Quote# 123552


(In response to being asked what other freedoms racists should lose in addition to not being allowed in any restaurant according to earlier comment on this news story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38561883)


Their liberty, they should be locked up, in my opinion. The now banned, Paedophile Exchange, used to bang on about their right to have sex with children, should perverts be permitted to air their views?

Floo, Religion and Ethics 17 Comments [1/10/2017 9:21:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Nearly Sane
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
Mister Spak

Well - OK. What test should we use to determine who should be locked up? Does it apply to carnivore hateing PETAs?

1/10/2017 9:54:08 AM

Malingspann

"Floo"

Put the 'l' at the end and you get 'Fool'.

1/10/2017 9:58:19 AM

The Reptilian Jew

No, we don't lock up people for thinking bad thoughts. Religion and Ethics my ass, these guys obviously take a big steaming dump on the "ethics" part.

1/10/2017 11:04:47 AM

nazani14

But if you don't let racists eat in your restaurant, how can you spit in their food? Better yet, have the Black chef come out of the kitchen, take a hugging photo with the racist and send it off to racist social media!

1/10/2017 11:10:20 AM

Uilleam

Freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just the people you agree with. Racists may be awful, but to ban them from airing their views would be to justify their persecution complexes.

1/10/2017 11:59:21 AM

Kanna

They should be able to say it, but there is no right to have their views respected. That's where the rest of us come in, and where we should denounce and refute hateful words.

1/10/2017 12:01:05 PM

Creedence Leonore Gielgud

As bad as the political and social climate is in the US right now, it's even worse in Europe. Sweeping dirt under the rug doesn't do anything except let that dirt pile up beneath the surface. Eventually you are going to have to deal with it.

1/10/2017 1:24:58 PM

Anon-e-moose

Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

Operation Ore/Yewtree.

What you gonna do about it, Fool? [/Mr. T]

1/10/2017 3:13:52 PM

Old Viking

They're entitled. Try not reading their opinions. That might help.

1/10/2017 4:34:01 PM

Demon Duck of Doom

Depends. Are these racists advocating hate crimes? In that case, sure, lock them up.

1/10/2017 7:11:33 PM

Psycho Tits

WARNING: Important dl;dr response below:

Freedom of Speech is not merely, or even primarily, for the government to protect -- although that promise of protection is part of nearly all deomocratic societies' charters.

No matter how much we dislike our opponents or despise their messages, it is our duty, and one that is very dangerous to ignore, that we campaign for freedom of speech when it's threatened (and our duty depends not at all on whose speech is in danger).

The rape apologists, the pedos who have the temerity to discuss their grotesque anomaly openly and in a complimentary fashion, the TERFs, the Neo-Nazis, the deranged, the abhorrent, the most depraved and disgusting things to crawl out of their holes in Guam just long enough to write thinly veiled porn tracts -- whereas they must be punished, and some quite severely, for any actual crimes they are found guilty of having committed; it is immeasurably important that they have the right to speak their minds and to publish their deranged raving in any forum (online, on TV, in radio, in news papers, etc.) that will permit it.

Some of the reasons this unpleasant duty must be carried out -- i.e., to defend the right of each creep to speak his or her mind -- are as follows:

a) Public opinion is a chimera, and sometimes its malleable nature can be manipulated -- who, in 2014/15, for example, saw Trump coming? -- in such a way that our own opinions could at some point be considered a threat to public order, In such cases as these, the government breaks its contract with the People, in service to some rotten ideology. NO! FUCK NO! Government exists for one reason only, and that is to serve all the People in its jurisdiction (often by attempting to balance the will of a majority with the human and civil rights of minorities while maintaining a common infrastructure using money from the treasury - from the common account).

b) We cannot expect anyone to do for us what we ourselves will not do for others.

c) In places where the citizens also refuse to defend whatever speech the government fails to protect -- I'm looking at you, Uganda! -- then such abrogation by government is often followed by violence, pogroms, purges. And on an individual level, it means death threats, and sometimes actual murder.

Free Speech:

• It is the foundation on which every other freedom ever devised must necessarily rest: No one can organise protests without it. No one can openly worship -- or not -- according to the light of personal conscience without it. No one can question official narratives without it.

• No large media outfit could freely operate; they'd be handed a brief of what allegedly happened and the official account would be the only acceptable one.

The OP demonstrates the necessity of defending freedom by answering this question - "....what other freedoms racists should lose in addition to not being allowed in any restaurants..." - with THIS: "Their liberty....[and] should perverts be permitted to air their views?"

Denounce bad speech.

Refute bad speech.

Protect bad speech. That is the only way to protect good speech.

1/10/2017 7:29:52 PM

Philbert McAdamia

should perverts be permitted to air their views?

Are you?

1/10/2017 7:35:57 PM

Miles Gloriosus

@OP:
should perverts be permitted to air their views?


Yes, that's what free speech means. Nobody has to like it or agree with them, though.

1/10/2017 9:05:04 PM

Apatheist

I mean, I like the old fashioned way of letting racists know when they've gone too far, kicking the shit out of them when they're at a KKK or Neo-Nazi rally.

1/10/2017 11:20:24 PM

Shepard Solus

Yes.

1/11/2017 3:31:39 AM

Dizzy Dream

Keep the bad speech. You can laugh at it later.

1/11/2017 7:01:20 AM

Doubting Thomas

Thought crime is not now, nor should ever be, an actual crime. If we're going to fight racism, the only way you can actually do it is with education. Throwing people in jail for their beliefs never solves anything, and in fact is more likely to make them hold ever so tightly to their beliefs in response.

1/11/2017 7:15:10 AM
1