be reckoned with, not just a load of cowardly sheep.

You should not have a reflexive victim mentality but finally come out and examine your faith critically and publicly.

In short, you should become a Lutheran.

Always absolutely never ever.

Mais non.

Stay Muslim by all means. But do not then be surprised that you ARE looked at askance, with suspicion and even contempt because you present yourself, in the West, as a conscientious outsider, with monomaniacal adherence to all the markers of an objector and repudiator of your host culture and people.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #425 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:40am

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

FD can you at least stop playing dumb and just say you didn't like my explanation - instead of pretending there is none? Is that so hard? You do this all the time:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:20pm:

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive because they want to? = not self censorship

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive - against their will purely by the fear (real or perceived) of what someone else might do in reaction (ie intimidated into doing so)? = self censorship.

The newspaper who refrains from "fanning the flames" falls into the former. Your spineless insistence that people should not, in the interests of freedom, speak their mind about Muhammad cartoons through fear of agreeing with the terrorists = self censorship.

It really is that straight forward FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 11:54am:

- "merely" avoiding having your head hacked off - is indeed self censorship, *IF* you otherwise believe expressing your view is a right and worthwhile thing to do - whether its because they have a genuine desire to stimulate a constructive debate through controversy, or whether they're just a dick who have no qualms with being a dick. A bit like if Soren suddenly refrained from posting personal abuse if he was convinced that doing so would earn himself a permanent ban - since we all know he sees nothing inherently wrong with hurling abuse.

- It is not self-censorship if you are struck by a sudden bout of empathy and you realise (by your own volition) that, hey, you know what? I wouldn't like being insulted like that, so I shouldn't do it to others - therefore I won't make this insulting expression. Or, in the case of the newspaper, realising that its not a responsible thing for a public news medium to stoke the flames of tension unnecessarily. Of course, if the newspaper refrained from publishing something they believed was worthy of being published *ONLY* because of fear of violence, and not because they believed it was the right thing to do, then that would be self-censorship.

It's not that I didn't like it. It's that it is hard to make sense of.

What is the difference between not wanting to fan the flames and a fear of violence? Is it the emotional aspect of the decision? Is it not self censorship if the decision to self censor is based on a rational choice to avoid violence rather than an emotion-laden fear of it?

Is it acceptable to you for newspapers to refrain from linking the Islamic ideology to violence, not because they think it reflects the truth, but because society is threatened by Islamic terrorism - so long as the decision is 'rational' rather than driven by 'fear' of having their employees killed?

So next time just clarify what you don't understand about my answer instead of just repeating the question as if I hadn't addressed it at all.

As long as newspapers (or anyone) feel compelled to refrain from saying what they believe is the right thing to say due to external threats (perceived or otherwise) then its self-censorship. If you are still confused, just think back to what you proposed - that people should not, in the interests of freedom, say what they think is right (ie that cartoons should not be published) through your fear of agreeing with the terrorists. Thats self censorship, and you are a proponent of it.

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

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #426 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 8:31am

Soren wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 5:21pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

And wonder why you Musllms are distrusted and avoided. You are simply not honest. You cannot trusted. You are aliens, your minds turn in an alien and unfathomable way, you take offence and turn violent over the crusades,cartoons, beards, a joke - who knows what's next.

Interesting. Here we see you cannot even explain your own assertion that muslims must "stand up" to the terrorists. I invited you several times to clarify what it means in practice. I thought we might actually get somewhere - you know some actual solutions. But in the end, we just end up where we always do - mindless abstract verbal bashing of the musselman.

You cannot sustain your own rhetoric because you know full well that when it comes down to it, what you demand of me is unreasonable. Your bigoted rhetoric only works in the abstract - targeted at some vague fictional caricature of your own imagination - a caricature who is wholly unreasonable and wholly sinister. Ranting and raving works against such a foe, but when its directed at an actual law-abiding human being who harbours no ill-will towards anyone, and is deserving of the same respect as anyone else, it crumbles apart for the bitter and prejudiced nonsense that it is. And I think you understand this, which is why you default to abstract ranting mode whenever you are confronted with actual human beings and their legitimate concerns.

Even your asking me, a kuffar, about how to win back your religion from the head hackers and rapists is telling.

Your and your 'vast majority' habibis should be protesting at the Hizb ul Tahrir gatherings, you should get rid of your non-English speaking imams and muftis, you should protest in front of every mosque and prayer house where radicals gather, you should show that you ARE a force to be reckoned with, not just a load of cowardly sheep.

You should not have a reflexive victim mentality but finally come out and examine your faith critically and publicly.

In short, you should become a Lutheran.

Always absolutely never ever.

Mais non.

Stay Muslim by all means. But do not then be surprised that you ARE looked at askance, with suspicion and even contempt because you present yourself, in the West, as a conscientious outsider, with monomaniacal adherence to all the markers of an objector and repudiator of your host culture and people.

We see your point, dear boy. If you don’t convert to Lutheranism, you should be castrated, burned, killed, carpetbombed and nuked.

You’ve been reading the constitution again, no?

Marvellous stuff.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #427 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:02am

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:40am:

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 5:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 8^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

FD can you at least stop playing dumb and just say you didn't like my explanation - instead of pretending there is none? Is that so hard? You do this all the time:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2015 at 12:20pm:

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive because they want to? = not self censorship

Does someone refrain from saying something offensive - against their will purely by the fear (real or perceived) of what someone else might do in reaction (ie intimidated into doing so)? = self censorship.

