Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

PhantomViper wrote:

And here is where facts collide with your particular world view, again.

My particular world view is the need for humanitarian treatment of the Palestinians.
Facts do not collide with it, they line up rather painfully alongside it.

My support for a humanitarian solution to the plight of the Palestinians, is based on humanitarian thinking, the need for justice and fairness. Legal fairness and justice are not partisan conditioning, the disregard of them because people don't like faction x or y however is.
As an acid test you could expect me and other decernt thinking people to both support and condemn the opponents of Israel. In this I am consistent. I condemn Israels handling of the Palestinians, I also condemn terrorism and don't like the politically correct mishandling of the issues of Islamic extremism in the west.
I also acknowledge Israels right to exist, and that to maintain that right they will have to be strong. Most threads on Israel has that caveat in the first post.

An approach to this subject matter from a rational person should always be about justice vs injustice rather than faction vs faction.
That is my world view and I am consistent on it.

PhantomViper wrote:

Israelis aren't being conditioned to accept anything, as you've already been told by several people, this is a ultra-orthodox newspaper, without any relevance to actual Israeli society and whose religious rules prohibits them from publishing pictures of women.

Ther first step to indoctrination is to condition. Proper conditioning will not be visible as such.
There isnt a large scale movement to force the ultra-orthodox press to adhere to gender rights. Why not.
because society has been conditiioned that way.

PhantomViper wrote:

To even try and link such a piece with any actual policy regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Israel is... well, I would probably be banned from OT for stating what I think about that.

It relevant because there is also a large amount of social conditioning that dehumanises the Palestinians.

The root of the issue here is that you fail to see the art of propaganda and what it can do. Condition people against free thought in one way is a bedrock to conditioning them in others, it is a progressive process There is a very widespread, and I should say successful campaign of indoctrination and conditioning to accept Zionist philosophy and methodology. Mostly aimed at the US, but to a lesser extend Israel itself but also extending worldwide.

This is the reason why many Americans will openly support Israel no matter what, while Europeans will not. Europeans have not been successfully conditioned to support Israel, whereas Americans had. Of course this will not cover every case, and support in the US for Israel is waning, but public opinion is always a macro-scale viewpoint of society. You don't need to convince everyone for a conditioning to be universal.

I will accept that a lot of the Islamic media is just as bad, or worse. Which is why you get the problems you see, conditioning.
However Israel patterns itself as having a western idiom, western values and western freedom. We know Iran doesn't, and when wee see conditioning of Iranians we can all clearly understand it, except for radical Islamics. Who are of course conditioned.

It's not genetic that forces one person to want to kill all Jews and another to want a humanitarian solution to the Middle east and another to become an apologist for the many inhumane excesses of the Israeli regime. It's conditioning, or the lack thereof in the middle case.

The fact that the most rabid apologists for Israel on the forums cannot see that they have been spoonfed propaganda, and successfully conditioned, is of no surprise to me whatsoever. But I wasn't expecting this truth to be so easily demonstrable. Thank you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scrabb wrote:
I just had to log in to thank Orlanth for that excellent comedy routine.

Your welcome.

PhantomViper wrote:
Also, the ultra-orthodox Jews wan't to "erase" Palestinians so badly that they take western women out of the photos but leave the President of the Palestinian Authority in them...

Ok. Lets explain this for the hard of thinking. Thinking is sublte and requires logical sequence, if A is related to B and B to C, A does not necessarily equal C.
I made no reference to the ultra-orthodox erasing 'Palestinians'.
I made referencer Israel absorbing a culture where erasing of unwanted truth is part of the culture.
Now that Israel is conditioned to accept that huge step backwards, without much complaint, it is no logical leap for the conditioning to be extended in other areas.
Its a bit like the 'boiled frog' experiment.

Lets try another example.

The UK is conditioned too, and most people in the UK are unaware of the conditioning. I would argue that the UK is further down the slope than the Israelis are.

