The Law Freedom of Speech

[EasternTiger]

I bet you're not able to refute it. It's primary evidence.

Can you explain this?

Not watching videos.

Cliffs please.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Not watching videos.

Cliffs please.

Wipe away the smart arse veneer, and there's nothing there.

 

[EasternTiger]

Wipe away the smart arse veneer, and there's nothing there.

Well that's no reason to keep him out of the country.

 

[its free real estate]

Where is the state power in locking her up?

Do you think people should not be imprisoned if they break the law?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Do you think people should not be imprisoned if they break the law?

In this case, absolutely not.

It should have led to military leaders getting what I hope they get eventually.

 

[Royal Flush]

Are you seriously suggesting Milo is far right?

A gay jew who is married to a black man is far right in the minds of you and antifa protesters.

You violently protested a s**t stirrer because he said feminists are ugly (which they are lets face it) and Islam is a s**t religion because muslims kill homosexuals (which they do in some countries).

You protested against that. Violently! With posters that read **** Off Nazis.

Milo is not a nazi, yet was treated like he was one.

Think about that for a minute.

The comment about feminists being ugly as being true, I have a theory surrounding that.

Attractive either physically or by personality , intelligent either intellectually or emotionally, those are the women that do not feel they are discriminated in life. Infact they realise the power they do have and use it to their advantage to succeed in society.

I have not seen a serious 3rd wave feminist that isn't angry and is emotionally intelligent.
The way they conduct themselves personally puts them always on the bottom of the social pecking order. Creating further angst and resentment.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Chief]

...

So you think that we should have a Protester's Motive Tribunal (PMT) where a government panel adjudicates (for a fee, because bureaucracy isn't cheap) over the new legislation written to define exactly what 'Ideological" protest is, what "Point scoring" is, and "unjust use of police resources" is, and to seek a permit for a non-ideological, non-using up of police funds, non-point scoring protest?

That is genuinely one of the silliest things I've ever heard; it'd belong in a Terry Pratchett/Douglas Adams novel. I'd be stoked to hear about how it went, for the full month it took before the system promptly shut down as people ignored the s**t out of it.

All overseen by the Ministry of Silly Walks.

 

[EasternTiger]

The comment about feminists being ugly as being true, I have a theory surrounding that.

Attractive either physically or by personality , intelligent either intellectually or emotionally, those are the women that do not feel they are discriminated in life. Infact they realise the power they do have and use it to their advantage to succeed in society.

I have not seen a serious 3rd wave feminist that isn't angry and is emotionally intelligent.
The way they conduct themselves personally puts them always on the bottom of the social pecking order. Creating further angst and resentment.


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Agree. It's a vicious cycle of rejection and anger that drives the modern feminist.

We are all encumbered by this horrible thing called genetics, which stops us from all becoming marathon running reality drama Oscar winners who sup champagne and bang supermodels all day.

Feminists have a hard time hitting that competence ceiling, when we are all confronted with the terrible realisation we are neither gifted nor special, and it's no ones damn fault but the universe.

Unfortunately, ugly also comes with a whole bunch of roadblocks that are neither fair nor easy to overcome, especially for the modern day progressive female.

And then the stark realisation hits them in the face like a tsunami.

It's not the patriarchy getting in the road of their success. It is beautiful, intelligent, well adjusted women the world gives all the lucky breaks to. It is other women.

It used to be a dog eat dog survival of the fittest jungle out there. Natural selection, only the best and brightest survive.

These days even the weak and the stupid get to procreate and flourish. For example, I always did wonder why the abc keeps getting funding. Maybe god was right, and the meek do in fact inherit the earth.

 

[Gethelred]

Agree. It's a vicious cycle of rejection and anger that drives the modern feminist.

We are all encumbered by this horrible thing called genetics, which stops us from all becoming marathon running reality drama Oscar winners who sup champagne and bang supermodels all day.

Feminists have a hard time hitting that competence ceiling, when we are all confronted with the terrible realisation we are neither gifted nor special, and it's no ones damn fault but the universe.

Unfortunately, ugly also comes with a whole bunch of roadblocks that are neither fair nor easy to overcome, especially for the modern day progressive female.

And then the stark realisation hits them in the face like a tsunami.

It's not the patriarchy getting in the road of their success. It is beautiful, intelligent, well adjusted women the world gives all the lucky breaks to. It is other women.

It used to be a dog eat dog survival of the fittest jungle out there. Natural selection, only the best and brightest survive.

These days even the weak and the stupid get to procreate and flourish. For example, I always did wonder why the abc keeps getting funding. Maybe god was right, and the meek do in fact inherit the earth.

Jesus...

I have my own problems with Third Wave Feminism (mainly, their rampant sex-negativity and their desire to shut down debate via verbal debate traps) but that is just about the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. For what you say to be correct, women en masse would have to be more stupid, less accepting, and far more destructive than men are; do you legitimately believe that to be the case?

