Totalitarianism: our political enemies committed no crime, so we must chsnge the law!

[Pekka]

Caligastia, yes. Like I feel in msot other issues, if you respect the individual, you ALWAYS respect all minorities.

But not everyone can treat individuals and respecting them at the same time. Racists for example would often find that difficult

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Pekka
Caligastia, yes. Like I feel in msot other issues, if you respect the individual, you ALWAYS respect all minorities.

But not everyone can treat individuals and respecting them at the same time. Racists for example would often find that difficult

Yep. Any reasonable person can agree that treating someone differently because of the way they were born is morally indefensible. Surely this is the only 'racism' we need to worry about. Who cares if I think there are average differences between groups in some respects? I will still give every individual an opportunity to prove themselves.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by BeBro
I'm superior to you

Yes, yes of course you are dear. *pats head*

[Pekka]

Well if you think tehere are average differences based on a race (disregarding environment and other factors), well that's your opinion. I'm not particularly interested in that question so I'm not getting emotional over that. What matters is how that carries into your actions of course.

If you treat everyone the same, in the objective world and not your own subjective mind, there's no problem at all. But people like to cry a lot, some people are experts on getting offended, it's their hobby.. for some it's even their job to be offended.

And when you get offended,... it is not YOU who have to reasonably argue, it is the offensive one who has to defend himself, and against what? There's nothing to defend against, because the offended one just got offended, period. So the offensive party always loses that battle, because the tolerance criminals are the ones deciding the winner of that issue, and the winner is the offended one by default and the offensive party is the guilty one - by default.

SO they one who gets offended can always win against anyone, so it's desireable to be offended in certain situatons if they want some goals done. This is, of course ridiculous. But thanks to tolerance criminals, that somehow has gotten to be acceptable and a legit way to act.

That is, the society of the weakest link decides the rules.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well if you think tehere are average differences based on a race (disregarding environment and other factors), well that's your opinion. I'm not particularly interested in that question so I'm not getting emotional over that.

Exactly, and why should anyone get emotional over it? It's scientific question, not a moral one.

What matters is how that carries into your actions of course.

If you treat everyone the same, in the objective world and not your own subjective mind, there's no problem at all. But people like to cry a lot, some people are experts on getting offended, it's their hobby.. for some it's even their job to be offended.

And when you get offended,... it is not YOU who have to reasonably argue, it is the offensive one who has to defend himself, and against what? There's nothing to defend against, because the offended one just got offended, period. So the offensive party always loses that battle, because the tolerance criminals are the ones deciding the winner of that issue, and the winner is the offended one by default and the offensive party is the guilty one - by default.

SO they one who gets offended can always win against anyone, so it's desireable to be offended in certain situatons if they want some goals done. This is, of course ridiculous. But thanks to tolerance criminals, that somehow has gotten to be acceptable and a legit way to act.

That is, the society of the weakest link decides the rules.

Yep.

[Caligastia]

people like to cry a lot

I love the way you put things sometimes Pekka. This one is sig-worthy.

[Pekka]

Well it really comes down to what is tolerance. If we limit the options we have, that's not tolerating other ideas or people. Tolerance is accepting other ideas and people.

Good example is the whole Danish cartoon thing. The difference is, that who is the one not tolerating? The people who get offended by it are the ones who need to tolerate the situation. It is not the others who are being intolerant in that situation.

Even more so when the pressure comes from outside the country. You are letting people, completely out of your realm, to dictate you what is acceptable and what is not, because if we don't accept it, you are being intolerant. How is that again? If we don't accept it, then WE are being intolerant.

This is the way of that country. So we must accept them or we can not accept them, but fi we don't accept them, we are showing intolerance against their ways. That's OK by all means, however don't blame the other one being intolerant.

This is a situation where outsiders are dictating your rights. And you are saying ok we kind of fought for these rights but we'll give it away. that's not tolerance. That's limiting your own options because someone else is being intolerant.

