0  0

My apologies, I have been extremely busy these past couple days. Will respond when time if more forgiving. Hopefully soon.

-Ibn

0  0

I am sorry but I failed to understand your point.

I thought I had answered all the questions you raised.

The only question that I perhaps did not address was “Here’s a question for you – should we ban hate speech against certain groups before they get sent to ovens, or only after? Only because I did not take it seriously but I can answer it now as follow;

We should ban hate speech before the damage is done.

As for patting on my back please don’t. There is no need for it. We are complete strangers here and I do not get excited about it. And yes; I answer you, you answer me. Deal!

0  0

Excuse me while I switch topics for one second and talk about some ground rules first:

During my typical workday, I spend about an hour on this blog in total, (give or take), trying to articulate questions, answers, rebuttals, etc to other debaters.

If you are not going to bother answering my questions, or at least directly addressing points I have made, then it makes no sense for me to invest my time in articulating them for you to begin with.

This is one of the hallmarks of debate. I answer you, you answer me. Repeating what you had just said one post ago, is not a “reply” by the way. Glazing over what I have said or repeating your first point as if time stopped just wastes my time, and yours.

If you insist on conducting yourself this way, then I will be happy to pat you on the back, and simply say “Yes yes, you are right” and send you on your merry way.

-Ibn

0  0

After all what harm there is no trying to protect one particular group who were subject to a systematic and determined attempt to exterminate them from the face of the earth?

As for your call to ban hate speech against blacks well that is hilarious for it is already a crime to incite racial hatred. It is also a crime to make hate speeches against native Americans in the US and it is a crime, I think, to do the same against the Chinese in Japan.

0  0

After all this one particular group suffered heavily and it is right that such preventive measures are adopted. We do not want history to repeat itself do we?

You do not want the holocaust to happen to that old group. But surely, you do not want to holocaust to happen to a new group right? Ergo, you ban all “hate” speech.

We also need to be practical here. If we are going to apply the same rule to every other religion then you will simply shut everybody up.

Precisely why you dont want to do it to any group to begin with. Thats why laws are meant to be color-blind. Once you remove that, you are faced with two choices: Be hypocritical in your application of law, making one set of laws for one race/religious group (racism), or be “favouratist” towards anyone to begin with.

Furthermore, what is your metric for measurement of “past suffering”? Total losses? Percentages? What? As I mentioned before, the Roma (Gypsies) lost more than 50% of their polulations on earth, but no one is making any provisions for them. Why is that? Should they not be included as well?

There are hundreds of religions. Perhaps thousands. So limiting it to one group is not only practical but right given the history.

Why not two groups? How about 5? 7? 10? Whats the magic number? And why are we focusing on the holocaust – what about the number of indigeneous populations killed by colonial Britain – they were also in the millions – is hate speech against blacks to be banned as well?

Im curious – should the UN ask Japan to ban hate speech on Chinese as per the rape of Nanking? Should the US be asked to ban hate speech against Indians?

Here’s a question for you – should we ban hate speech against certain groups before they get sent to ovens, or only after?

This is the path one goes down when one begins to talk about selective application of laws based on color and ethnicity: Racism. (Some also call it reverse-racism, but its really the same thing).

Milter,

I may have had the same sort of clear distinction as you between black and white in my yonger days. I don’t now.

Thats unfortunate. Freedom is not negotiable. Whats gotten into you Europeans? Dont you understand this anymore?

And how can you compare the Holocaust and the suspicion of Jews and their intentions of earlier times to the objections people in the West today have against some Muslims that openly declare their hostile intentions?

I didnt.

Im not talking about objections people in the West have about the Muslims who blowup your subways. Im talking about hate-speech against Muslims who arent blowing up your subways, as a result of, directly or indirectlty, the current political climate.

In that sense, they are in the same boat as their Jewish counterparts in Germany. Charges levied against them that they are part of a global conspiracy to import Sharia, to kill infidels, to create a “Eurabia”, to want to kill dissidents, that Mohammad-was-a-terrorist-therefore-those-people-worship-a-terrorist-and-we-all-know-what-we-must-do-with-terrorists message that cartoons, hateful op-eds give out.

In this sense, we are seeing the seeds of a new breed of neo-fascism take root, and this time, the Muslims are the scapegoat.

-Ibn

0  0

Your latest comment just, once more, indicates where you and I differ.

I may have had the same sort of clear distinction as you between black and white in my yonger days. I don’t now.

And how can you compare the Holocaust and the suspicion of Jews and their intentions of earlier times to the objections people in the West today have against some Muslims that openly declare their hostile intentions?

0  0

We also need to be practical here. If we are going to apply the same rule to every other religion then you will simply shut everybody up. No one will be able to say anything fearing that they might offend the religious feelings of somebody out there. There are hundreds of religions. Perhaps thousands. So limiting it to one group is not only practical but right given the history.

0  0

I agree that Jews at times get “special treatment” but, a big part of the Western population is still full of remorse because of their parents’ failure to see what was happening to the Jewish population worldwide.

Milter,

I also “understand” why it is the way it is in the West with regards to the Jews. However, that is still no excuse for hypocritical laws.

It is as if the Jews are on some sort of “endangered species list” and thus they are given all this special treatment based on past wrongs done to them.

If that is the case then, why dont we put together some barometer of sorts, that quantifies how bad one group has gotten it with respect to the West, and create special provisions for them based on that.

Percentage wise, the gypsies got it much worse than the Jews did, but we arent making special provisions for them.

So again, as bad as they got it, thats no excuse to curtail freedom of speech. It is unnegotiable. Period. The minute you make an exception based on the past of one group, you have to make exceptions based on the past for another group.

On top of that, if your purpose of banning that speech is a preventative measure against another Holocaust against the Jews, then why dont you also prevent that type of speech towards Muslims and any other groups as well, so that they are not the new victims of a future holocaust?

So, maybe we don’t disagree that much, after all

I respectfully beg to differ. On this fundemental issue, we are light years apart. I do not care for exceptions towards any one group when it comes to freedom of speech.

For example, in the US, I cannot get away with saying “nigger” since I am not black, but rappers say it all the time. To me, that is hypocritical nonsense. (Although technically this is a social barrier not a legal one).

I believe in the unequivocal, un-negotiable, fundamental, and indivisible principle, of freedom-of-speech, as highlighted above. This means, you make no exceptions for anyone, because the minute you do, you stray away from liberalism, and come towards facism.

Which is why, we disagree, not agree. What you advocate is the curtailment of my freedom based on some hypocritical form of favoritist tribalism.

-Ibn

0  0

applied without in a “colour blind” way in

…. should have been:

“…applied in a “colour blind” way in …”

0  0