Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I've edited now. Feel 'free' to address the rest of my post. Also, what exactly would you like to say that you aren't being allowed to say? Specific examples would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 There's no such thing as absolute freedom for an individual since granting it to one person would immediately have consequences that would have the potential to remove it from someone else. Think about that one 'dimwit'. While you're at it, perhaps you can tell me whether you're advocating total freedom and, since I'm obviously a bit slow on the uptake here, you can define that for me too. theres no such thing as 'total' or 'absolute' freedom. thats what im trying to get at. I merely find it offensive when people try to defend 'freedom of speech' as in reality they are defending state oppression. whats the difference between freedom and total freedom?? im confused. shirley they are the same ie. both free. sorry for calling you dimwit. it should have been moron asking questions like that!! (safety wink) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Also, what exactly would you like to say that you aren't being allowed to say? Specific examples would help. ha ha, no thanks mate. not answering questions like that in a public forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 There's no such thing as absolute freedom for an individual since granting it to one person would immediately have consequences that would have the potential to remove it from someone else. Think about that one 'dimwit'. While you're at it, perhaps you can tell me whether you're advocating total freedom and, since I'm obviously a bit slow on the uptake here, you can define that for me too. theres no such thing as 'total' or 'absolute' freedom. thats what im trying to get at. I merely find it offensive when people try to defend 'freedom of speech' as in reality they are defending state oppression. whats the difference between freedom and total freedom?? im confused. shirley they are the same ie. both free. sorry for calling you dimwit. it should have been moron asking questions like that!! (safety wink) Aren't you defending freedom of speech then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Also, what exactly would you like to say that you aren't being allowed to say? Specific examples would help. ha ha, no thanks mate. not answering questions like that in a public forum. Aye, because the man will whisk you away. Nowt to do with not being able to answer a straightforward question of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Just admit you're wrong man agent. Isn't the WHOLE point of that quote "Freedom without boundaries is just a word" that such a thing is entirely impractical. You started by arguing against that, and now you're completely agreeing that we can only exist with a certain level of freedom, the debate is only to what degree we should be free to do as we all please. Freedom with boundaries is not just a word, and it's not oppression, it's the principal that underpins EVERY society on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Barrack Road Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I think the nearest thing to the equilibrium we all need in our lives are the freedoms that existed in the Netherlands. You can't have total freedom because society would break down. There have to be boundaries to freedom, but me personally I don't think there should be any restrictions on what you can verbally say or what you consume, as long as it doesn't effect national security, but quite clearly we're bound by those "boundaries", but I refuse, REFUSE, to conform to the constrictions society imposes on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I think the nearest thing to the equilibrium we all need in our lives are the freedoms that existed in the Netherlands. You can't have total freedom because society would break down. There have to be boundaries to freedom, but me personally I don't think there should be any restrictions on what you can verbally say or what you consume, as long as it doesn't effect national security, but quite clearly we're bound by those "boundaries", but I refuse, REFUSE, to conform to the constrictions society imposes on me. best answer yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 There's no such thing as absolute freedom for an individual since granting it to one person would immediately have consequences that would have the potential to remove it from someone else. Think about that one 'dimwit'. While you're at it, perhaps you can tell me whether you're advocating total freedom and, since I'm obviously a bit slow on the uptake here, you can define that for me too. theres no such thing as 'total' or 'absolute' freedom. thats what im trying to get at. I merely find it offensive when people try to defend 'freedom of speech' as in reality they are defending state oppression. whats the difference between freedom and total freedom?? im confused. shirley they are the same ie. both free. sorry for calling you dimwit. it should have been moron asking questions like that!! (safety wink) Aren't you defending freedom of speech then? sorry should have been more specific. people defending the current freedom of speech laws. my bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Just admit you're wrong man agent. why? I'm right in saying the current freedom of speech laws are anything but free. get over it Edited March 25, 2010 by AgentAxeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Siencentist once tested monkeys .. They put 5 monkeys in a closed room where a banana was hanging on the ceiling. Naturally they ran for it and one of them got it. Result was that loud noise and cold rainwater was showered into the room. This was repeated until they give up their passion for the banana. Next phase was to replace one of the monkeys with a "fresh" newcomer and see what happens... Newbie naturally tried to reach the banana but the other monkeys beat him so long that he gave up the idea! They replaced little by little all all the monkeys untill all were changed. But still always the new monkey was beated by the others when he went for the banana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Just admit you're wrong man agent. why? I'm right in saying the current freedom of speech laws are anything but free. get over it of course they are not, everybody is or should be bound by a degree of respect for others and their beliefs and the laws and way of the country they live in. Unfortunately, muslims seem to think they can change all of this, and misguided fools like Tooner keep telling us how great it is in Canada and think these racists DO have total freedom of speech, using the "racist" card if you object to it. Edited March 25, 2010 by LeazesMag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 ...missed a bit off...After a while the new monkey was beaten regardless of going for the banana or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentAxeman 82 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 WooHoo, just realized ive passed 1000 posts. Completely random i know...