SO the whole scenario is when the tolerance issue is turned upside down and it's really weird. And tolerance criminals are all about ooooh what about their feelings? Yeah, so? What about my feelings? So how about we let these outsiders cry and create themselves their own intolerant nation, why should we stop them doing that, they can do what they want with their own resources.

So what we're really doing is being tolerant with the intolerant ones, as long as they are being intolerant against us. That's just stupid, and in the name of tolerance too! And who was being violent in that situation? Is that a show of tolerance? I don't think so. It was icing on the cake showing intolerance, but our tolerance criminals somehow screwed it up again.

LImiting options is not tolerance, accepting those different things is tolerance.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well it really comes down to what is tolerance. If we limit the options we have, that's not tolerating other ideas or people. Tolerance is accepting other ideas and people.

I would prefer to say that tolerance is being willing to consider other ideas and people. Automatically accepting anything and everything is obviously a foolish philosophy. Lines have to be drawn somewhere.

Good example is the whole Danish cartoon thing. The difference is, that who is the one not tolerating? The people who get offended by it are the ones who need to tolerate the situation. It is not the others who are being intolerant in that situation.

Even more so when the pressure comes from outside the country. You are letting people, completely out of your realm, to dictate you what is acceptable and what is not, because if we don't accept it, you are being intolerant. How is that again? If we don't accept it, then WE are being intolerant.

This is the way of that country. So we must accept them or we can not accept them, but fi we don't accept them, we are showing intolerance against their ways. That's OK by all means, however don't blame the other one being intolerant.

This is a situation where outsiders are dictating your rights. And you are saying ok we kind of fought for these rights but we'll give it away. that's not tolerance. That's limiting your own options because someone else is being intolerant.

SO the whole scenario is when the tolerance issue is turned upside down and it's really weird. And tolerance criminals are all about ooooh what about their feelings? Yeah, so? What about my feelings? So how about we let these outsiders cry and create themselves their own intolerant nation, why should we stop them doing that, they can do what they want with their own resources.

So what we're really doing is being tolerant with the intolerant ones, as long as they are being intolerant against us. That's just stupid, and in the name of tolerance too! And who was being violent in that situation? Is that a show of tolerance? I don't think so. It was icing on the cake showing intolerance, but our tolerance criminals somehow screwed it up again.

LImiting options is not tolerance, accepting those different things is tolerance.

I'll accept different things only if they are an improvement.

With regard to the Islamics who rioted against the cartoons, you are right of course.

[Ned]

Pekka, you and I largely agree on this issue. It is good that at least one European here is a true liberal.

[Pekka]

Of course. Why do you think I'm frustrated most of the times anyway, when I complain about socialism and what not. Well, we are truly not .. we're not a socialist country per se. So when I say socialism bad, I can't say that from my experience. I haven't lived in a socialist country that truly is.

Or when I say I had bad time growing up. No I didn't. I had a good time growing up. I had great time growing up in fact. Middle class, can't complain. Had every opportunity in the world, still do. Took advantage and taking as we speak. Things are looking great for me. So why would I be frustrated? Why would I want out? Press just got again the most free award in the world, just and I must repeat, again, least corrupted country. Crime relatively down, streets relatively safe. Education, free and I can say it's good quality, it's not crap, it's definitely good. All the way to doctor, free.

It is the lie we live in. I hear and see it every day. Mostly hypocricy. The lack of brain power really is frustrating. People really believe everything they've been fed up as a kid about our country. Is it a great nation? I think so, definitely. Is it a corrupted nation? YES, even though the stats won't show it. Why? Because people don't understand what corruption is! Just like they don't understand what TOLERANCE is. Just like they don't understand what the free market is, just like they don't understand what lots of things are.

So I know but everyone else is just stupid? No.. I think a lot of people know, but they they realize it, which I think most people do at some point, they turn their back on it, much like people turn their backs on when they see something they don't like. It's like they realized there is no God, after spending much of their lives believing there is one.

What pisses me off the most that we are losing all the ideals and placing them with fake ones. We're placing tolerance in the place of liberty, we're placing the ourselves, our very selves in the spot where average was used to be. And we're quite happy with it. We're not promoting 'go do it!', we're promoting 'you should be happy with it'.

It's all good and fine if you want to be average, but if you want to move on, you have to do something. We are the most hypocritical region in the world. You know why? Because we actually believe we hold the moral high ground, we really do believe that. And by doing so, we really believe we are better than everyone else, in personal level. This is to say, even if we lose, we are still better.

I'm pissed off we play the moral rule on everyone else while at the same time doing the exact same thing, in my mind that makes it worse. So I'm making accusations, I need to give some examples. An example: we say we don't want TUrkey in because we don't like their standards. True.

That's the reason I don't want to see Turkey as a member yet. However, that's not the real reason TUrkey isn't in. THe REAL reason is, that they'd become the third big player in EU, they could make power plays and we'd just have to follow that. They have very different way to approaching things and we just feel like we shouldn't give Turkey a power to do that. It would be in the top 3 of EU nations right after, can you imagine how the power shifts after that?

Just like we put tarrifs where we want and at the same time give corporate welfare to our big ones dominating in Asia. So that the local players in Asia can't defeat us. We are in China, trying to dominate as much as possible, not because we are so much afraid of other businesses in the field, but because we're afraid locals will grow and take us out. So what? It's business. But at the same time we're making a point of fair competition. It's not fair. It's rigged. And we rigged it. And we blame everyone else who attempts to do the same by saying they are corrupt, no morals and outright human right offenders.

But how did Europe rise to power and keep it so long? Nothing but power projected on to others. We kept that game rigged for a long time. Unfortunately for Europe, Hitler got all mad and started doing stuff that brought down our hegemony. Had to give up stuff, like well, most of the colonies.

So suddenly we're doing it all right this time around? We joined forces, created our own zone, currency etc. We don't need colonies now, because we're spreading Euros all around the world. Don't like money, don't dela with it. But everyone likes money.

So this is bad? Well, it's business, but at the same time we blame others while they do the same thing.

We are blaming that we're giving all these jobs away in other countries, mostly Asia, and at the same time we cry how we are exploiting them. At the same time we cry how corporations are taking over, but at the same time they are heavily given money from tax payers. At the same time we are choosing cheaper products AND protesting those very same products. We are blaming that we aren't giving the chance to poorer regions, but at the same time we cry we are giving our jobs to them.

Pick one gentlemen, we can't have it all. There's two sides to a coin, but one is for sure.. we aren't going to grow anymore so much, there's plenty of room in downstairs though.

Besides projecing power, how did Europe stay on top for so long? Business, innovation, science. All those things, competition. Ideals of western economy. Now we are throwing it all away. We're replacing innovation with mediocre 'good for you' accomplishments.

We're telling people how to live, that's the big one. That's the big lie, the mother of all **** ups. We're giving you this idea of EU.. this glorious thing. You are all Europeans but better yet.. better than being a EUropean is being EU citizen. There is a profound difference in it. You are a EU citizen. Think about it. What does that mean?

Since there is no context to that, we can retroactively write that chapter. What do we want it to be? We want it to be a) tolerant and that's how the most offended ones will define it. That is not to piss anyone off, that is being tolerant. Don't piss of anyone, even if it's true. Close your eyes and rephrase it *******! b) Being a EU citizens means that you are always right and if we lose, it was because the other oen was playing dirty so we still are the better people.

c) It means that we are all equal. Inside EU zone that is. The rest are still good, if they try to be EU friends. If they aren't, screw them. Because we are for all that is good, and you don't want to be with us, you must be the opposite. d) we should assimilate. That's the EU dream. Imagine if we were all the same? NO! I don't want to imagine that, that's a nightmare!.. yeah but no more fighting.. no more racism.. no more problems..

the list goes on. Basically I think we are trying to create a new US here, we need some new spark, so we need to write a new chapter beginning with a constitution. We, here in Finland, didn't even get to vote if we like it or not. Is that something a democratic nation would do? It would have been turned down with overwhelmed numbers and this is not me talking, this is a fact, you can take that to the bank.

