Che is gone

Discussion in 'Archive' started by pedro3131, Aug 31, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 3 of 16

  1. joske Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    609
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Oh its just his hate speech, I mean yeah thats illegal but hey this is teh internetz. You get nazi communists that want to ally with al-qaeda all the time...no wait that was Che again.
    joske, Aug 31, 2011
    #41

  2. 0bserver92 Grand King of Moderation

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,746
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Canada
    But he is a Canadian citizen so that law applies to him.
    0bserver92, Aug 31, 2011
    #42

  3. MayorEmanuel Do not weep, for salvation is coming.

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    436
    Trophy Points:
    143
    You would be better off moving to Morocco
    MayorEmanuel, Aug 31, 2011
    #43

  4. Demondaze Xenos Scum

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    TEXASLOL
    We never did get him on the stream.......
    Demondaze, Aug 31, 2011
    #44

  5. crownedman104 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Message Count:
    896
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Well atleast yall still have me to look like crazed idjit. :p
    Still che needs some time alone....in a room.....made of rubber.......while wearing a..(insert whatever the fuck those things are called here)
    Btw this is what i am doing right now at you pedro :p
    [yt:1m25caym]NAEA1KzDynI[/yt:1m25caym]
    Mah sophisticated clap :D
    crownedman104, Aug 31, 2011
    #45

  6. Chelsea366 Retired Moderator

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,865
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Gensokyo
    Straight jacket.
    Chelsea366, Aug 31, 2011
    #46

  7. crownedman104 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Message Count:
    896
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ah.....thanks. xD
    crownedman104, Aug 31, 2011
    #47

  8. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    THE DAY IS OURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    slydessertfox, Aug 31, 2011
    #48

  9. MayorEmanuel Do not weep, for salvation is coming.

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    436
    Trophy Points:
    143
    The internet is a wonderful tool
    MayorEmanuel, Aug 31, 2011
    #49

  10. D3VIL Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    885
    Likes Received:
    82
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    UK
    I think the line of free speech should be drawn at advocating the mass murder of civilian populations. But that's just me. Also, I'd rather restricted gun rights than unrestricted - why do civilians need firearms? Go to a firing range. I'm also wildly in favour of unarmed police forces (UK). And what does the advocacy of genocide have to do with democracy?

    P.S. Sorry if you were joking.
    D3VIL, Aug 31, 2011
    #50

  11. BattalionOfRed Mr. Fred Battaliono

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,793
    Likes Received:
    563
    Trophy Points:
    188
    I love firearms, but only for the reason that they're fun to shoot, there is no protection value in them if you're being assaulted, nobody has a judgement that makes them think at what point is it a good time to shoot the bastard who's assaulting you?
    BattalionOfRed, Aug 31, 2011
    #51

  12. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Speech shouldn't be illegal because it hurts someone's feelings. It should be illegal in exactly three cases, 1) if it puts people in immediate danger (yelling fire in a crowded movie theater), 2) if someone makes a threat on someone else's life (not really an issue of speech so much as coercion and whatnot) and 3) if it is proven defamatory (verifiably false and causes provable damage to someone's life).

    Political speech of any kind (genocidal or no) is political speech. Government shouldn't have any hand in restricting it.

    But on the site things work differently and we abide by different rules than we do in the States.
    Kalalification, Aug 31, 2011
    #52

  13. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    We have already had this conversation and I have already pointed out the hypocritical nature of saying a threat on some one else is not ok, but making threats against groups of people are.

    You do realize that Canada has more guns than the USA per capita right? In fact my father has three guns. Please don't speak about my country without the adequate insight to do so.

    Also I would say that Canada is doing pretty damn well for itself. I look around the world and I see civil wars in the middle east, rioting in Greece and London, and political deadlock combined with a crippling national debt in the USA, while Canada sands firm with few if any detrimental problems.
    JosefVStalin, Aug 31, 2011
    #53

  14. Surfusa Lost in space-time

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,592
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    128
    Location:
    Parradise Valley, Arizona, United States of Americ
    How long did you wait before banning him?
    Surfusa, Aug 31, 2011
    #54

  15. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's political speech. It's not a statement made with an active hostile intent 'towards X person(s),' it's a statement made with an a passive hostile intent towards 'X group.'
    Kalalification, Aug 31, 2011
    #55

  16. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    So if I say I am going to kill Matthew Chris, that's not ok in your books. However if I say that I am going to kill all Jews, that is?
    JosefVStalin, Aug 31, 2011
    #56

  17. Sharpe95th Active Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Message Count:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Today is a good day
    Sharpe95th, Aug 31, 2011
    #57

  18. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well neither is something I'm particularly fond of, but there is no reason to prohibit the second statement. The first is a declaration made with the intent to coerce Matt (or as a declaration made during some actual assault, perhaps) with threat of physical violence. The second is simply political hogwash.
    Kalalification, Aug 31, 2011
    #58

  19. JosefVStalin El Presidente

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    5,818
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    B.C. Canada
    Really because I fail to see the difference. If anything I would argue that we have more reason to ban the second statement than the first because it has intend to commit harm against more than just one person.
    JosefVStalin, Aug 31, 2011
    #59

  20. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    pedro's a pre-law major IIRC so he would be able to explain it better, but the general gist of the idea is that one represents an immediate and quantifiable danger to a victim while the other has no victim and creates no danger (unless it does, in which case it's not prosecuted as a "hate speech crime" but rather as a conspiracy to commit "X").

    It doesn't have intent to commit harm to any person or persons, it has intent to commit harm against a group.

    EDIT: Also looking back I noticed you said there were more guns per capita in Canada. I just don't see how that's a material possibility; any links?

    Like seriously, the NRA alone has over 4 million members here, that's almost 1/6 of the entire population of Canada.
    Kalalification, Aug 31, 2011
    #60
Page 3 of 16
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Facebook: