Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 11:10 pm Post subject: Deserters and Canada | |||
The following is a small part of a post by someone with strong opinions on deserters.
I agree with this poster. CO's have performed thier duties very well as medics, supply soldiers and many other non-combat jobs. http://combatarms.mu.nu/archives/026491.php |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 11:13 pm Post subject: | |
| Maybye I should have posted this question as a poll........How many of you think Canada should return those who desert the US military to the US? | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 11:33 pm Post subject: | |||||
And one more question......are these the acts of friends??
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114791/posts |
|||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 1:07 am Post subject: | |||||||
Dissent is a right guaranteed by your constitution.
Assuming that the dissenters were driven solely by a fear of combat you might be right. However, a moral objection does not indicate any fear. It indicates only a fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the reasoning that served to cause or serves to justify an action. Furthermore the suggestion that moral objectors should be forced to continue participating in any action and in any capacity that they find morally objectionable runs contrary to the principles of free expression pioneered in the US.
Not I.
Disagreeing with an action or an ideal does not make one unfriendly nor unworthy of friendship. Especially when the disagreement is founded in notoriously subjective morals. Albeit anecdotal, I have a number of friends who have opposing views in regards to moral issues like politics or religion. Some more severe than others. I posit that the vast majority of people on this planet have friends like these as well. Less you are able to show that the actions taken by these dissenters are definitively and unequivocally wrong, which is impossible given the moral nature of the cause for their action, any attempt to draw a line in the sand with predjudicial language won't stand up to scrutiny. |
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 6:13 am Post subject: | |||||
Slek wrote:
A person can hold a moral objection to a number of things...and we as Americans certainly have that right under the constitution. However, as an elisted man (remember...everyone serving now signs up for duty and is not drafted into the position) you take an oath of enlistment.
As our Armed Services are now voluntary, and one takes this oath upon entering the service, they are compelled to follow through with their pledge. Going AWOL is illegal and these people should face the penalties associated with this act. |
|||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 6:29 am Post subject: | |||||||||||
Agreed!...of course freedom of speech is something NOT guaranteed by yours.
Again agreed! But since there is no draft all those serving know what their commitment means.
WRONG See above.
Are you not one who claims to believe in the rule of law?
Breaking the law is of course wrong....deserting the thing you have sworn to serve is breaking the law. You have threatened to call the FBI on me for actions on the internet.....you dont feel that commiting a crime then fleeing across an international border is not a crime requiring return of said criminal? WOW.....interesting to see that you would call the FBI on a poster on the internet and you wont call them if you saw a deserter from the US military.........guess your idea of crime differs from most. |
|||||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 1:04 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
That's all fine and dandy but what's to do when one draws the conclusion that the enemy is, in fact, domestic and in this instance the same government one serves? Isn't that the moral dilemma these people are faced with?
Right. A soldiers loyalty is to the constitution. Not to the president and his agenda.
Citing law in a moral debate is the last bastion of a weak argument. Morals are a grey area. The circumstances surrounding the war in Iraq are grey as well (and hotly contested as you're well aware). If you'd like to discuss those aspects, I'm game. But if you're simply here to prove the righteousness of your side of the political spectrum you're barking down the wrong tree.
And this has to do with... what?
They certainly do know, however, without the ability to see the future they have zero indication of the issues, specifically the legitimacy of those issues, that may see them to the premature end of their commitment.
Expression and Speech aren't the same and you'll note that I didn't say anything about speech. Despite that, I fail to see how freedom of speech, or the apparent lack thereof, in Canada disputes anything I've said here.
None of these cases have been decided. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some dissenters were granted status. If that ends up being the case then the law has fulfilled my expectations rather well.
Not in all instances. Instead of the usual Nazi Germany/Jews hiding in the cellar analogy that is commonly used to dispell the notion that the law is designed to solve moral issues, I'll use something that I hope you'll understand better: Theft is against the law. Therefore theft is "wrong". Your children haven't eaten for days. You have no job. No money. No place to turn. No hope. Is it "criminal" and "wrong" for you to steal a loaf of bread to feed your family?
:roll: In some cases, no. I don't feel that way. And, fortunately for me and my ideals, most westernized governments agree that there are mitigating factors that must be examined before such a decision is rendered.
I guess you haven't figured out the difference between a legitimate point and a personal attack. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 1:55 pm Post subject: | |||||||
The simple fact that you posted this "hate" thread is ample proof that persecution against these people is well alive from whence they ran.
The above statement has no other purpose, but to incite feelings, thoughts and actions of alienation and maybe even hatred towards/against these "friends" (i.e. Canadians). Gee, how very uncharacteristic of you. When were we here last? Less than a year ago? Well done! Carry on then. 
|
|||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 3:14 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Slek wrote:
From the next line in the oath:
Slek wrote:
Righteousness? Who said anything about righteousness? The only point I make is that these young men and women take an oath before they enter the service...knowing full well that they may be required to go to war. If they do not want to go to war, then they should not join the military. Seems pretty simple to me. No one forces them to sign up. Each person that deserts or goes awol should be held accountable for their action and face the consequences. |
|||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:16 pm Post subject: | |||||||||
Reiterating points already made doesn't really further the discussion CCCs.
Obviously, and for good reason, the constitution takes precedence. However, as I've stated already, that's all fine and dandy but what's to do when one draws the conclusion that the enemy is, in fact, domestic and in this instance the same government that one serves?
And that point was addressed previously too.
I agree and I've never suggested otherwise. We may differ on the type and extent of the consequences, but that's about it. |
|||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 64
Location: Canada
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 2:33 am Post subject: | |
|
Bodyguard,
I think you should read about Kohlberg's Three Levels and Six Stages of Moral Reasoning. http://www.vtaide.com/png/Kohlberg.htm It seems to me that you may need to examine your own inner moral reasoning. Those who achieve a level higher than stage 4, in my opinion are the real analytical thinkers in this world. Those who are able to perform immoral acts because of moral reasoning, are not necessarily wrong. -NAz[/url] |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 5:00 am Post subject: | |||||||||
First of all K, with all due respect, there is no such thing as a "hate" thread or speech. I do not subscribe to the politicaly correct plague that is spreading over this continent. That being said, I did indeed post what I did so as to bring attention to the acts of the Canadian government and some of the people of Canada. You say that pointing out such acts incites hate? I dont think so, but I hope it incites deabate and yes even anger at such acts. If one agrees with such acts (as sleK seems too) then what harm is done by debating such issues? I completely disagree with him and his political outlook but he says what he thinks. My point to sleK in a post above about the lack of a provision in the Canadian constitution and your thoughts about "hate" speech make an interesting point. It seems that the Candian government in a mis-guided attempt to keep peoples feelings from getting hurt, will trample on a persons right to say what they think. I find that revolting actually. I find it very funny that people squawk when confronted with there own actions and words. If you find that "hatefull" then I am sorry. Merely pointing out the truth of a situation (that the Canadian government is considering not returning US criminals) is not persecution. Unless you consider that requiring somebody to fullfill their duty as freely entered into and then punishing them for deserting that duty as "persecution". I will have to look up that work in my Funk and Wagnalls.... One more thing on Canadians in general. The US and Canada have the longest undefended border in the world......Canada is a huge trading partner with the US, with Canada very dependant on the US economy to do well so as to make the Candian econmy to thrive. It has been a great friendship for almost 200 years. When Vietnam era Americans fled to Canada to escape a draft, many Americans understood the motives of the draft dodgers. But the difference in taking in draft dogers then and sheltering cowards now is quite huge. It well may create a backlash here that you just might be surprised about. |
|||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2205
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 5:06 am Post subject: | |||
I agree. And I'm the most liberal person going. ~GoodFella |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2205
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 5:13 am Post subject: | |||
Bingo!...........There is no draft now. (Except the ones I drank tonight) The answer is simple for the kids today. Just don't sign up if you don't want to deal with this. ~GoodFella |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 5:28 am Post subject: | |||||||||||
That is indeed the arguements the deserters are making. It is hardly a well believed theory. To my knowledge they are the only two that have fled using this arguement. It is not a moral dilemma frankly........it is being used (and they are being used and/or exploited buy those with a political agenda) as an excuse to avoid doing their sworn duty.
The things are one and the same. Do I really have to explain?
That is where you are so wrong. This is NOT a moral debate, although the Left is trying to twist it into one. Actually I suspect the deserters will be returned. I really dont think Canadians are so dense as to not see through the deserters motives. The war is acutally not that contested here except for the fringe element.......there are none of the huge demonstrations here like during the Vietnam era.
Ya know what? Too bad for them. Grown ups have to learn to live with the decisions they make. The military is not the freaking boy scouts.....you just cant quit becuse you get offended or scared. If a man or a woman swears to do their duty and then does not, they will and should be punished. A persons word and how they keep it defines ones character in my opinion.
Yes to both of your questions......you are merely justifiyng criminal behavior by saying your need outwieghs the law. How would the world be if everybody just stole what they needed? I NEED that TV so I will break in to somebodys house and take it. Now would I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family? Maybye, but it sure as hell would still be wrong. |
|||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2004 1:15 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||||
And therein lies the problem. You don't think hate speech exists, therefore you cannot possibly believe that anything you ever say will be viewed as hateful or hurtful or discriminatory.
And therein lies the confirmation to the aforementioned problem. The "politically correct plague" is not spreading over this continent, it is spreading accross the world! In fact, it has already spread. Discrimination is dying, gay marrage is alive, interracial families abound, yet it is people with precisely your line of thought that keep discrimination alive, and discrimination equals hate. It seems as though you are doing a good job keeping it (discrimination) alive, because in the modern, advanced western world, nowhere is discrimination more alive than in the United States. I bet that makes you proud, because, after all, you certainly would not want to be classified as a "follower" and follow the (predominantly) pacifist, non-discriminatory attitude of the rest of the western world.
Thank you, thank you, oh thank you. Did you want me to thank you personally again? Did you want me to get a petition going here? That was so damn arrogant of you. Is that how you treat everyone you know, by rubbing in their face whatever you might have given them, ever? Or do you only do that when they don't agree with your line of thought?
You honestly sound like you would end that friendship right this minute, if you had the power.
You're calling them "draft dodgers" now, yet back then they called them cowards and deserters. See a pattern here?
There you go again, trying to rouse the masses to your cause. I'll tell you one thing though, in case you haven't figured it out yet. People are voting for Kerry just to get rid of Bush, you are right on that part. The part that you couldn't figure out is the "why". Well, here it is then. The reason people hate Bush is because of his arrogant "my way or the highway" attitude. People hate that trait in friends, in CEOs and most certainly in elected public officials. It is very obvious why you like the present government so much. All your "debates" project the same "my way or the highway" arrogance.
I liked that one so much that I decided to end with it too. :) I know that you visit other online forums. I don't know if you participate much though. I have a small suggestion. Post a thread in a couple of them with that title, "There is no such thing as a "hate" thread or speech". You can post a poll too, a simple "yes/no" poll. Oh yes, and please share the results with us. Thank you. |
|||||||||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 12:51 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
In your opinion perhaps. Unfortunately, however, your opinion doesn't address, in fact it plainly disregards, the cruz of the matter. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the validity of the debate surrounding the US invasion of Iraq is inconsequential. It exists everywhere. The oath lays the foundation for defense of the constitution:
The UCMJ, article 90, s.a-3, provides that:
At it's most fundamental level, opposition to the war is founded on the notion that Iraq posed no threat to the US. To date there has been no conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise. Thus the question of "attainment of some private end" is justifiably raised. Article 90, s.a-1 of the UCMJ:
Another aspect of the debate surrounding the US invasion of Iraq is the lawfulness of the action:
Besides providing the right of a subordinate to disobey an order, article 90, s.a-1, of the UCMJ clearly recognizes the actual legality of an action as a mitigating factor in the inferance of lawfulness. Thus to completely disregard the legitimate moral quandry presented by sworn service to an arguably domestic threat to the constitution and the questionable legality of the action in Iraq to spite explicit allowances and acknowledgements made in the UCMJ as an "excuse" to avoid combat is about as ignorant as it gets. So, I will ask again: What's is a person to do when the conclusion that the enemy is both domestic and the very same government that this person swore to serve is reached? Furthermore, is your solution to the question in line with the principles of the constitution?
