French and Greek legislative elections - turning to extremisms

It's not disgusting to try and change an opinion. In fact, I said that "you can disagree with them". I think you should try to change their opinions. However, it's disgusting for the government to tell you what opinions are okay and what opinions aren't. It's inexcusable to restrict speech.

Read: political correctness. I'm surprised that you're actually in favor of censorship. Even LeninCat recognizes the idiocy and hypocrisy that it represents.

Yes. It absolutely is. You don't get to tell people what they can say. Whether or not it's mean has no bearing on their right to express it.

He clearly DID say it and then defended it. He agreed that I had represented his position adequately, and in fact stated that it represented communism "At it's very finest".

You know that by doing so, you're essentially punishing innocent people for actions that they might commit in the future right? Does that seem fair to you?

You can't change what people THINK because you can't tell what people are thinking so I disagree with that but otherwise I am saying that freedom of speech is overrated and is an excuse for harassment etc.

That reminds me about that movie with Tom Cruise.

Wrong. Plainly wrong. There's no such thing as limited "freedom" of speech. You either are free to say whatever you want, or you're being censored by authoritarian assholes.

Actively advocating murder/genocide etc?
Edit: Like: "Let's go right now and kill the Jews living on X Street."

Been over this a thousand times before: incitement, conspiracy to commit crimes, and defamation are all illegal. That doesn't mean you can't wish for another Holocaust or go all Che and call for nuclear apocalypse, it means that you can't tell your neighbor to kill your wife, or that you can't tell your poker club to beat the shit out of some guy for money, or that you can't run around telling people that your boss is a white supremacist transvestite when he actually isn't. There's a very clear and obvious difference between criminal conduct/planning and political rhetoric.

Well I agree, but I still think it's restriction of free speech.

You are talking about our beloved Che, right?

Greeces 2 ruling partys are now apparently a far left communist party and a neo nazi type group. The neo nazis already want to put land mines all around there borders. pretty freaky if you ask me

I think this meme sums up the Greek economy:

With nationalists in power it will only increase.

Punishing them? No, saving them is more like it. Saving lives. If anything by letting the Neo-Nazis to gain ground is endangering human lives and therefore punishing innocents.

What a shame it'll be if the neo-nazis can't run just because they'll probably kill a couple dozen people. So unfair.

You're quoting where I said that democracies were dangerous because they elect governments like the Third Reich. And of course, so government propaganda is legitimate and seen about as normal to you? Certainly not disagreeable, all they're doing is changing opinion.

That's nonsense. There's plenty of reasons to restrict freedom of speech. It's not like anyone who wants to censor something is a freedom hating Devil spawn. And no, it's not ok to hold an opinion that some people are inferior and should be sterilized/killed for their race or religion or otherwise. Mainly because, not only is it stupid, it's dangerous. And society would be incompetent to allow dangers to itself run a muck.

It's not political correctness to stop people from harassing others for their ideology or for setting a nation on a proper course. Rather, it is an element of common sense that society is afraid to embrace.

I've never been nor will I ever be in favor of censorship. I'm merely here for a challenge. Like that time I argued for creationism.

There's nothing hypocritical about protecting people.

No it's not. Just like a free internet for a child doesn't exactly mean unlimited access to porn. It's an undesirable element that gets lumped in and when possible should be stopped. Yes, it does hamper on freedoms but it only does so in a way that grants others the freedom from being attacked with insults for whatever aspect of life they contain.

Actually the majority of governments in history have told you what you can and can't say. It's not exactly a foreign idea.

Do you think I'm like 8? Golden Dawn should be stopped because if it isn't stopped people will die. Not because they're mean, it's because it's safer without their influence.

He agreed that I had represented his position adequately, and in fact stated that it represented communism "At it's very finest".[/quote]
Oh wow, you're right. Wow, apparently he thinks it's even ok to ban an ideology (actually a sub-sect of an ideology) because it was violent in the past, not because it has violent tendencies now. And by the way, I don't say Golden Dawn should be banned because Nazis in the past were some of the most violent people ever, I'm saying it should be banned because Neo-Nazis in the present are STILL some of the most violent people ever. If the Neo-Nazis were somehow more moderate and henceforth less violent than the actual Nazis then there would be no sense in banning them because they would not present a threat to society.

(Double-post merged by Bart. Kara, Kara, when will you learn...)

Hey look the dreaded double post.

Oh you're saving people from their own opinions/themselves, where have I heard that before?
You are banning a group that has, so far, done nothing wrong, and your justification is that it might save the lives of some. You are punishing a group for actions members of this group might commit in the future, that's actually even worse, as you're punishing a group for the actions of the individuals. I can even think of other cases where this has led to political persecution of groups because of the acts of some individuals like Mccarthyism and the Red Scare.(the first)
You do know the famous quote by Benjamen Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's not political persecution. Far right parties just shouldn't be allowed because they advocate violence. These groups have done something wrong. They are harassing and throwing bricks at socialists and they're beating up immigrants. These people now have a say in how Greece is run, the reason; freedom of speech.

You are(or want to) surpressing and punishing someone because of their political beliefs. I'm pretty sure that's what political presecution is...
I like how you just casually say that "far right parties...advocate violence." You do know that it's factually wrong and incredibly narrowminded right? Not all far right parties advocate violence just like not all far left parties advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat or what have you.

So let's say someone from your political party throws bricks at right wingers or mabye even police officers.(which I'm sure they are) Does that make you and your party responsible, and should it in that case also be banned? No, it doesn't and it shouldn't because a group can't be held responsible for the actions of it's individual members.

The reason why they have a say is because many people want them to have a say. They voted for them, and have placed their confidence and future in the hands of the representatives they feel represent them best. These people have the right to chose whoever they want as their representatives, and if that include authoritarian, racist assholes then so be it.

Inforcing draconian policies and restricting freedom of speech doesn't deal with the underlying problems, but only treats the symptoms.

I said FAR right, meaning neo-nazis, not people on the right like republicans etc.