David Boots

[David BootsParticipant]

Interesting take here. 

And here.

[David BootsParticipant]

“I was constantly berated for my belief in God” – It is natural to push back instinctively.

[David BootsParticipant]

Interesting story about another nazi mocking dog.

[David BootsParticipant]

To the muslim in the Nat Geo article who said ‘Why do I have to prove to you that I’m a good guy?’

The answer is simple – your religion has lost the benefit of the doubt and you have failed to distance yourself from those who bring shame to your theocratic cult.

And you might find non muslims a little more sympathetic if you took a strong unequivocal stance against violence in the name of your faith.

This is the sort of theocratic woo that really makes the jaw drop – ‘Only the copper domes and marble slabs carved with quotations from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, would survive.’

[David BootsParticipant]

Absolutely. The problem is, these type of laws – just like blasphemy laws – are so vague and subjective they can be used for anything. Blasphemy laws have been used to seek petty revenge for disputes. They have been used to seek political advantage and to suppress opinions of all sort.

[David BootsParticipant]

Well there are lots of things that are offensive. I find this type of law offensive for starters.

[David BootsParticipant]

Here is another case that should make everyone stop – think and focus.

A 19 year old girl posted lyrics from a rap song on her private instagram account. The lyrics contained the word nigger which made it a hate crime. She was convicted of the criminal offence of race hate.

Read about it here…

The song is here…

 

[David BootsParticipant]

Well for one it means a country could issue an arrest warrant for say Theresa May and seek to have it enforced.

[David BootsParticipant]

This strike seems to be completely illegal. Under international law as I understand it, there exist only three ways force is allowed by one state in another state’s territory. The first is by mandate of the security council. The second is in self defence. And the third is where a population is in danger of imminent destruction.

Here there was no mandate, no imminent danger, and no population was in danger of imminent destruction. I would also make the following two cynical observations:

1. International law precludes the use of force as a routine tool of international politics.

2. Chemical weapons allegations are a remarkably convenient tool.

[David BootsParticipant]

Topical

[David BootsParticipant]

What I find interesting is this remark about the methodology ‘It also wanted to avoid the perils of “code-switching”: the all-too-human minority impulse to fit in, to shape your response to meet the expectations of the majority population and to disguise the answer that you think will be too disturbing for people from a different culture to hear.’

I can only hope that this code-switching goes both ways. The muslims I know seem very ‘modern’ and I am guessing when they talk to me they are fitting in with ‘western’ type views. But it may also be the case that they hold ‘western’ type views but have to be careful how they express those views in the muslim community.

[David BootsParticipant]

Reg I don’t know how you do it week after week. You must have the mental fortitude of a Rottweiler!

Can I add this article about blatant political interference in an election by the catholic church –  blatant interference

• This reply was modified 6 years ago by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer. Reason: edited to open link in new window

[David BootsParticipant]

Ok I am not American so feel free to discount my views. But America is awesome. Its contribution to modern society is probably unequalled in history. The technology, science and extraordinary jurisprudence are stunning.

Sure it is flawed. It has way more guns than it needs. The country is riddled with crackpot christians and a strange unjustified paranoia about government as an institution. A large portion of the population are under-educated by comparative international standards and the police appear on the whole unable to stop shooting unarmed people.

Yet if there is one thing the rest of the world can envy it is their obsession with their rights and in particular their love of free speech.

• This reply was modified 6 years ago by  David Boots.

[David BootsParticipant]

2,671 prosecutions under this law were made in the United Kingdom in just the first 5 years. That is more than one prosecution each and every day of the week for over five years. You would think that level of resources could be applied more usefully elsewhere.

[David BootsParticipant]

Robert, at least in this case, it is my understanding that the complaint was made by a professional theist lobby group. If that is the case, then in fact there is no actual incident of an ‘offended person’. Indeed that lobby group explained why it complained by stating that the holocaust was not an appropriate subject to make a joke about.

So it was actually the enforcement of an opinion. A view. AND if you look closely at the text of the law – there is no actual requirement to have a person offended. It merely requires the communication of the said opinions.

This particular lobby group has made various complaints about various things including other religions. So perhaps it is not surprising then.

Why is it you say freedom is an American fantasy?

 

[Author]

Posts