The EU will fall down because of its own hypocricy. Because countries aren't equal even though some would like you to say they are. Yes in the eyes of Jesus they are equal, but in the eyes of reality they aren't. You tell me how Estonia and France are equal, and I tell you how Albania is the next member of the EU.

OH YEAH! My problem.. that I started this post with. THat is, we are raising a new generation of brainwashed mediocre 'tolerant' losers, who will gladly submit in front of anyone who has the balls to demand anything. You aren't encouraged to move on, do something big. If you do something big, well tha tmeans 10 other people are doign something small then because you took their opportunity? NO!!!! THen there will be 11 people doing something smaller because none of you had the balls to do anything.

That's the decline of Europe as well. Don't try... don't piss off anyone... just be nice to everyone and settle for your 2000 euros a month salary because there are poorer people out there, so why can't you be happy with that? You know? It's like a crime to succeed. If you make it, you will be our enemy. It's this collective consciousness we now have... play 'tolerant' and fair or you are bad. Do what the EU dream is or you are bad. If you don't, you are part of the problem, that will ultimately bring down this world as a whole.

These people are ****ing psycho you know? the killers of innovation and anything great. And by great I mean great products, great services, great research, great new things in general.. the things that has made the western part of the world pretty good. It's not fair.. someone will accomplsih less and that's not fair.. Let's make the losers feel nice and play with them, let's not even try to do anything, yeah we knwo you can do it but don't do it.. you're making the loser feel even more of a loser if you show you can do it. That's BS.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Whoha
the burden of proof should be on the accuser, not the accused. because that is a license to silence those you disagree with.

to clear one or two things up about english law regarding defamation. the burden of proof is on the accused, but there are good reasons behind this. the accuser must prove that the accused has published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual, or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

this creates a 'rebuttable presumption' that the accused can rebut using one of the available defences: justification (i.e. truth), fair comment (publishing a view on an issue that a reasonable person could hold), privilege (basically stuff said in parliament or in court), or public interest (qualified privilege).

essentially although the burden of proof is on the accused, he must in reality only provide some evidence to support what he has published.

some examples:

i cannot say (i.e. i could be successfully sued for saying) -

tony blair has had an extra-martial affair; or
tony blair has personally profited from the iraq war; or
tony blair is a corrupt man.

because they satisfy the test and i cannot provide any evidence to support them.

i can say -

tony blair led us into iraq based on lies and deceit (possibly justification, but in any case fair comment); or
the stench of corruption surrounds the labour party and tony blair especially, in the wake of the cash for honours scandal (fair comment); or
if i accused tony blair of corruption in court (though this may have other consequences); or
if i am a journalist investigating the cash for honours scandal and i publish my findings which are potentially libellous to tony blair, then i can claim there is a public interest in investigating these matters (qualified privilege).

hope that clarifies thing a little with regard to libel.

[C0ckney]

talking about the OP, the BNP are a vile bunch of fascists, but they are entitled to the same rights as everybody else. the governments response to this is far more worrying than anything the BNP have come out with, and is yet another example of their authoritarian tendencies.

the whole thing was a farce from start to finish, there a law against inciting racial hatred, but none against inciting religious hatred (it was defeated in parliament this year) and muslims are not of one race. therefore you'd think it was rather obvious that this prosecuting would fail. however instead of letting the matter quietly drop, the authorities pressed on, giving the BNP lots of free air time to spread their views, and now that the inevitable failure has come, it is being used by new labour, as another excuse to restrict people's freedoms.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yeah, some even hate themselves such racists they are!

Its the self hating jewish effect rubbing off on you. Couldn't quite cure yourself of that malady.

[BeBMan]

Seems I'm doomed

[Ned]

Cockney, one day Britain will realize, I hope, that libel laws and laws such as the one used against the BNP here, must have an exception that provides the speaker an absolute privilege to say anything about a public figure or group that is more opinion than a statement of fact. Your laws seem to allow far too many prosecutions, which as we all know, are themselves a form of oppression.