Yes. You do. Please try to cite something other than your opinion when doing so.
The US invasion of Iraq continues to be contested around the world.
Patently false. 1. Vietnam appeared on the American publics radar in 1964. The most memorable and largest of the anti-war protests occured in 1969 where it is reported that 250,000 people converged upon Washington D.C.. Therefore the alleged lack of opposition, without consideration to the time frame, constitutes an invalid comparison and, as such, doesn't support your contention that the war in Iraq is not being contested. 2. On Sunday, January 19th, 2003 an estimated 200,000 people marched on Washinton D.C.. During the weekend of February 15th, 2003, an estimated 375,000 Americans converged in midtown New York. Not to mention the estimated 750,000 people in London, the 300,000 people in Germany, 300,000 in France, as many as 1,000,000 in Rome, and 2,000,000 in Spain that took to the streets to protest the US invasion of Iraq that same weekend. Therefore your contention that the war is contested only by a small "fringe" element is false as the turnouts have been >= turnouts for the Vietnam war protests and have taken place in many cities all around the world.
Can you demonstrate that these individuals are "offended" or "scared"? What evidence do you have that demonstrates that their quandry is not of a moral variety?
"Maybe"? 
Aren't you the one who likes to deride a certain presidential candidate for "waffling" on issues? LOL! If the convictions you claim to uphold are to be considered true, that being the notion that breaking the law is "wrong" and stealing a loaf of bread to feed your kids when you have no other options is a criminal act, you would have no choice but to let your children starve. Which is, of course, morally reprehensible. If you would steal a loaf of bread to feed your children when you have no other options, despite your convictions that breaking the law is "wrong" and that theft is an undisputably criminal act, then you have no choice but to acknowledge the fact that moral dilemmas necessarily induce grey areas of the law. If you wouldn't break the law to feed your children then you're a cruel and morally bankrupt asshat. If you will break the law to feed your kids then you're a hypocrite (insofar as your blanket refusal to acknowledge the validity of the moral quandry, with special consideration given the circumstances, faced by the dissenters in question.). Which is it? Asshat or hypocrite? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 4:01 am Post subject: | |||||||||||
I was preparing a long reply to your incredibly long and precise post when I got to the last line. I presume I get to respond with an ad hom since you did? Or will you simply ban me for doing it???? Real quick.....I do in fact acknowledge a moral quandry, I just dont think it applies in this situation. But guess what? Your moral quandry means shit when you have sworn an oath......so get over it. All of your research (very complete BTW) to prove that a moral quandry does exist was a waste of time when applied to an oath freely given. If indeed they were too fucking stupid to believe they might have to fight then they are to stupid to be in the military anyway.
Talk about a very humble opinion........so many people in the world though Iraq was indeed a threat.........do we have to go through that again???? Do you honestly think that all the arguements cited above were thought about by a couple of teenage soldiers? I mean really? I mean maaaaaabye but it defies most logic.
In the Constitution, it is stated the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. When you swear to uphold the Constitution you swear to something that is written very plainly.....that the President is at the top of the chain of command. It is not any more plain than that.
I was referring to protests in the US during Vietnam....sorry if I did not make that clear. The numbers you cited for the protests in the US are TINY compared to what was going on in the 60's.
None really except years of experiance dealing with people. Have you actually seen any of the interviews with them? They seemed to have been prepped (and not very well) by the lawyers always seen with them. I actually think they are pawns for people with a political agenda. These two are not deep thinking rocket scientists......they are just dumb kids who are very sorry that they actually had to fight. Would I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family????? You keep talking about grey areas....yet you demand a simple answer to this question. OK here goes....IF I had borrowed all I could AND I could not get aid from a government source AND all my friends were dead or would not give me any money or food, then YES I would probably steal. Does that make it right? NO Would I repay for what I had stolen when I could? Hell YES. Because it was wrong to take something from someone without asking or paying for it. I have a question for you.....do you think it would be ok for me to steal a loaf of bread from a starving family next to me, or do you only condone stealing from a store? Or even better.....would YOU steal the last loaf of bread from a starving family to feed your family? Or would you let your own family starve? Since you would be stealing from a starving family to save yours, are you a murderer or a hero for saving your family at the expense of anothers? Wich is it murderer or hero? If you wouldn't kill to feed your family you're a cruel and morally bankrupt asshat. (that is the lamest insult I have ever heard BTW) |
|||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 4:25 am Post subject: | |||||||||||
AHHHH you would perfer the Thought Police to freedom of expression huh? Absolutely things might be viewed in a bad light......so what? Free people need the right to say what they think. Freedom is not for the faint hearted. I truly feel sorry for the Canadian people.....their rights are being eroded day by day. I have seen Canada described as benevolently opressive.......seems to fit.
Please give me an example of when pointing out FACTS beyond dispute is discrimination? Oh and BTW I would not call the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians or the Pakistanis very pacifist........since they make up most of the worlds population that makes your statement incorrect.
You really need to sit down and take a stress pill.....your ranting! This is the ungratefull attitude of a lot of the world......bitch about us behind our back then stick thier greedy paw out when they need help. Where was all so morally superior Canada today in the UN when the US walked out in protest to having Sudan remain on the Human rights commission. (Sudan have taken part in ethnic cleansing) Did Canada walk our in protest? Hell no.....gee would not want to offend anybody! How DARE you call this country a place where discrimination is greater than anywere else......what a foolish and ignorant statement. When is the last time we went through ethnic cleansing and murdered millions of our own people? Do you even know we still have troops in the Balkans to PREVENT such a thing? How many Canadians are there? Now I am ranting.........
No I would look them in the eye and say "You cannot have it both ways".
Absolutely........all those words apply. I will end with the "hate" thing as well. I ask you.....do you feel that speech should be monitored and censored as so not to offend anybody? And if you do, who should do the sensoring????? Now to me that sounds like "my way or the highway" I will be calling Big Brother and the Thought Police to see what they think of your high "ideals". |
|||||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 8:57 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The UCMJ begs to differ. Moral quandries are clearly important enough for the .mil to include specific provisions to deal with such matters in the UCMJ itself. Thus, is you want to continue arguing this aspect of the debate, you should take it up with them.
Thanks. It took a loooooong time! ;)
As before, if you can demonstrate that the fear of combat is the driving force behind the dissent, you may be right. However, fear isn't documented as a factor in these particular acts of dissent.
No, we don't have to go through that again. You should, however, acknowledge the validity of the statement and/or provide the conclusive evidence. And do remember that what people "think" is not justification for an act of aggression.
I don't see why not.
That doesn't demonstrate that the constitution and the president are "one and the same" as you asserted earlier. It simply re-asserts the chain of command which, in this instance, is a substantial aspect of the moral dilemma faced by these soldiers. To further demonstrate my earlier assertion that, "A soldiers loyalty is to the constitution. Not to the president and his agenda.", I'll refer to the US Army's 2003 Posture Statement where it is stated:
Notice that there is no mention of the president. Only the capacity with which he acts. Of interest is the literal ordering: Nation Army leaders Soldiers Families In the opening letter of the same posture statement Eric K. Shinseki, General, U.S. Army, Chief of Staff writes:
Again, no mention of the president.
You did make it clear. However, in order to emphasize the levels of unrest caused by the invasion and hopefully illustrate the detriment of a US-centric perspective in matters of international scope, I purposely ignored it.
Most certainly.
Both. If you have the opportunity, check out a book called "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. If you ignore the neo-darwinian stuff (unless that's your bag) you'll find a very entertaining and informative chapter about altruism in social animal groups, the principles of which you'll soon see near perfectly mirrored in human behaviours. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 916
Location: roaming...
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2004 12:56 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||||||
Way to dodge the bullet. You said that there is no such thing as a hate thread or speech. I challenged you on that statement and you run off ranting about something completely unrelated. Way to go.
Go back and read my post again. I said "modern western world". Since when are China, Pakistan and Russia part of the western world? Again you see only what you want to see and then run off ranting about your own delusions.
And in the eyes of most of the rest of the world, this is exactly the arrogant attitude of America towards them. They are snuffed at as second rate countries. You are living proof of that. Fortunately, not all americans share your "values".
