Jump to content

In the News


Ramandu

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Sticks and stones and all that innit.

Slippery slope though man. What about yer Imams preaching jihad and that?

Nevermind Al-Qaeda - the fictitious bogeyman keeping us living in fear (before Covid/Ukraine/Cost of living /Taiwan/Climate change etc etc).

It’s the reverse slippery slope I’m more concerned with. It affects us all, we all have thoughts and feelings. Some may not be the ‘correct’, government sanctioned thoughts and feelings but we should still be allowed to have them… and express them.

 

Link to comment

20 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

To let you understand my position on this, here's a scenario. 

There are 3 neighbours, A, B, and C. 

Every day, for 10 years, A tells B that he's seen C looking out the window at B's kids, taking pictures and wanking over them. A further tells B than C has openly said he plans to abduct B's kids, rape them, and murder them. 

This is a complete fabrication, though, since C has done no such thing. 

After 10 years B eventually snaps, gets a shotgun, and blows C's head off in order to save his kids. 

Now this is a situation created entirely thanks to a fabrication by A. There's no other, external reason for this to have happened aside from A's egregious lies. 

Do you feel that A bears any responsibility for the subsequent killing of an innocent man?

 

 

Of course not :laughing:

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Nevermind Al-Qaeda - the fictitious bogeyman keeping us living in fear (before Covid/Ukraine/Cost of living /Taiwan/Climate change etc etc).

It’s the reverse slippery slope I’m more concerned with. It affects us all, we all have thoughts and feelings. Some may not be the ‘correct’, government sanctioned thoughts and feelings but we should still be allowed to have them… and express them.

 

What has Alex Jones being taken to court by the parents got to do with the government? 
 

There's no reasoning with someone like AJ. It's a business. He was still maintaining it was all a deep state conspiracy and the judge trafficked kids in his videos during the week of the trial. 
 

Your vision of a world where anyone can express ideas with minimal consequence is not a good one. 
 

It doesn't lead to more reasoned debate, it lowers the conversation to 0. 
 

How can you debate with someone who thinks reptiles rule the world? Seriously? What reasoned debate do you have about that?

 

Some things are true, some things aren't. Obviously there's a lot of grey area, and I don't agree with police involvement or government involvement on matters of free speech at large. 

But that's not what's happening here. AJ is being taken to the cleaners by the parents he's slandered for near a decade. 
 

It's justice. What kind of society would it be if he could continue to do that with impunity? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CCB III said:

What has Alex Jones being taken to court by the parents got to do with the government? 
 

There's no reasoning with someone like AJ. It's a business. He was still maintaining it was all a deep state conspiracy and the judge trafficked kids in his videos during the week of the trial. 
 

Your vision of a world where anyone can express ideas with minimal consequence is not a good one. 
 

It doesn't lead to more reasoned debate, it lowers the conversation to 0. 
 

How can you debate with someone who thinks reptiles rule the world? Seriously? What reasoned debate do you have about that?

 

Some things are true, some things aren't. Obviously there's a lot of grey area, and I don't agree with police involvement or government involvement on matters of free speech at large. 

But that's not what's happening here. AJ is being taken to the cleaners by the parents he's slandered for near a decade. 
 

It's justice. What kind of society would it be if he could continue to do that with impunity? 

But reptiles DO rule the world!! :laughing:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

But reptiles DO rule the world!! :laughing:

See it’s stuff like this that makes me think you are at it and are actually a normal person that for some reason spends a significant portion of your free time winding people up with conspiracy after conspiracy nonsense. 
 

I think the same about shoofta and his online persona. 
 

I suppose I just find that easier to believe than anyone genuinely believing the utter muck you (and he) come out with. 
 

Actually, come to think of it I think you two would get on like a house on fire. 
 

Do you have space for a new friend?

Link to comment
Just now, tutankamun said:

I’m confused, is A colluding with B to kill C? If that’s the case then he’s an accessory/ accomplice whatever.

No.

A, in order to get his hands on, say the contents of C's will, invented a scenario which could, over a period of years, impact B's thought processes to the point that B took action against C. 

A plot... a scheme if you will. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Just now, Ke1t said:

No.

A, in order to get his hands on, say the contents of C's will, invented a scenario which could, over a period of years, impact B's thought processes to the point that B took action against C. 

A plot... a scheme if you will. 

Are we still talking about Alex Jones? Or is this a different scenario?:laughing:

Link to comment
Just now, tutankamun said:

Are we still talking about Alex Jones? Or is this a different scenario?:laughing:

Same scenario. 

The point being, if there's no point at which we're accountable for the things we say, or the actions those words elicit, then you have a situation where, for example, Hitler bears no responsibility for the Holocaust. 

He wanted a 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question', it was other people who actually did the Holocausting based on the words Hitler said. To my knowledge Hitler didn't gas a single Jew. 

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

Same scenario. 

The point being, if there's no point at which we're accountable for the things we say, or the actions those words elicit, then you have a situation where, for example, Hitler bears no responsibility for the Holocaust. 

He wanted a 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question', it was other people who actually did the Holocausting based on the words Hitler said. To my knowledge Hitler didn't gas a single Jew. 

 

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

Link to comment
Just now, tutankamun said:

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

Surely someone's opinion has to be based in some truth? 
 

Seriously, if left to you, would you just have someone like AJ continue without repercussion? 
 

"Och it's just his opinion my kid wasn't murdered and I'm covering it up"

 

Ridiculous 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, CCB III said:

No. Just fed up of people like you existing. 
 

Open your eyes, it's bad enough here in the real world. 

Funny that. I think YOU need to open your eyes.

That’s just my opinion, I would never wish you didn’t exist.

However I won’t get all hissy about it like you lot, you’re entitled to your opinion :checkit:

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, CCB III said:

Surely someone's opinion has to be based in some truth? 
 

Seriously, if left to you, would you just have someone like AJ continue without repercussion? 
 

"Och it's just his opinion my kid wasn't murdered and I'm covering it up"

 

Ridiculous 

Who is the arbiter of truth?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

Good argument. But the people obeying those orders must have felt massive pressure to obey. I understand it was not considered a defence by the (Jews) lawyers in the trials later on. 
I still think it’s a far cry from AJ expressing his opinion to Hitler ordering his minions to do bad things. 
Have we reached Godwin’s Law? :dontknow:

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Good argument. But the people obeying those orders must have felt massive pressure to obey. I understand it was not considered a defence by the (Jews) lawyers in the trials later on. 
I still think it’s a far cry from AJ expressing his opinion to Hitler ordering his minions to do bad things. 
Have we reached Godwin’s Law? :dontknow:

The guy being told that a neighbour plans to rape and murder his kids would probably feel enormous pressure to save his kids. 

So are you saying that responsibility can only be attributed to the instigator if there's an arbitrary amount of 'pressure' felt by the subject of those instigations? 

That seems like a random criteria that you've just decided upon based upon a little thought, since you didn't express that criteria until now. 

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to highlight that if you're going to begin attributing random criteria as a reason that the guy saying the words CAN be held accountable as the debate evolves then your initial position, they're just words, is no longer tenable, and you're entering a state where you have to begin creating ad hoc reasoning to justify the original position. 

Who's to say a steely-eyed Nazi general feels any more pressure to obey an order than a weak neighbour does when he's told someone plans to rape and murder his kids. 

Everyone has different thresholds where they feel pressure, so how can that be used as a criteria? 

EDIT: Incidentally, before I forget, the euphemism used by the German high command, and Hitler, was A Final Solution to the Jewish Question.  Hitler tasked Himmler with dealing with the Jewish Question. Himmler tasked Goering with said 'Final Solution', Goerring then tasked Heydrich with 'a complete solution', and Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference where he tasked his underlings to start gassing the Jews en mass.  By this point Hitler is 4 stages removed from the implementation of the Holocaust, and at least 5 from throwing a gas cannister into a shower unit full of men, women, and children. 

I'm not calling anyone a Nazi, except Nazis, so I think Godwin's law has not been invoked. :thumbup1:

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

Wait a minute that’s an argument against yourself.

You said AJ should be punished because other people gave the parents death threats. He didn’t order them to give death threats, he probably doesn’t even know them.
Yet “If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words.” 

Link to comment
Guest Grays Babylon 1875
1 minute ago, Redforever86 said:

Haha I was just away to tell them to both kills themselves but you cheered me right up you hibbee cunt

Facetiousness is a wonderful tool when shit gets mental.

Pelosi should have walked out on the runway in Taiwan dressed as Rod Hull and Emu. 

Roy Hudd. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

The guy being told that a neighbour plans to rape and murder his kids would probably feel enormous pressure to save his kids. 

So are you saying that responsibility can only be attributed to the instigator if there's an arbitrary amount of 'pressure' felt by the subject of those instigations? 

That seems like a random criteria that you've just decided upon based upon a little thought, since you didn't express that criteria until now. 

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to highlight that if you're going to begin attributing random criteria as a reason that the guy saying the words CAN be held accountable as the debate evolves then your initial position, they're just words, is no longer tenable, and you're entering a state where you have to begin creating ad hoc reasoning to justify the original position. 

Who's to say a steely-eyed Nazi general feels any more pressure to obey an order than a weak neighbour does when he's told someone plans to rape and murder his kids. 

Everyone has different thresholds where they feel pressure, so how can that be used as a criteria? 

 

AJ didn’t tell anyone to do anything 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Wait a minute that’s an argument against yourself.

You said AJ should be punished because other people gave the parents death threats. He didn’t order them to give death threats, he probably doesn’t even know them.
Yet “If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words.” 

I was reiterating your argument for clarity when I said that, not making the argument myself

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...