Wrong.
Interesting debating strategy. Assign a dubious opinion to your opponent and follow it with a dubious smiley. Let me try.
So genocide isn’t entirely bad then? :dubious:
I take it you are now thoroughly convinced.
Can you explain why wishing somebody dead is a morally bad thing? For all I care, Katie Hopkins, or anyone else for that matter can spend every waking moment wishing I was dead. They can wish as hard as they like. They can even recruit thousands of people to all wish at the same time. Why on Earth would I care?
If you are so concerned, please feel free to counteract my mean wish with a nice wish of your own. Perhaps that a puppy will have it’s belly rubbed, or that a a sad child will receive an ice cream.
Since wishing is basically the same as causing in your eyes, you can congratulate yourself on your good deed.
That’s your interpretation of my post?
Uh yeah, exactly. In fact, I think genocide is wonderful! Every country should do it!
:smack:
How would *you *interpret your post? It looked like a straight up attempt to strawman to me.
Well, presuming to lecture those of us from the U.S. who are simply defending the concept of free speech, and assuming it’s because we’re all a bunch of racist, right-wing religious fanatics*? Instead of finding the idea of censorship disgusting?
Hopkins sounds like a total cunt, I’ll agree. But I also believe that she has a right to be one.
*I too find it amusing when people from Europe go on and on about how backwards and horrid the U.S. is, since they’re not exactly so innocent themselves. There’s plenty that’s wrong here in my country, I won’t deny it. But:
Sadly, is not exclusive to the U.S., nor does it describe all of us here.
I’m not just bashing the U.S. I’m pointing out that the fact that it is legal to call for the extermination of a minority there, is not sufficient justification for the rest of the world to consider that policy correct. The specific problems with race and religious tensions there, imply that maybe, just maybe, you don’t, as a country have the simple, definitive answer to a nuanced issue.
It’s not as simple as “you’re always allowed to say anything you want”. You can’t defame people for example. You can’t make arbitrary false claims about products you are selling. You can’t make death threats towards the president.
In the UK, we add that you can’t publicly call for ethnic or religious cleansing. In other ways, I think UK laws are too restrictive, but I think this one is pretty reasonable.
I never said we did have an answer. Did you?
As for whether it should be legal to call for genocide or whatever, I disagree with you. I think it’s better to have these assholes out in the open so we know who they are. You aren’t going to stop them from feeling that way from banning people from saying shit like this. Like I said before, you just make them into martyrs. Bad idea.
Personally, I prefer to make them an object of ridicule. Take away their influence.
What I believe you said was “Are you just completely fucking retarded?” so it’s hard to know exactly what position you were taking. Just that you objected to my post. My post was suggesting that attitudes to race/religion considered mainstream in the U.S. are considered fringe or extreme elsewhere. It was itself a response to John Mace who said;
Given that I didn’t have much to go on, I assumed that you were saying that the U.S. stance was evidently superior to that in UK law. I countered that there are enormous problems within the U.S. relating to racism and religious bigotry which do not inspire emulation of its methods in tackling these evils.
I understand that you disagree. What I’m saying is, in the country John Mace held up as an example of how to meet these challenges, the bigots seem to be doing okay. They have a huge influence on the future of the nation and by extension, the rest of the world. There are certainly racists and fanatics in the UK, indeed, they seem to be somewhat resurgent at present, but I think in general, punishing people for inciting bloodshed has a visibly beneficial effect. Those attitudes are still not considered mainstream.
There are real examples we can look to. When people have publicly described other people as vermin and called for them to be wiped out. Far from taking away their influence and exposing them to ridicule, it has strengthened support for their message. You can’t prevent evil people from advocating barbarity, but you can keep it from becoming normalised.
Hey Mike: How’s that Brexit thingy working out out for you? Jesus Fucking Christ, the lady happened use the phrase “final solution” in a tweet and some of you guys want her dead. Give me a fucking break.
Things I learned in this thread.
Wishing death on someone wishing death on others who wish death on others is totally A-Ok and the moral thing to do and makes you a righteous upright awesome human being.
Someone wishing death on others who wish death on others is evil and immoral and they deserve death.
Thankfully we have BigT and the usual retards to tell us how to be moral.
Hah. And I totally didn’t even know that until your post.
After reading this post, I agree that you can’t figure out what I’m saying.
Wow. You really wrote that and posted it without realizing how stupid it was. Is this a habit or more of a hobby for you?
I think it’s stupid to say that all cases of wanting someone dead are the same because it’s patently true that they are not the same.
A racist who thinks someone should die because they are black IS NOT equivalent to someone wanting a murderer dead because they killed a loved one. One is someone wanting a person (or people) to die because of what they are while the other is someone wanting a person (or people) to die because of what they did.
ISIS wants people to die because of what they are. We are killing ISIS members because of what they did.
It’s astounding to me that you see no difference in the two cases.
Like you fight it when you cringe in your mommy’s basement making impotent squeaking noises rather than…y’know…doing something about bigotry?
Dear God, in addition to being a deranged man-child shut-in with no life experience, you’re an evil little fuck of a sociopath as well.
I’m actually glad you hide in your mom’s basement so that you don’t interact with decent human being, you festering pustule. First amendment rights matter more than your insignificant feelings.
I can’t wait for you to be banned.
How’s that going, eh?
The idea that you can throw shade on BigT is still less wrong than what is in this post.
An excellent second option, to be sure.
Maybe you need to spend a little less time down at the quarry.
“hy·poc·ri·sy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform”
“That woman is bad because she wished death on people. I wish she was dead.”
That IS hypocrisy.
Keep in mind that I am not speaking about every time in human history that any person for any reason wished death on someone. I’m talking about this OP.
A parent whose child was murdered wishing death on the murderer - not hypocrisy. Especially if they believe in the death penalty, then wanting the person who murdered their child to be put to death goes along with everything they already espouse.
Wishing death on all members of ISIS - not hypocrisy. I am not a pacifist and wholly support self-defense. They are actively murdering, raping, burning and torturing people and if they all died - that would be a good thing.
Anyway I’m always open to conversations with people who disagree with me but every post from you has been basically to call me stupid so you obviously aren’t interested in any discussion.
Do I really need to explain this again?
If you can show where I have ever condemned anyone for wishing death on an individual, you will have a the beginnings of an approximation of a point.
You can’t, because I haven’t, so you don’t.
Once again, calling for the murder of an entire group is different to calling for the murder of an individual and both are a million miles away from simply expressing the view that the world would be a little better without that person in it.
Wishing is not inciting, is not causing.
From what you wrote, it’s not entirely clear whether you think Katie Hopkins was advocating killing all members of ISIS. She wasn’t, she was talking about all Muslims. I’m not going to dignify the idea that it was a typo, or an unfortunate use of words. She was fully aware of what she was saying, to believe otherwise would require a level of credulity which I don’t think you want to insult yourself by claiming.
After reading this post, I’m thinking you prolly need to spend more time down there.
I’ve already shown you how the 2 situations are different. The fact that you can’t get beyond “wants someone dead = bad” is befuddling, but I can see that you can’t get past that stage of reasoning. I guess we’re stuck with you having an ill-arrived at conclusion.
No, it isn’t. As I explained already, the woman wants people dead because of who they are; the OP’s wish was made because of what the single person did.
I don’t know how to be more clear about that distinction.
So you agree that there are times when it’s acceptable, or at least understandable that someone might want another person’s life to end; good.
So, how do you feel about the leaders of ISIS, who may not have personally killed anyone? Would the world be better off if they were not on the planet? Why or why not?