The newspaper who refrains from "fanning the flames" falls into the former. Your spineless insistence that people should not, in the interests of freedom, speak their mind about Muhammad cartoons through fear of agreeing with the terrorists = self censorship.

It really is that straight forward FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 11:54am:

- "merely" avoiding having your head hacked off - is indeed self censorship, *IF* you otherwise believe expressing your view is a right and worthwhile thing to do - whether its because they have a genuine desire to stimulate a constructive debate through controversy, or whether they're just a dick who have no qualms with being a dick. A bit like if Soren suddenly refrained from posting personal abuse if he was convinced that doing so would earn himself a permanent ban - since we all know he sees nothing inherently wrong with hurling abuse.

- It is not self-censorship if you are struck by a sudden bout of empathy and you realise (by your own volition) that, hey, you know what? I wouldn't like being insulted like that, so I shouldn't do it to others - therefore I won't make this insulting expression. Or, in the case of the newspaper, realising that its not a responsible thing for a public news medium to stoke the flames of tension unnecessarily. Of course, if the newspaper refrained from publishing something they believed was worthy of being published *ONLY* because of fear of violence, and not because they believed it was the right thing to do, then that would be self-censorship.

It's not that I didn't like it. It's that it is hard to make sense of.

What is the difference between not wanting to fan the flames and a fear of violence? Is it the emotional aspect of the decision? Is it not self censorship if the decision to self censor is based on a rational choice to avoid violence rather than an emotion-laden fear of it?

Is it acceptable to you for newspapers to refrain from linking the Islamic ideology to violence, not because they think it reflects the truth, but because society is threatened by Islamic terrorism - so long as the decision is 'rational' rather than driven by 'fear' of having their employees killed?

So next time just clarify what you don't understand about my answer instead of just repeating the question as if I hadn't addressed it at all.

As long as newspapers (or anyone) feel compelled to refrain from saying what they believe is the right thing to say due to external threats (perceived or otherwise) then its self-censorship. If you are still confused, just think back to what you proposed - that people should not, in the interests of freedom, say what they think is right (ie that cartoons should not be published) through your fear of agreeing with the terrorists. Thats self censorship, and you are a proponent of it.

Can we compare this to the old boy's argument? Feel free to shave your beard and give up your religion through fear of social ostricization, intimidation, death threats and physical violence. Freeeeedom, innit.

But if you complain, that's playing the victim.

Voltaire would be proud, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: the meaning of freedom Reply #428 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:23am Karnal wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:02am: Voltaire would be proud, no? Soren thinks that a niqabi who is assaulted in the street is to blame for being inconsiderate of Paris. But naturally he'll defend with his life her right to be inconsiderate.
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

abdullah Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 195 Gender:	Re: the meaning of freedom Reply #429 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 1:09pm After all its always better to be a smart mouthed muslim when trying to help them integrate into society and create peace and be accepted. Isn't it.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #430 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 1:39pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:23am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

Voltaire would be proud, no?

Soren thinks that a niqabi who is assaulted in the street is to blame for being inconsiderate of Paris.

But naturally he'll defend with his life her right to be inconsiderate.

Oh, indeed, he'll fight to the death for her right to be offensive. It's the old boy's religion, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #431 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 1:49pm

abdullah wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:

After all its always better to be a smart mouthed muslim when trying to help them integrate into society and create peace and be accepted. Isn't it.

You're starting to sound like a Paki already, Matty. Good work. We'll have you in pyjamas before long. You can be one of those cranky ex-Muslims you like to post about.

Why do "you people" get about in robes and beards even after you give Islam the flick? It makes the old boy ever so offended.

Can't you just wear a jolly Kraut war helmet like everybody else?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49264
At my desk.

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #432 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:56pm

Quote:

So next time just clarify what you don't understand about my answer

Sure. All of it. Thanks for collecting it for me. As far as I could recall you had offered nothing in way of explanation. I asked a very specific question.

Quote:

As long as newspapers (or anyone) feel compelled

Is this the distinguihsing feature - a sense of compulsion?

Quote:

If you are still confused, just think back to what you proposed - that people should not, in the interests of freedom, say what they think is right (ie that cartoons should not be published) through your fear of agreeing with the terrorists. Thats self censorship, and you are a proponent of it.

That is not what I proposed. I proposed that people would say what they think should be said, based on what is more important to them - eg supporting freedom of speech vs trying to get people to stop mocking Muhammed. What they say reveals their values.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #433 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:27pm

Karnal wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 8:31am:

Soren wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

[quote author=Karnal link=1441709460/422#422 date=1449567192]
But do not then be surprised that you ARE looked at askance, with suspicion and even contempt.

We see your point, dear boy. If you don’t convert to Lutheranism, you should be castrated, burned, killed, carpetbombed and nuked.

You stupid, dishonest, mendacious, lying, distorting bastard.

But without knowing, you have presented the ridiculous and phoney nature of the Islamophobia BS very neatly.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96250
Gender: male

Re: the meaning of freedom
Reply #434 - Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:32pm

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 8:31am:

Soren wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 7:12pm:

[quote author=Karnal link=1441709460/422#422 date=1449567192]
But do not then be surprised that you ARE looked at askance, with suspicion and even contempt.

We see your point, dear boy. If you don’t convert to Lutheranism, you should be castrated, burned, killed, carpetbombed and nuked.

You stupid, dishonest, mendacious, lying, distorting bastard.

Thanks, old chap. This clarifies your position perfectly.

Will you be dining in, tonight?

Back to top

IP Logged