Free Speech

[Aloysius]

OK - how about this - you lump all muslims into the same bag - terrorists.

 

Hello what about the muslims the terrorists kill?

[POWERZONE]

:laugh:

[Aloysius]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/suic...ing-syria/

 


"Islamic State group takes credit for suicide bombing in northern Syria"
<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;">A suicide bomber detonated a truck of explosives in northeastern Syria Wednesday morning, killing at least 44 people.

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;">The Islamic State group claimed responsibility for the attack, which struck near security headquarters in the predominantly-Kurdish city of Qamishli, located near the Turkish border."

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;">1 bomber, 44 bombees,

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;">All Muslim.

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;">Which were the terrorists?

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;">does that mean 2 out of every 88 muslims are terrorists?

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:'Source Sans Pro';font-size:17.6px;">Does that mean less than 3% of muslims are terrorists?

[petersj]

Well dont ever complain bout free speech Peter. You are having a field day. No need to coment as Aloy is doing it better than me. WE all ahve deep concerns here. I just think fueling more angst will make it worse.

[petersj]

Bugger.

Sorry I hate looking at my posts and the mistakes. Sorry everyone. I cant even pick on people any more over their spelling and Grammar.

Karma lol.

[petersj]

Lets try again.

Talk about being on the fence.

Sorry Peter and Aloy I really struggle with the whole issue of Muslims.

I am enoying your dialogue as its helpful to me.

Yes there are great people who are Muslim but how can I possibly be happy about people coming to Australia who think I am lower than a dog. OK Christians do not like gays much but they recognse church and state and they are not going to throw me off a building. In USA there are exteme I HATE FAGS people but they are a minority albeit a noisy one.

I also struggle with the Muslims attitude to women. I see NO place for the burqua in Australia

Facial recognition is of vital importance not just legally but socially. Burquas freak me out.

Peter has every right to be concerned but the main thing is they are here and some how or other we need to find a balance.

HELP if you follow Islam does that mean you are a Muslim? I find it confusing.

I find it a worry if I condemn Muslims I end up on the side of movements likethe far right I detest I dont want to be aligned with them. On the other hand the left are in a fools parradise acting as though everything is fine and hunky dory.

There is validity in comparing it to Christianity. I see where you coming from Aly. However during the enlightment things changed so I think Peter may be right.

Ah bloody religion,I will never understand why adults believe in invisible friends and talking to sky fairies.

Lol now I have insulted every one.i  Sorry. I just think religion is very very silly.

[petersj]

Peter although discussions about religion rarely get any where I appreciate that you are happy to discuss it. I find religion is fair game.

Yet (the churches) get generous tax concessions etc and seem to get generous air time.

I simply find talking to invisible beings illogical. Christianity is largely based on lack of a father figure. I am honestly not trying to be rude but I qustion the psychological dependence ob the father figure odd. Either the follower grieves because he or she has lost a father or never had a good one. They find this relacement in God.

Notice how they address the figure as our father etc.

Sometimes the attraction is sexual. I have seen women cry when they look at images of Chist. The adoration is orgasmic.

Christinanty is further tied up withf canibalism. Devouring the flesh and drinking the blood.

I am not having a go at you but can someone explain the mathematical incongruity of the trinity. How can 3 equal one?

[Aloysius]

To assist you - 

 

religion requires faith, ie belief in things not seen.

 

That's why I see many of the apostles of global warming as religious acolytes they have faith in "modelling"

 

The fact that many of their prophecies and predictions failed to eventuate does not appear to shatter this faith in that modelling which was clearly flawed.

 

A guy (Singer) on Q&A Monday night, predicted sea level rises of 5metres by the end of the century.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

 

checkout past changes in sea levels !!1

 

Sea levels also lower:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...evel-drop/

[Aloysius]

freedom of speech to me means that I can vote for a government, it also means that I can vote for or against a particular social issue.

 

Why then do ostensible supporters of free speach then speak out against something like a plebiscite?

 

Ex Justice Murphy feels that an elected elite should decide the marriage equality issue - hello would it make a difference if he were opposed to proposed changes?

 

Does he believe that a free and fair vote of all electors may not support his view?

 

Is he more interested in this issue because of his personal views than the right of voters to have a say?

 

Forget about the issue, let's look at the fundamental right of all Australians to have a say, whatever the issue.

 

Or should we just cut to the chase and ban all plebiscites - be they related to constitutional reform, or anything else. 

[POWERZONE]

What about right wingers?

[POWERZONE]

Let me intro a right winger who shouts and have fits of faux outrage when defamed in a "free speech" environment

Treasurer Joe Hockey’s decision to sue Fairfax Media for defamation over the now-notorious front-page story “Treasurer for sale” raises interesting questions about politicians suing to protect their reputation, allied with the protection of freedom of speech in Australia.


Hockey claims the newspapers in question – The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times – alleged that he accepted, or was prepared to accept, bribes; that he corruptly solicited payments in order to influence his decision; and that he corruptly sold privileged access to businesspeople and lobbyists in return for donations to the Liberal Party.


A debate is underway about the balance between freedom of speech and protection against racially offensive conduct. There similarly needs to be a debate in Australia about defamation law.

 

http://theconversation.com/hockeys-defam...bate-27057

 

Is this right winger all for free speech or is it compulsory to be nice to him?

 

I reckon the most hilarious case of Govt failing its own "free speech" policy was when the Howard Govt gagged David Hicks prior to the 2007 election which they lost anyway

[POWERZONE]

Wow Peter. Was that a sort of Jihad endorsement or were you really speaking your mind as a Catholic?

 

I reckon the Hockey article makes an important point of how do you balance free speech and defamation.

 

Or maybe we could just let it hang all out and turn Australia into a giant clay pit where everyone can let it rip

[Aloysius]

Let me intro a right winger who shouts and have fits of faux outrage when defamed in a "free speech" environment

Treasurer Joe Hockey’s decision to sue Fairfax Media for defamation over the now-notorious front-page story “Treasurer for sale” raises interesting questions about politicians suing to protect their reputation, allied with the protection of freedom of speech in Australia.


Hockey claims the newspapers in question – The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times – alleged that he accepted, or was prepared to accept, bribes; that he corruptly solicited payments in order to influence his decision; and that he corruptly sold privileged access to businesspeople and lobbyists in return for donations to the Liberal Party.


A debate is underway about the balance between freedom of speech and protection against racially offensive conduct. There similarly needs to be a debate in Australia about defamation law.

 

http://theconversation.com/hockeys-defam...bate-27057

 

Is this right winger all for free speech or is it compulsory to be nice to him?

 

I reckon the most hilarious case of Govt failing its own "free speech" policy was when the Howard Govt gagged David Hicks prior to the 2007 election which they lost anyway

 

 

 

Heh Heh Heh

 

Hockey is a whinger because he gets annoyed by false accusations?

 

That merely indicates his good values - something we should laud not laugh about.

[Aloysius]

What about right wingers?

 

 

 

So do you support the use of plebiscites or referenda in our democracy?

[POWERZONE]

Haha.

Good one Peter

[POWERZONE]

Heh Heh Heh
 
Hockey is a whinger because he gets annoyed by false accusations?
 
That merely indicates his good values - something we should laud not laugh about.

That's the thing Aloy.

Where do you draw the line between free speech and defamation?

[POWERZONE]

So do you support the use of plebiscites or referenda in our democracy?

Yes, if they are necessary. It isn't necessary for marriage equality.

Same sex unions are already defined as “marriage” in the Constitution as far as I know.

No need for a plebiscite or referendum. Nothing to do with Ex Justice Murphy's preferences

I would have liked a plebiscite/referendum on Workchoices but it didn't happen for the above reason.

[POWERZONE]

Hi Peter.

I guess a plebiscite and the right to have a say could be linked with free speech?

[Aloysius]

See the thing is - if we all get a vote and a decision is made - then we can all live with it.

 

If it's made by pollies who are the target of all kinds of pressure groups those who lose can easily and credibly say "it's a stitch up" That could be either side in this issue.

 

I reckon Pete should have a say, GG should have a say, you should have a say, and everyone else too.

 

BS claims about the cost are a tad incongruous given the readiness of any pressure group to hold out their hands for taxpayers dollars.

 

I just want this to be a fair dinkum decision - which ever way it goes.

 

Funny how all those folks who can't trust pollies - their words - now seem to have had a change of heart.

 

Fair dinkum??

[POWERZONE]

:th

 

Aloy, if marriage equality is already in the Constitution then the fair dinkum decision must have already been made.


If we have a plebiscite now it could only be about whether to remove marriage equality or not.


It would be like having an early election