Heartland

lazarus corporation wrote:

eotunun wrote:Dark Angel´s "boo-hoo-yer-all-against-me"-threads somehow were more interesting..

That's because Josh is putting forward sensible well-reasoned arguments in a calm and polite manner

Aye. He needs to GROW DOWN. This is the internet!

lazarus corporation wrote: That's because Josh is putting forward sensible well-reasoned arguments in a calm and polite manner (and hopefully I'm doing the same) rather than engaging in a rabid flame war. Damn him.

Fine so far. Some of the points made would enable you to sue him in germany (Denying holocaust for example).
Maybe it´s my german origin that makes me extremely touchy with people who condone such attitudes.
After all we germans are rather busy with keeping the nazis of (majorly east&north east) germany from beating up more aliens or committing more murders and try to come over the mental and verbal venom shed by the twit Hitler that still is there in some of the heads. I think of it as grotesque that there still are people willing to listen to antisemites as the chap itn gave us the link to at the Saddam thread.

I, too, recognize his style and politeness, but some of the contents are beyond anything acceptable for me.

eotunun wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: That's because Josh is putting forward sensible well-reasoned arguments in a calm and polite manner (and hopefully I'm doing the same) rather than engaging in a rabid flame war. Damn him.

Fine so far. Some of the points made would enable you to sue him in germany (Denying holocaust for example).
Maybe it´s my german origin that makes me extremely touchy with people who condone such attitudes.
After all we germans are rather busy with keeping the nazis of (majorly east&north east) germany from beating up more aliens or committing more murders and try to come over the mental and verbal venom shed by the twit Hitler that still is there in some of the heads. I think of it as grotesque that there still are people willing to listen to antisemites as the chap itn gave us the link to at the Saddam thread.

I, too, recognize his style and politeness, but some of the contents are beyond anything acceptable for me.

Just to jump to Josh's (aka nick the stripper) defence, he's not mentioned the holocaust, let alone denied it.

lazarus corporation wrote:

eotunun wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: That's because Josh is putting forward sensible well-reasoned arguments in a calm and polite manner (and hopefully I'm doing the same) rather than engaging in a rabid flame war. Damn him.

Fine so far. Some of the points made would enable you to sue him in germany (Denying holocaust for example).
Maybe it´s my german origin that makes me extremely touchy with people who condone such attitudes.
After all we germans are rather busy with keeping the nazis of (majorly east&north east) germany from beating up more aliens or committing more murders and try to come over the mental and verbal venom shed by the twit Hitler that still is there in some of the heads. I think of it as grotesque that there still are people willing to listen to antisemites as the chap itn gave us the link to at the Saddam thread.

I, too, recognize his style and politeness, but some of the contents are beyond anything acceptable for me.

Just to jump to Josh's (aka nick the stripper) defence, he's not mentioned the holocaust, let alone denied it.

Was wondering too, Josh is NOT itnAklipse but Nick The Stripper...

IZ.

Ahem.

God is dead, says Nietzche.
This thread is dead, says Godwin.

lazarus corporation wrote: Just to jump to Josh's (aka nick the stripper) defence, he's not mentioned the holocaust, let alone denied it.

You were talking about Nick! Nicky ´s a guid boy, never said anything like that, aye!
Sorry, Nick, my fault! Hit me for it, I deserve it..

Happy to oblige, Eotunun



IZ.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Happy to oblige, Eotunun



IZ.

Ouch! Ouch! Aua! Ouch!

eotunun wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: Just to jump to Josh's (aka nick the stripper) defence, he's not mentioned the holocaust, let alone denied it.

You were talking about Nick! Nicky ´s a guid boy, never said anything like that, aye!
Sorry, Nick, my fault! Hit me for it, I deserve it..

I thought it might have been a case of mistaken identity! Glad we cleared that one up!

Motz wrote:Ahem.

God is dead, says Nietzche.
This thread is dead, says Godwin.

Where's Godot?

eotunun wrote:

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Happy to oblige, Eotunun



IZ.

Ouch! Ouch! Aua! Ouch!

it looks though as if you were enjoying it a bit.

canon docre wrote:

eotunun wrote:

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Happy to oblige, Eotunun



IZ.

Ouch! Ouch! Aua! Ouch!

it looks though as if you were enjoying it a bit.

Not exactly. *Ouch!* After having been this foolish and *ouch!* attacking a *Ouch!* mate for no *Ouch!* reason *Ouch,Ouch!* I feel rather miserable. *Ouch!*



*Ouch!*

canon docre wrote:

eotunun wrote:

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Happy to oblige, Eotunun



IZ.

Ouch! Ouch! Aua! Ouch!

it looks though as if you were enjoying it a bit.

He isn't smiling beforehand, he is smiling AFTERWARDS then...

IZ.

So is this the new version of a guid stabbin' then?

Light version, I´d say. *Ouch!*
Iz, you can *Ouch!* stop now!
*Ouch!*

I'm not offended at all.

Ah, good good. I’m always somewhat apprehensive of conversations of a political or religious nature due to their ability to easily get people’s backs up.

I think you're arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the law would interpret a criticism of an organisation as an incitement to violence against its members. If this was the case then we'd all already be in jail.

It appears that that was what I was doing. I suppose, then, that the difference is that the incitement to violence intentionally encourages violence whereas any violence that arises out of a criticism is not intentional

Surely you admit, though, that with this law there is a possibility that the judges, using their intelligence, can do just that: interpret a criticism as an ‘incitement to violence’? I worry that it’s a law that can easily be abused.

nick the stripper wrote:

I think you're arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that the law would interpret a criticism of an organisation as an incitement to violence against its members. If this was the case then we'd all already be in jail.

It appears that that was what I was doing. I suppose, then, that the difference is that the incitement to violence intentionally encourages violence whereas any violence that arises out of a criticism is not intentional

Surely you admit, though, that with this law there is a possibility that the judges, using their intelligence, can do just that: interpret a criticism as an ‘incitement to violence’? I worry that it’s a law that can easily be abused.

Yes, I think intent is the key in my definition of what is incitement.

There's always that possibility of misinterpretation when you have laws interpreted by human beings - but I don't think that can be factored out of any legal system.

In practice the various incitement laws tend to err on the side of the accused (which I think is right - I'm a big believer in the burden of proof being on the prosecution). One recent-ish example would be that odious wanker Nick Griffin of the BNP getting off scot free. I didn't like the fact that he got away with it, but I wouldn't want to change the burden of proof etc to stop that happening in future.

boudicca wrote:

Motz wrote:Ahem.

God is dead, says Nietzche.
This thread is dead, says Godwin.

Where's Godot?

In my experience, you wait for one for ages then three turn up at once.

markfiend wrote:

boudicca wrote:

Motz wrote:Ahem.

God is dead, says Nietzche.
This thread is dead, says Godwin.

Where's Godot?

In my experience, you wait for one for ages then three turn up at once.

Tell me about it. I'm still waiting...

Motz wrote:Ahem.

God is dead, says Nietzche.

So did LOUD

scotty wrote:

Motz wrote:Ahem.

God is dead, says Nietzche.

So did LOUD

Forget Loud - What did Loudness say?