Over The Top: WWI Steam Store PageNew Game announced! Add Over the Top: WWI to your Steam Wishlist!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Duuring on December 28, 2014, 05:54:27 pmPoint taken.Still, I think the difference is that the point were one is actually trying to active hatred and actions against a certain religion or ethic group. You're free to say 'I don't like black people', and you're even free to say you think black people should have fewer rights then whites. That's expressing your opinion. However, at the moment you start saying 'You shouldn't like black people' or 'we should take away black people right', that's the moment you are crossing the line between stating your opinion ('This is what I think') and hate-mongering ('This is what you should think' or 'This is what we should do').Nowhere in the law is it forbidden to hurt people's feelings, though. Like a commercial that 'hurts the Islamic community', well, too bad. Of course, a commercial which has the intention of hurting a certain community is different. For all these cases, however, we should look on a case-to-case-basis. Law isn't a simple thing and we shouldn't take it that way.Very true, even though the approach to Law varies depending on one's culture and political belief. Historically speaking, the Napoleonic and Roman court systems tried to account for every possible scenario and left little open to interpretation, while, say, English Law allows more leeway in case-by-case scenarios, giving the Judge (and Jury) more breathing room to interpret the law as they deem fit. It's the classic letter vs. spirit of the Law debate I personally feel that the spirit approach is better, as it is both impossible to account for every single occassion, and simultaneously the law has to be adjusted for the modern circumstances where the old "one-size fits all" approach is no longer relevant (being seen as too soft/ harsh/ imprecise/not understanding of modern concerns/ etc).Now, as for that video, I mostly posted it for fun and because it fitted in with the general anti-islam sentiments expressed both here and in the other thread. It doesn't actually reflect my beliefs, even though the question of Islamic extremism is a grave concern in the western world, especially considering the high fertility of the Islamic popualtion and their tendency to often advocate their own ideals which undermine or contradict our own "westernised" ones. But, on a serious note, just to clarify, I do think that the problem with this extremism in western countries (yes, that includes Greece) should be dealt with a two-pronged assault on such extremist views. Firstly, as Augy pointed out, dealing with the "root problems", which includes (casual) racism and discrimination at an everyday level, leading to eventual marginalisation. That could be achieved by educating against such forms of discrimination, carrying out blind applications for unis or jobs (where you cannot see the applicant's name, face, gender, ethnicity or religion, and as such can only select based on merit alone), and, overall, gently, through the provision of government services/ utilities such as policing and healthcare, give such minorities the impression that they are safe within the country and are being cared for equally as any other citizen would be.However, about the hate speech act, I do believe that ordering the Justice system to clamp down on it too tightly on such "offenses" only results in an adverse effect, as the population then accuses the Government of being "traitors to their own race/ country/ religion" by focusing on and promoting the interests of such groups over those of the majority. And that, as we have most definitely seen in the UK, leads to an increase in discrimination against those outsiders, who, through their skin colour or religion alone, are earning a disproportionate amount of attention from the Government. The competitiveness of such minorities, who may be cheaper or more skilled than a "native" worker, and as such "steal his job", also fuels discontent in the age of burgeoning youth unemployment (which is one of the reasons why I wholeheartedly believe in a level playing field and oppose any type of positive disrimination). In terms of how they are treated, it is a very delicate balance: giving them the impression that they are being cared for without alienating the rest of the population. Overall, the only solution to this will be Time, as such people become progressively more and more assimilated into the culture of the host nation.Nevertheless, what we saw in that video, on the Extremists' side, was a bunch of very frustrated and very proud Muslims who were openly exploiting the freedom of speech and religion that they enjoy in the U.K. in order to promote their own religion. If you watch from 17:00 onwards, their leader actually accepts this, and admits that he is trying to enforce what this small hard-line minority thinks on the East Londoners, who live in one of the most multi-cultural areas in Britain! Again, I would argue, as many other have done here before, that their hardcore version of Islam is simply not compatible with the UK's laws and ideals, especially when it concerns prohibiting the consumption of alcohol, the treatment and role of women in society, the punishments given for infringing the law, religious freedom (Sharia has the infamous Christian tax) and the attitude to LBGT rights. A modern progressive society does probably take an opposing view to theirs on most, if not all of these points, and since the majority of the population and the constitution and legal system take precedence over the views of a fringe group of extremists, we have to prioritise their beliefs over Sharia.Even more worrying is how they are trying to, with the Muslim Patrols in East London, to enforce what they consider "decency" on others, who are of completely different origin and worship a different faith (watch 7:15). This complete lack of tolerance, and the borderline illegal enforcement of it, is one of the reasons why we note such high levels of tension both in their communities (say between moderate and conservative muslims) and between them and the rest of society. Since these people favour confrontation over peaceful co-existence, they, in my opinion, have to go.
Point taken.Still, I think the difference is that the point were one is actually trying to active hatred and actions against a certain religion or ethic group. You're free to say 'I don't like black people', and you're even free to say you think black people should have fewer rights then whites. That's expressing your opinion. However, at the moment you start saying 'You shouldn't like black people' or 'we should take away black people right', that's the moment you are crossing the line between stating your opinion ('This is what I think') and hate-mongering ('This is what you should think' or 'This is what we should do').Nowhere in the law is it forbidden to hurt people's feelings, though. Like a commercial that 'hurts the Islamic community', well, too bad. Of course, a commercial which has the intention of hurting a certain community is different. For all these cases, however, we should look on a case-to-case-basis. Law isn't a simple thing and we shouldn't take it that way.
if you have another opinion I don't like, you cant post it here because that's mean and it hurts my feelings
Jesus isn't the only thing that got resurrected from the dead.
Hiel Lucifer our father and saviour See you all at tomorrows meeting!
Jesus Christ was a CEO of McDonald's if I'm not mistaken
Poll