"Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

This thread has had some surprisingly right-wing comments for the citizens of the Socialist Republic of Singletrackworld.
It strikes me that some people are being reactionary.
If the STW massive continues to go to the right then I will be forced to cross-over to the left, as I like my own company.

It’s on a higher plane.

I got nothing

I suppose one could wade in discussing a bill of rights?

Right, time to summon the bi-curious Muslim swan.

Well at least what Im having at the Chinese later tonight is sorted. Thanks chaps!

Ah the old ones are the best mitch – do you have a link to the thread by any chance?

If you look closely at woppits picture, you can see that the chap in the background is clearly wearing a mask, and has what looks like a gold tracksuit on under his uniform. He may also be smoking a cigar and sporting much golden jewellery. This would undoubtably explain Howard’s startled / pained expression.

I don’t JY. Can’t even remember what started it – was it the guest house that refused to let the gay couple stay there?

Let’s all kiss an make up

They can break your arm with their wing you know!

Here, I think.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/christian-hotel-ruling/page/6#post-2196687

I don’t think I’ve ever been referred to as the voice of reason before Cougar 🙂

This is a subject I feel very strongly about. We live in a free society because millions fought and died, and continue to do so, to grant us those rights. And free speech is central to that. I am free to say whatever I like, within clearly defined legal limits (so no incitement to hatred for example). These limits are set by our democratically elected government, and enforced by an open and accountable judicial system.

But we ALL enjoy those same hard-won freedoms. It is a universal right afforded to us ALL. So radical Islamic preachers are free to rail against Israel. Nick Griffin can spill his racist bile. Farage gets to rant his small minded untruths about Europe. There are all manner of unpleasant people poring forth all manner of stuff that all manner of people find offensive, including me.

But we all have to accept that as a price worth paying. There can be no exemptions. No matter how loudly, or violently, certain people protest. If we as a society bow to any one group, then we have surrendered one of the fundamentals of our society, and insulted the memory of those who won is these freedoms, at such a cost.

Let’s all kiss an make up

Quick! that picture needs an inane cutesy phrase printed across it in white letters. Upload it to Facebook fast before a middle-aged woman with a fondness for cats does so before you!

There can be no exemptions

Binners, does that mean you disagree with the laws in Germany for people who deny the Holocaust?

In reality there are always going to be exemptions/exceptions, and the idea of a democracy with full freedom of speech is utopian.

Like I said: those limits are set, and clearly defined, by our democratically elected government, and enforced by a fair and open judicial system. As you would expect in a free society. So I’m happy with that. I accept that. So must everyone else.

You don’t like it? Lobby your MP to change the law. Our laws are constantly changing and evolving anyway to reflect the society we live in.

Binners, does that mean you disagree with the laws in Germany for people who deny the Holocaust?

I certainly do, if people want to deny it and shout about it – fine
It gives others the perfect opportunity to rebuke it

I’ve given it all of 4 minutes to come up with a response to binners and all I can muster is “spot on”.

But while I’m here I would also like to applaud the efforts of satirists everywhere, who follow a long and noble tradition stretching back to Hogarth and, earlier, the court jester.

Binners, does that mean you disagree with the laws in Germany for people who deny the Holocaust?

I certainly think that was a bad move. Nutters need to be able to express themselves in public, that way we know who and where they are. Suppress that and they whisper behind closed curtains – much more dangerous.

You don’t like it? Lobby your MP to change the law. Our laws are constantly changing and evolving anyway to reflect the society we live in.

I don’t trust the state to protect freedom of speech. I think we live in an interesting time, on the one hand we have governments and legal systems suppressing freedom of speech through a combination of legislation and political correctness.

Simultaneously the internet has created the largest ‘public sphere’ in human history.

i’d argue that as far as freedom of speech is concerned, modern means of communications mean that governments have less control than at any point in history. Obviously they don’t like this. But in a democratic society there’s very little, in the grand scheme of things, they can do about it.

And if the atrocity in Paris has done one thing, it’s awoken us to the need to defend our hard won freedoms from those who would seek to limit them, whether that be governments of religious zealots

I agree binners, there is certainly a government vs internet war going on. That’s why I am concerned about the reaction to the Paris Shootings, in how the government are going to use it to gain greater powers of surveillance.
So if say I am a government employee, and I say negative things about the state on the STW Forum, or about the running of the hospital where I work, all this can be tracked online by the state, who can then harm my job status/prospects etc. Infact, if I know they can snoop easily on me, I would probably resist from making those negative comments in the first place. Considering around 50% of the UK is employed in some capacity by the state, this would be a very worrying development.

Ironically (for the let’s ban religion folk), religion provides probably the simplest solution here. The basic/central tenet of love thy neighbour/do unto others etc is the easiest way to avoid all this. Funny that….

I wonder why Clegg did not defend Dave Whelan’s right (sic) to offend the Jews and Chinese. The Lib Dems were quite clear on that case, even writing letters about it. Which one is it nick?

The basic tenet of religion is kill the unbeliever. The love stuff only applies to fellow religionists.