Again, if you re-read my original post, I did mention something about the "modern western world", not "anywhere else".
Did I just make you eat your own words? Didn't you just say that you can't have it both ways? So how can "all those words apply"? Oh, sorry, I forgot, that other way was my way, but this now is your way, so I guess I have to take the highway, got it.
You should do your own censoring. Your parents should have taught you how to and when to, your school should have taught you, your friends should have taught you, your partner should have taught you. You are confusing "political correctness" with "freedom of speech". Here is a scenario: You are tending to a very difficult customer and manage to finally complete the transaction. As you give them their receipt you say 1) Thank you, you difficult moron 2) Thank you In the above example, option #1 was an example of "free speech", while option #2 was an example of "politically correct" speech. The way you constantly go on about yourself might give people the impression that you go through life practicing 100% free uncensored speech. I have my doubts though. I think that the few occasional unsavory remarks that have come out from your online "mouth" have to be attributed not to the practice of freedom of speech, but to lapses in universally acceptable politically correct behaviour. Besides, the discussion was originally about the existence of "hate" threads or speech, remember?  
|
|||||||||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 5:18 am Post subject: | |
| sleK our views on morals and such subjects are so different that we honestly cannot communicate on the issue. It is like we are both on different planets...I think on that we can agree. | |
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 5:47 am Post subject: | |
|
edit for screwed up quotes
Last edited by Bodyguard on Fri May 07, 2004 5:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 5:48 am Post subject: | |||||||
OK K here goes......
You really need to calm down...you are repeating yourself. I can say that somebody will always take offense to anything if the get in the mood too. Your definition of hate and others may differ greatly. For example if I state that I feel homsexuals should not be allowed to marry ( I think civil unions are ok but dont think the word marriage should be applied) some would say that was hate speech or descrimination. So in Canada a law could be passed repressing my opinion based on somebodys definition of hate. Don't you see the oppression in that?
OK I did see that....how do you mesure "most of" by square miles or population? Forget France......have you seen the waves of anti-semitism flowing through that country????? There are almost 300 million Americans.......add up the rest of "the modern western world" and you just might scrape up that many people. European Russia is fairly "modern" but I might give you that one. You are the one with delusions and rantings, my friend. You make outragous statements that the US is the most opressive country in the western world and offer no proof to back it up.
Do you even have a clue as to the size of the foreign aid budget of the US?? We got slapped in the face in the UN the other day (remember the Sudan vote)?????? The fact is that at this time we are the most powerfull country on the face of the Earth. Old world countries like France hate the fact that they are almost inconsequencial in the world today. You really need to get over it. It is just the way it is. [quote]Quote: I will end with the "hate" thing as well. I ask you.....do you feel that speech should be monitored and censored as so not to offend anybody? And if you do, who should do the sensoring????? You should do your own censoring. Your parents should have taught you how to and when to, your school should have taught you, your friends should have taught you, your partner should have taught you. You are confusing "political correctness" with "freedom of speech". Here is a scenario: You are tending to a very difficult customer and manage to finally complete the transaction. As you give them their receipt you say 1) Thank you, you difficult moron 2) Thank you In the above example, option #1 was an example of "free speech", while option #2 was an example of "politically correct" speech. The way you constantly go on about yourself might give people the impression that you go through life practicing 100% free uncensored speech. I have my doubts though. I think that the few occasional unsavory remarks that have come out from your online "mouth" have to be attributed not to the practice of freedom of speech, but to lapses in universally acceptable politically correct behaviour. Besides, the discussion was originally about the existence of "hate" threads or speech, remember? Spin baby spin! You evaded my question like a champ! Being polite in everday life is simply good mannors. But if the government passed a law that stated I must be polite to everybody at all times then that would be wrong would it not? Political correctness and good mannors are different things. Good mannors are just how people treat strangers in everyday life. Political correctness is the effort to suppress ideas and thoughts because they take a different views from somebodys elses. Do you really not understand the difference? Give me a break! |
|||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Fri May 07, 2004 6:34 am Post subject: | |||
Here is a fine example of your "western civilization" from the seat of it........
Seems tolerance takes a back seat when in comes to Jews in Europe....... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38375 |
|||