OT: Old Mrs. May's fudge shoppe

[SolSigns]

I think he's a really intelligent and interesting guy. I don't agree with everything he says but he's the type of guy who could tempt me to vote for the right (despite the fact he's not a politician and is not particularly right wing).

I think one positive about Trump is that he's helping to expose how poor the media is generally. At first I sought out MSNBC and CNN and WP, Atlantic etc. articles because they reflected and informed my opinion about him/his presidency, but their squealing horror has got old very fast.

I don't much like him personally, but people like Jordan Peterson who are prepared to debate (and grow and change through debate rather than just shout their opinion and run away if the argument goes against them) are rare and important in today's ultra-partisan climate. I wonder if Jackal agrees.

I miss Christopher Hitchens!

[jackal2]

For someone who likes to hear themselves pontificating at length on free speech, you should really have a better understanding of what is commonly referred to by the term.

"Absolute freedom of speech" includes disseminating imagery and all the other things I listed. Legally in the UK, and in most other countries including the US.

Are you trying to argue that anyone should be free to SAY what they like in private?

I assume by "pontificating", you mean expressing an opinion, the same as you are, but in my case with no insults to the person with a different view.

OK it is getting late, but given my argument that people should be able to use whatever form of wording they like, why would I be interested in "what is commonly referred to" by a certain term, including what that great academic resource Wikipedia says?

I used the words I chose to use (which wasn't "absolute freedom of speech" anyway) and then explained what I meant by 'words' as opposed to 'actions', and my view certainly does not mean people are free to perform the 'action' of disseminating obscene material.

I confess I am genuinely puzzled by your last post immediately above, which seems to go somewhat against what you said previously. I don't know enough about Jordan Peterson to comment about him, but most of what you've said I can agree with. I do agree it's important that people should speak freely, debate openly and not be offended or "run away" if someone else holds a different view which challenges their own values.

Aren't the people who can speak freely, listen freely and grow and change their views through debate sometimes labelled as straw men, but only by those who are so stuck in their views that they see any compromise or recognition of others' views as a weakness, rather than strength?

Seriously, are we actually agreeing or disagreeing with each other here?

[SolSigns]

Seriously, are we actually agreeing or disagreeing with each other here?

I disagree with you. On this issue, you seem confused.

people should be able to use whatever form of wording they like

Genuinely don't know what you mean by this. What "form" of wording is contentious?

I used the words I chose to use (which wasn't "absolute freedom of speech" anyway)

You said:

we shouldn't sacrifice free speech for all (which is either absolute or it's nothing) because a tiny percentage would misuse it.

So, are you for absolute free speech, or for no free speech at all?

Also, how can we sacrifice “free speech for all” when we don’t have it? You are aware that there are many laws about what can and cannot be “said”/expressed/disseminated in public? You are aware that legally “speech” includes many kinds of expression including pictures and video? Isn’t it right that people can’t publish whatever they want?

Maybe now you’re trying to argue that we can say what we like in private, which is true to an extent. But you started out by arguing with Sid for BoJo’s right to “express” what he liked in a public newspaper column – which is not the same thing.

You also seem confused about what the ‘straw man’ fallacy means, but you probably do know what the ‘slippery slope’ one is. I’ll spell it out anyway: if BoJo can publish what he wants, so can Abu Hamza and friends of Jimmy Savile. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that’s really what you want.

Freedom of speech has to have limits for the common good. Setting the limits is a serious business. It's often contentious and often political, but absolute free speech is a recipe for disaster.

[i961pie]

One of the major problems with free speech is that certain people or religions etc. can get away with saying things that others can't. And I think that's what irks many people.

[the_anticlough]

Freedom of speech has to have limits for the common good. Setting the limits is a serious business. It's often contentious and often political, but absolute free speech is a recipe for disaster.

Fantastic post, spells it all out very clearly IMO.

I'd like to go back to an earlier post, which asked if Johnson knew what he was doing in using that language...
For me the clue is when he goes into hiding with 'advisers' 'those close to him' or whatever other phrase the media chooses, like when he went missing for days after the referendum plotting his response, and when he stood up all the international govt representatives who were waiting for him as the host to pen his resignation later, complete with photoshoot.

As the designated Murdoch-appointed leader of this country, every word of his will be pored over by his team of advisers. In fact, 'bank robbers' and 'letter boxes' would have been the most edited, calculated part of the article - key strategic move, not the clumsy words of a journo trying to make a deadline.

He doesn't support a ban. He won't say anything about the ideologies underlying the burka either. He just wants cheap insults and dog whistles to get the EDL vote. Rees-Mogg has backed him by just saying it's an 'inelegant garment'. That's all he'll have to say too, dog whistles only, enough to play pied piper but always well short of jeopardising Saudi arms sales.

[the_anticlough]

One of the major problems with free speech is that certain people or religions etc. can get away with saying things that others can't. And I think that's what irks many people.

Fair point. Can you imagine the s***storm if a major Labour figure mocked the way Jewish people dressed?

[sidders]

There's a lot going on in Olde Mrs May's Fudge Shoppe these days. Those selection boxes of conflation are doing particularly well. The only downside is you never know what you'll get inside until you take the lid off.

[tarquinbeech]

Point 1 - The UK is light years BEHIND other countries in banning or restricting the various types of female Muslim attire, not just in Europe where France, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, parts of Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland etc all have various bans or restrictions..... but also in strictly Muslim countries like Turkey, Syria where 1,200 niqab-wearing teachers were laid-off in 2010, Azerbaijan where the niqab is illegal, Morocco (illegal to even sell a burqa), Egypt, Iraq, Iran at various times in history, plus African countries like Chad, Congo, Gabon,......the list of restrictions and bans is huge, partly due to security concerns, the fear that Muslims are not integrating into "Western Culture" and, in the case of Muslim countries because as they try to modernise they fear that the burqa, niqab etc is a step backwards ie back into the Dark Ages.

A British Tory states the bleedin obvious and the left-wing press, and several on here are up in arms.....IMO this is just an attempt to take a few cheap pot-shots at Boris.

Even Mad Merkel is asking for a partial ban....so Boris must be onto something here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b

Point 2 - Free Speech....Difficult one, but in plain English....I should be allowed to say what I like about Muslims AS LONG AS I do not incite others to take violent action against them......unfortunately even MAD will bar me if I express a fairly mild opinion about them, but apparently I can use the same words to describe the Coventry supporters that spat on Navy's son, and I am fine....weird world.
Free speech is allowed in the UK...but only in certain situations!
The West has bent over backwards to accommodate these people, too far IMO, yet still they abuse our hospitality....did anyone read the lengthy BBC story of the Barcelona Bombers yesterday?...1st and 2nd generation Muslims that grew in the West, played football for Spanish youth teams, suddenly build a bomb-making factory and go on a killing spree because of a new radical speaker in the local mosque.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44890504

[Trickytreesreds]

Point 1 - The UK is light years BEHIND other countries in banning or restricting the various types of female Muslim attire, not just in Europe where France, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, parts of Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland etc all have various bans or restrictions..... but also in strictly Muslim countries like Turkey, Syria where 1,200 niqab-wearing teachers were laid-off in 2010, Azerbaijan where the niqab is illegal, Morocco (illegal to even sell a burqa), Egypt, Iraq, Iran at various times in history, plus African countries like Chad, Congo, Gabon,......the list of restrictions and bans is huge, partly due to security concerns, the fear that Muslims are not integrating into "Western Culture" and, in the case of Muslim countries because as they try to modernise they fear that the burqa, niqab etc is a step backwards ie back into the Dark Ages.

A British Tory states the bleedin obvious and the left-wing press, and several on here are up in arms.....IMO this is just an attempt to take a few cheap pot-shots at Boris.

Even Mad Merkel is asking for a partial ban....so Boris must be onto something here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b

Point 2 - Free Speech....Difficult one, but in plain English....I should be allowed to say what I like about Muslims AS LONG AS I do not incite others to take violent action against them......unfortunately even MAD will bar me if I express a fairly mild opinion about them, but apparently I can use the same words to describe the Coventry supporters that spat on Navy's son, and I am fine....weird world.
Free speech is allowed in the UK...but only in certain situations!
The West has bent over backwards to accommodate these people, too far IMO, yet still they abuse our hospitality....did anyone read the lengthy BBC story of the Barcelona Bombers yesterday?...1st and 2nd generation Muslims that grew in the West, played football for Spanish youth teams, suddenly build a bomb-making factory and go on a killing spree because of a new radical speaker in the local mosque.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44890504

Yep Muslim's have a strange opinion on their freedoms and what's acceptable.

I must make sure I don't wear my dam busters cap, next time I'm in Germany. Who knows what laws I may be breaking.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/10/briti...dubai-7821529/

[tarquinbeech]

Yep Muslim's have a strange opinion on their freedoms and what's acceptable.

I must make sure I don't wear my dam busters cap, next time I'm in Germany. Who knows what laws I may be breaking.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/10/briti...dubai-7821529/

What a strange story, almost unbelievable...yet a quick google of the woman's name shows that all the major UK press, including the Guardian, reporting the same details....I think I'll give the Middle East a body swerve if you are not even allowed alcohol in your system upon landing.....my internal organs are permanently pickled in the stuff.