The basic/central tenet of love thy neighbour/do unto others etc is the easiest way to avoid all this. Funny that….

You don’t need to be religious to get that, humanists and atheists understand that as well.

I’m all for freedom of speech as long as we can make an exception for that Katie Hopkins off of the apprentice.

if I know they can snoop easily on me, I would probably resist from making those negative comments in the first place.

It’s probably safest to do this anyway.

I never post anything online that I wouldn’t want to be linked back to me, even in “private” forums, just in case. I also refrain from discussing personal situations except under exceptional circumstances.

Lots of people seem to forget themselves and act as though they’re in a bubble. I often see Tweets / FB posts with vague passive-aggressive comments like “oh my god, I can’t believe what she’s done now, the bitch” and I just despair. It just creates tension and bad blood; half the people reading it are wondering what the juicy gossip is or are busy making up their own stories, the other half take it personally and wonder why this person is having a go at them.

If you put something out on the Internet, you really should be treating it as though it’s in the public domain by default.

The basic tenet of religion is kill the unbeliever.

Never heard that on my Theology course, guess it’s all a bit more simple than I realised.

Is it just me, or do all the religion is good vs religion is bad debates on here conjure up memories of sitting in the Sixth Form Block at School?

Indeed, some do Tom. Plenty of NT example of Jesus showing love to those made outcast by the secular society and to other religions too 5E.

And the ranking of love thy neighbour is pretty high on the priority list, isn’t it?

I wonder why Clegg did not defend Dave Whelan’s right (sic) to offend the Jews and Chinese.

Because they’re both recognised as races rather than just a belief in the supernatural, and racial abuse is specifically covered in law?

Never heard that on my Theology course, guess it’s all a bit more simple than I realised.

Maybe you should have taken current affairs or history instead?

Judaism is both a race and a religion.

I suspect if he said something negative about non-Christian religious groups, he would also have been in trouble.

More likely that Whelan is a funder of the Tories.

But this is clearly inconsistent with his comments yesterday. And the LDs pointed to the fact that the comments were “offensive”. So it’s either a crystal clear as he tried to pretend yesterday or it’s not. Interestingly uncle Vince was clearer and more honest than his leader on this.

So we have a letter that says

“I hope that you agree with me that these anti-Semitic and racist comments have no place in modern British society, and as such I hope that you also agree with me that you must now give up any money that you have received from Mr Whelan and consider which charitable groups would be better recipients of it.

“Failure to act swiftly in this matter will show a lack of leadership. It will not be possible for you to simultaneously condemn offensive remarks while accepting large sums of money from those responsible for them.”

Note the distinction made between Jews and race here and comments on condemnation

Versus

“Here’s the bottom line, Omar, at the end of the day in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended.

“That fundamental principle of being free to offend people – and not saying somehow that you have a right not be offended in a democratic, open society such as ours is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians.

Not as simple as Nick likes us think with his bottom line

The basic/central tenet of love thy neighbour/do unto others etc is the easiest way to avoid all this. Funny that….

And no one can deny that everywhere we have devout folk this always ends up happening
the holy land is a brilliant example of this in action as indeed is Glasgow when there is an old firm match on.

Plenty of NT example of Jesus showing love to those made outcast by the secular society and to other religions too

Bit harder if to use the OT though to prove this
I am aware JC created anew covenant
FWIW revelations leads to the lord being a bit wrathful to the non believer [ and those who believed badly as well]

To be fair, “the bible” (and many other religions’ central texts) and “plenty of examples” go hand in hand. I could probably use it to prove that the moon was made of cheese if I looked hard enough.

The problem (or indeed, the solution) isn’t the source material, it’s in its interpretation. So whether your personal agenda is to love thy neighbour or murder thy cartoonists you’ll probably be able to find justification for your actions in your “good” books. And therein lies the rub, really.

He’s watching you Junkyard. Watching you and gently hissing, raising a well manicured and ever so slightly limp wing with which to strike you in a flurry of sexually confused flaps.
Just putting it out there…

I have the strangest…

Strangest what Cougar? Strangest growth? Strangest attraction to a fat bald bloke from Yorkshire? Strangest urge to rush at people whilst hissing? I need answers dammit!

True, hence the reason why I highlighted one of the two commandments that certain religions consider to be the greatest. Difficult to trawl through all of it (I never have) so always a help if they have a “get started quickly” guide to get you going, hey?

Clegg is correct in one sense (my and Vince’s view) re the clear and categorical claim starting “you cannot have freedom…..”

Indeed you cannot and we do not. We have considerable restrictions on our freedom which “liberals” should be aware of. And the first casualty of terrorism is usually liberty/freedom.

I think one of the standout features of islam is how touchy it makes it’s followers. Also christianity, to a slightly lesser extent.

As an atheist, I find the deference given to religion to be offensive. My reaction, however, is not to burn books, demonstrate with placards calling for the castration of the Salvation Army or shoot people.

You know – I think your beliefs are risible gibberish. O.K., so you’re offended – and?