Aren't we all just people, not demons?

 

[Chief]

So...

Milo is not a Nazi.

Milo is not a White Nationalist.

But, but....

He had some hillbilly's in the audience, and he made *wait for it* overtures.

Overtures!

He was the tip of Breitbart's spear for a while there.

He is a douche for hire.

 

[Royal Flush]

Agree. It's a vicious cycle of rejection and anger that drives the modern feminist.

We are all encumbered by this horrible thing called genetics, which stops us from all becoming marathon running reality drama Oscar winners who sup champagne and bang supermodels all day.

Feminists have a hard time hitting that competence ceiling, when we are all confronted with the terrible realisation we are neither gifted nor special, and it's no ones damn fault but the universe.

Unfortunately, ugly also comes with a whole bunch of roadblocks that are neither fair nor easy to overcome, especially for the modern day progressive female.

And then the stark realisation hits them in the face like a tsunami.

It's not the patriarchy getting in the road of their success. It is beautiful, intelligent, well adjusted women the world gives all the lucky breaks to. It is other women.

It used to be a dog eat dog survival of the fittest jungle out there. Natural selection, only the best and brightest survive.

These days even the weak and the stupid get to procreate and flourish. For example, I always did wonder why the abc keeps getting funding. Maybe god was right, and the meek do in fact inherit the earth.

Kind of weird that the keys to life are relationships and development of self.

Yet our education system tends to follow bullshit social trends.

If BAs contained less bullshit and more substance in personal accountability then it would be doing what its intention is, to create better equipped people to face Life



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If BAs contained less bullshit and more substance in personal accountability then it would be doing what its intention is, to create better equipped people to face Life

You're having a discussion about people being ugly.

You're hardly at the pointy end of the intellectual debate here.

 

[Royal Flush]

Jesus...

I have my own problems with Third Wave Feminism (mainly, their rampant sex-negativity and their desire to shut down debate via verbal debate traps) but that is just about the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. For what you say to be correct, women en masse would have to be more stupid, less accepting, and far more destructive than men are; do you legitimately believe that to be the case?

Aren't we all just people, not demons?

Nah
It's pretty obvious.

Like hateful disenfranchised young men join hooligan groups
So do the disenfranchised young hateful women, they join the 3rd wave feminist movement.
The similarities are striking.
They validate their own misconceptions and anger with a common enemy.

Feminist=hooligan

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Royal Flush]

You're having a discussion about people being ugly.

You're hardly at the pointy end of the intellectual debate here.

Re read what I said.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Gethelred]

Nah
It's pretty obvious.

Like hateful disenfranchised young men join hooligan groups
So do the disenfranchised young hateful women, they join the 3rd wave feminist movement.
The similarities are striking.
They validate their own misconceptions and anger with a common enemy.

Feminist=hooligan

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Hmm...

So it's a tit for tat thing? They (modern feminists) refer to the men they disagree with as manchild, undesirables, virgins, 'in their mother's basements', incels; men who don't like feminists call them ugly, manhaters, 'couldn't get a root in a brothel'.

See, this is what I don't get about it. If the ideas are what's repugnant/illogical, why don't you argue with those instead of resorting to a lazy ad hominem? Sure, they could be ugly, and their ugliness could be a part of why they became a feminist, but that alone does not mean that they are wrong at all. Their ugliness is as irrelevant to their ideas as grapefruit is.

 

[Sainteric]

Isn't Holocaust denial a crime?

Not here in Germany, although 18c etc you would think so, but the left wing generally here is too anti Semitic taking the lead from Corbyn

 

[EasternTiger]

Kind of weird that the keys to life are relationships and development of self.

Yet our education system tends to follow bullshit social trends.

If BAs contained less bullshit and more substance in personal accountability then it would be doing what its intention is, to create better equipped people to face Life

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

We've been harping on about the importance of personal responsibility, in many threads across this board, especially the Jordan Peterson one.

Usually falls on deaf ears. It is far easier to point the finger at others, unfortunately.

Many here like to avoid any effort or attempt to fix their lot, in favour of a greater cause such as world peace or transgender pronouns. It is as if the cause will paper over the emptiness and cracks in their own life, and make the bad stuff go away.

It never does though.

If you don't get caught up in the mayhem, it is an interesting opportunity to observe the effect of herd mentality and the internet on its left leaning participants.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Not here in Germany, although 18c etc you would think so, but the left wing generally here is too anti Semitic taking the lead from Corbyn

How has 18c stopped freedom of speech?

 

[Gethelred]

How has 18c stopped freedom of speech?

It limits the potential for racists to be publicly racist.

For what it's worth, I think 18c should be repealed, if only so that those who want to be publicly racist can get publicly humiliated when people don't accept their nonsense. You cannot disprove an unspoken concept, and you cannot argue with silence.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It limits the potential for racists to be publicly racist.

For what it's worth, I think 18c should be repealed, if only so that those who want to be publicly racist can get publicly humiliated when people don't accept their nonsense. You cannot disprove an unspoken concept, and you cannot argue with silence.

I agree with you on repealing it, but I think it's had no impact.

We have a neo-nazi senator dropping final solution references in parliament.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I agree with you that it is absurd that the protests are cited as a reason to reject a speaker's entry to the country, but I still think you're extrapolating US violent protests across an Australian context, the same way Milo did. We don't have the same protest culture, we don't do mass violence the way they do and have. Most of the time, even the protesters don't want to rock the boat. You're also relying on media reports of violence at the protests, the same media who viciously exaggerate the level of violence in society at large, and are looking to sell advertising space using people's fear.

If you want to feel afraid of university students too bored to be in another lecture, that's perfectly up to you, but why would you allow them to limit your freedom?

200 'university students' physically blocking your path and shouting in your face would be quite intimidating.

We would not tolerate this kind of behaviour amongst footy crowds.



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-08/nigel-farage-protests-break-out-at-melbourne-event/10215804

 

[Frank Bunn]

The Morrison government has backed down on banning right-wing speaker Milo Yiannopoulos from entering Australia, amid a backlash from MPs and conservative media commentators.​

​

In a stark change of position from just four days ago, the government is now distancing itself from a Department of Home Affairs letter which outlined a series of reasons why the controversial figure may not pass the character test and should not be allowed into the country.​

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...ulos-in-face-of-backlash-20190309-p512xc.html

 

[Royal Flush]

Hmm...

So it's a tit for tat thing? They (modern feminists) refer to the men they disagree with as manchild, undesirables, virgins, 'in their mother's basements', incels; men who don't like feminists call them ugly, manhaters, 'couldn't get a root in a brothel'.

See, this is what I don't get about it. If the ideas are what's repugnant/illogical, why don't you argue with those instead of resorting to a lazy ad hominem? Sure, they could be ugly, and their ugliness could be a part of why they became a feminist, but that alone does not mean that they are wrong at all. Their ugliness is as irrelevant to their ideas as grapefruit is.

You missed what I wrote.

The third wave are just a hate group.
Pure and simple.
They do not seek to debate, nor do they want to...there is nothing rational or truthfull about their movement. hence manspalining.

I have not written a lazy ad hominem about them.

Re read my description. And feel free to quote word for word where you believe I have been ad hominem.

An angry irrational person is an ugly trait.






Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
I don't even know what ad hominem is but I get the drift

 

[Gethelred]

200 'university students' physically blocking your path and shouting in your face would be quite intimidating.

We would not tolerate this kind of behaviour amongst footy crowds.

View attachment 631960

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-08/nigel-farage-protests-break-out-at-melbourne-event/10215804

In no way am I disagreeing with you, aside from the actual violence aspect. You'll get a few arrests at these protests, but beyond that not a great deal happens; the protesters yell slogans, those going to the events go inside with their noses in the air.

I reiterate: why are you allowing them to restrict your freedom? Is freedom truly not that important to you?

 

[Gethelred]

You missed what I wrote.

The third wave are just a hate group.
Pure and simple.
They do not seek to debate, nor do they want to...there is nothing rational or truthfull about their movement. hence manspalining.

I don't think they're a hate group. They're lobbyists, plain and simple, in pursuit of power and influence; they're not even true social reformers, because there is no backbone, no leadership, no real influence. They're unworthy successors of 'feminism', because it's less about ideals than it is power and shame.

I have not written a lazy ad hominem about them.

Re read my description. And feel free to quote word for word where you believe I have been ad hominem.

An angry irrational person is an ugly trait.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
I don't even know what ad hominem is but I get the drift

Ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) is very specifically attacking the character from which an argument originates instead of their argument/ideas. It's a fallacy because the character of the person stating something isn't relevant to what they're saying, not from a logical standpoint; a person can be blind, and have no conception of what colour is beyond descriptions they read from a description of a Van Gough painting (from one of his more psychedelic works) yet be absolutely correct when they say that the sky is blue; responding with, "How would you know, you're blind!" is ad hominem.

I'm not necessarily talking about your quote, nor am I saying that the ad hominem is yours, or at least yours alone. I'm talking about both sides here, how 'feminists' like Clementine Ford love to insult those that disagree with them in a wide variety of ways, and how both you and EasternTiger between you agreed that third wave feminists became that way because they're ugly and/or stupid. If either side were to actually bother to attack each other's arguments/ideas, then there would be opportunity for progress; instead, what we're left in is an ideological impasse, with both sides being too antagonistic and too pridefull to actually commit their ideas to the task of defeating their opponent, and to allow for the possibility of loss.