jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 So engage them in debate, but do it sensibly because we who oppose the BNP have the intellectual and moral high ground. ... in your opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Oh yes, purely my opinion, but isn't that the point of Internet forums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 One of the most famous quotes on democracy made in the House of Commons 150 years ago - "I do not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." I do not agree with what you say, the quote is wrongly attributed to Voltaire but is similar to something he did say: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write", 1770. In French, presumably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 One of the most famous quotes on democracy made in the House of Commons 150 years ago - "I do not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." I do not agree with what you say, the quote is wrongly attributed to Voltaire but is similar to something he did say: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write", 1770. In French, presumably. - which doesn't make it impossible for it to have been used in the house of commons in the way I suggested. If i could remember the name of the bloke who said it (I keep thinking RD Blackmore but I'm pretty sure he wrote Lorna Doone instead) then I'd track it down. But regardless of attribution, it's the sentiment which was the important thing, and which is sadly almost non-exstent within the pages of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 But regardless of attribution, it's the sentiment which was the important thing, and which is sadly almost non-exstent within the pages of this forum. The phrase was posted way back on page 7 of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 What makes you say that? It seems to me that whilst many forums would have banned the BNP-ers as soon as they emerged, this forum has engaged them in debate. There's a difference between vehmently opposing someone's viewpoint and actively preventing him from expressing it. The forum has by and large chosen the former. I think you are confusing disagreement with censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 see, that's a REALLY helpful contribution to the debate. Well considered thinking and concise expression of an opinion of this kind let's everyone know the class of person we're dealing with here. I gave up wasting my time asking pertinent questions and constructing reasoned response to you and your ilk quite some pages back so I feel it's best to amalgamate my feelings into one statement. You're all chickenshit faggots. There, I hope that didn't confuse you. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 What I was trying to explain, maybe badly, was that I believe that BNP would essentially subvert the principles of free speech and the value of individual freedom which I supposed to be the virtue of liberalism. Given that a number of BNP policies are nothing but actively racist and homophobic, if in government (which is highly unlikely, nevertheless) the BNP would seek to deny homosexuals and people of different cultures and ethnic minorities their freedoms and rights. Though if such a denial were the will of the majority, this does not make it right. In this context democracy isn't such a wonderful principle. It does not mean the rule of the minority either, minorities such as homosexuals and the muslim communities for example do not genuinely threaten the power of the majority as is often claimed by those who harp on about political correctness. From this line of thinking I therefore think the BNP have no place in the political system because as mentioned they would only subvert the system. Just as importantly, I do not believe a party that would wish to implement hateful homophobic and racist policies has any place in the political system. A party that appeals to the populaces' ignorance and irrational fears should have no platform to progress this hate. Though Ans, I do think it better you construct a better argument than 'faggots'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Shappy Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 What I was trying to explain, maybe badly, was that I believe that BNP would essentially subvert the principles of free speech and the value of individual freedom which I supposed to be the virtue of liberalism.Given that a number of BNP policies are nothing but actively racist and homophobic, if in government (which is highly unlikely, nevertheless) the BNP would seek to deny homosexuals and people of different cultures and ethnic minorities their freedoms and rights. Though if such a denial were the will of the majority, this does not make it right. In this context democracy isn't such a wonderful principle. It does not mean the rule of the minority either, minorities such as homosexuals and the muslim communities for example do not genuinely threaten the power of the majority as is often claimed by those who harp on about political correctness. From this line of thinking I therefore think the BNP have no place in the political system because as mentioned they would only subvert the system. Just as importantly, I do not believe a party that would wish to implement hateful homophobic and racist policies has any place in the political system. A party that appeals to the populaces' ignorance and irrational fears should have no platform to progress this hate. Though Ans, I do think it better you construct a better argument than 'faggots'. Ans your debating skills are very limited, when you resort to foul language you have lost the plot The people will decide. Yes we have checked our eligabilty for standing with a solicitor and I can assure you doubters that we will be standing in this years elections and hope to do very well thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Did you see the aircraft fly over Douglas this morning with banner attached (VOTE BNP). No... what was it? A Junkers 88? Was that why the sirens went off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Reznor Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Ans your debating skills are very limited, when you resort to foul language you have lost the plot likewise, I had to answer my questions as you wouldn't... Like you said, the people will decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Yes we have checked our eligabilty for standing with a solicitor.... May have done better to check with an advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadcaster Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Mr Shappy, may I suggest you seek advise from and Advocate and not a solicitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Goodness me, it's still dificult to get through to some people. The pinciple of freedom of speech is applied to EVERYBODY, not just people you agree with, or it's not freedom any more. Proposing the banning of a political party on the grounds that you think they would probably subvert the system if they were not banned is NOT freedom, or democracy - it's just a different kind of totalitarianism to the one you seek to suppress. There can be no half-measures in this, especially not when it is apparently YOUR self-elected judgement which decides who is to be banned and who not. And the other thing. Chickenshit faggotts? What makes me chickenshit or a faggot for supporting the right of all inviduals and parties to a free voice, whether I agree with them or not? Abusive and insulting expressions like that merely reveal that you have reached the end of your intellectual capabilities and are unable to sustain any further arguments supported by logical thought so you give up and turn nasty. Everyone but you can see it's an admission of defeat. And who, I wonder, are people of "my ilk"? You have no idea what my ilk might be, beyond the fact that I believe in free speech and democracy. So if everyone else who does so is also a chickenshit faggot, I presume you will be happy to see the alternative - an extremist, prejudiced and bigoted party in power. You make no sense, have no logic, nor apparently the cognitive ability to comprehend the issues you're dealing with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny rotten Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 And scoring points off the bloke Shappy because he doesn't know we have advocates rather than solicitors is all a bit playground tit-for-tat. Big deal. And it's advice not advise. There. See how easy it is? And pointless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.