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Barrack Road Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 ...missed a bit off...After a while the new monkey was beaten regardless of going for the banana or not... You tried that mephadrone yet Parky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 For such an advocate of free speech it's quite amusing that, despite participating in this thread, your own views are somewhat conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps agent provocateur would be a more appropriate moniker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 ...missed a bit off...After a while the new monkey was beaten regardless of going for the banana or not... You tried that mephadrone yet Parky? Its a bit shit, good for keeping you going when you've run out of anything decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 (edited) Just admit you're wrong man agent. why? I'm right in saying the current freedom of speech laws are anything but free. get over it of course they are not, everybody is or should be bound by a degree of respect for others and their beliefs and the laws and way of the country they live in. Unfortunately, muslims seem to think they can change all of this, and misguided fools like Tooner keep telling us how great it is in Canada and think these racists DO have total freedom of speech, using the "racist" card if you object to it. Agree with the first bit but I think you're letting your prejudices get in the way there since Tooner was the one saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech whereas AA here was saying even the likes of Abu Hamza should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences. You could have avoided that mistake by reading what they actually wrote. and Sarcmark, obviously. Edited March 25, 2010 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 ...missed a bit off...After a while the new monkey was beaten regardless of going for the banana or not... You tried that mephadrone yet Parky? Its a bit shit, good for keeping you going when you've run out of anything decent. Never tried it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 For such an advocate of free speech it's quite amusing that, despite participating in this thread, your own views are somewhat conspicuous by their absence. Perhaps agent provocateur would be a more appropriate moniker. With a nice pair of tits for an avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 I was thinking more stockings and sussies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 ...missed a bit off...After a while the new monkey was beaten regardless of going for the banana or not... You tried that mephadrone yet Parky? Its a bit shit, good for keeping you going when you've run out of anything decent. Never tried it. You can still get it delivered apparently. It'll be illegal come the summer. Not interested personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Just admit you're wrong man agent. why? I'm right in saying the current freedom of speech laws are anything but free. get over it of course they are not, everybody is or should be bound by a degree of respect for others and their beliefs and the laws and way of the country they live in. Unfortunately, muslims seem to think they can change all of this, and misguided fools like Tooner keep telling us how great it is in Canada and think these racists DO have total freedom of speech, using the "racist" card if you object to it. Agree with the first bit but I think you're letting your prejudices get in the way there since Tooner was the one saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech whereas AA here was saying even the likes of Abu Hamza should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences. You could have avoided that mistake by reading what they actually wrote. I am reading, but not really responding to tooner because I don't care what goes on in Canada. I saw his comment where he insinuates that I "am deciding what can and can't be said", the point is, I am not. I am saying the same thing as AA ie the law stinks, and as it stands is leaning the way of PC correct loonies who have spent x amount of years trying to tell the likes of me and you what we can and can't say about foreigners and their actions, in our own country. Why should Hamza be able to say what he likes ? He is banged up, and should stay banged up, where he can say what he likes to fellow inmates if he likes and gets a good deserved kicking for his trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Just admit you're wrong man agent. why? I'm right in saying the current freedom of speech laws are anything but free. get over it of course they are not, everybody is or should be bound by a degree of respect for others and their beliefs and the laws and way of the country they live in. Unfortunately, muslims seem to think they can change all of this, and misguided fools like Tooner keep telling us how great it is in Canada and think these racists DO have total freedom of speech, using the "racist" card if you object to it. Agree with the first bit but I think you're letting your prejudices get in the way there since Tooner was the one saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech whereas AA here was saying even the likes of Abu Hamza should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences. You could have avoided that mistake by reading what they actually wrote. I am reading, but not really responding to tooner because I don't care what goes on in Canada. I saw his comment where he insinuates that I "am deciding what can and can't be said", the point is, I am not. I am saying the same thing as AA ie the law stinks, and as it stands is leaning the way of PC correct loonies who have spent x amount of years trying to tell the likes of me and you what we can and can't say about foreigners and their actions, in our own country. Why should Hamza be able to say what he likes ? He is banged up, and should stay banged up, where he can say what he likes to fellow inmates if he likes and gets a good deserved kicking for his trouble. Thought the muslims had taken over the prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Just admit you're wrong man agent. why? I'm right in saying the current freedom of speech laws are anything but free. get over it of course they are not, everybody is or should be bound by a degree of respect for others and their beliefs and the laws and way of the country they live in. Unfortunately, muslims seem to think they can change all of this, and misguided fools like Tooner keep telling us how great it is in Canada and think these racists DO have total freedom of speech, using the "racist" card if you object to it. Agree with the first bit but I think you're letting your prejudices get in the way there since Tooner was the one saying there should be restrictions on freedom of speech whereas AA here was saying even the likes of Abu Hamza should be able to say what they want regardless of the consequences. You could have avoided that mistake by reading what they actually wrote. I am reading, but not really responding to tooner because I don't care what goes on in Canada. I saw his comment where he insinuates that I "am deciding what can and can't be said", the point is, I am not. I am saying the same thing as AA ie the law stinks, and as it stands is leaning the way of PC correct loonies who have spent x amount of years trying to tell the likes of me and you what we can and can't say about foreigners and their actions, in our own country. Why should Hamza be able to say what he likes ? He is banged up, and should stay banged up, where he can say what he likes to fellow inmates if he likes and gets a good deserved kicking for his trouble. Thought the muslims had taken over the prisons. ah, that will be Hamza then.........shame he wasn't kicked a bit harder and a bit earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now