Take fro example the Islamic schools plot in the Birmingham area. Yes that Birmingham. While Birmingham is not 100% moslem, and you can walk in; there are serious Islamic related problems there. Much of that stemmed from the progressive Islamisation of the region, aided and abetted by multiculturalism and politcal correctness, which offered a lobsided platform which Islamic fundamentalists are quick to seize. And this is now provably evident in the education system. Its evident elsewhere, but as there has been no government action and the conditioning that is endemic in UK society still holds. Namely if you see a problem with Islamisation in the UK, its a problem caused by the far right and Daily Mail, and possibly by a 'tiny minority' of Islamic fanatics who dont represent the whole.
As someone who knows families raising kinds in Birmingham thats BS and has been BS for many years. The discrimination and favouritism in the education system and in in local government is evidenced daily, but due to conditioning nobody wanted to know. Sometimes the truth is more extreme than the picture painted in the much maligned Daily Mail, adfter all the Daily Maio didnt get wind about Rotherham.
The problem in Rotherham was the large scale child abuse by Asian gangs occuring for sixteen years despite the police, local government and social services knowing more than enough to stop it. Why didn't they? Because they didn't want accusations of racism to destabilise the town.
Better children should be raped than for a town to reveal cracks in the multicultural dream?
Even now the conditioning is still evident with the speed the whole issue was swept under the carpet, the public now knows about Rotherhan, it now knows about the Birmingham Islamic schools plot, and knows these are not and never were far right lies. But the conditioning that causes people to avoid realitiy on these issues has yet to be addressed.

And if that isn't enough David Cameron supported reprinting the Mohammed cartoons, however what would happen if a UK paper did. It would break a lot of the New Labour legislation, let alone likely rile huge student mobs on a No Platform ticket (and students are supposed to be free thinking) The UK is so heavily conditioned on the issue of political correctness that it is getting amusing seeing how the Guardian pussyfoots around the issue, being often so quick to condemn any offense to multicultural sensibilities but finding itself politically unable to condemn Charlie Hebdo currently.

Also the condtioning was never about paedophilia, or forced Islamisation in the classroom. Even Blair would not haver advocated that.
The conditoning was to force multicultural unity, nothing less nothing more.
However conditioning doesn't stop there. This lesson should be understood as it is the principle underlying factor about social conditioning.

It is why the airbrushing on women in Israel by sections of Israeli society and the dehumanisaing treatment of Palestinians might develop a link.
After all the links is already there.

Some might write my comments off as a joke, but the joke is on them. I am already proven right:

A land without a people for a people without a land
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_land_without_a_people_for_a_people_without_a_land

This is evidently incorrect, the land is not empty, but the slogan persisted amongst Restorationists and later Zionists.

And if that is not enough. Try the Torah

Exodus 17:14
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven."
Deuternomy 7:24
He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them.

The concept of the total eradication of a culture is not lost to orthodox Judaism. The concept of 'airbrushing' out has been pre-established in the thinking for millennia.

Social conditioning is real and demonstrable, and those who would be consider themselves as astute should be aware of it, it's dynamics, how it works; and how it is originated and perpetuated. Most of all that those who are conditioned will not see themselves as such, and if forced into self examination often get very agitated. This is what makes conditioning so ideal, once established its easy to move forward, so hard to set it back.

 Orlanth wrote:

Rant...

Does anything in there even remotely pertains to the published picture by any chance or perhaps the explanation about how you make the logic leap from ultra orthodox Jewish newspaper wants to erase Palestinians by removing western women from pictures but leaving actual Palestinian leader in it?

Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

When Frazzled is clamouring for a thread to get back on topic, you know you've strayed too far indeed!

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

Close enough?

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

This is appeasement and history has shown that it doesn't work.

So what was all that talk about free speech again, France?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/14/dieudonne-arrest-facebook-post-charlie-coulibaly-paris-gunman

Notorious French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala has been arrested for being an “apologist for terrorism” after suggesting on Facebook that he sympathised with one of the Paris gunmen, a judicial source has said.

Prosecutors had opened the case against him on Monday after he wrote “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” – mixing the slogan “Je suis Charlie”, used in tribute to the journalists killed at magazine Charlie Hebdo, with a reference to gunman Amédy Coulibaly. Dieudonné was arrested on Wednesday.

Coulibaly killed four people at a Jewish supermarket on Friday and a police officer the day before.

The comedian made international headlines in 2013 when French footballer Nicolas Anelka was banned for five matches by English football authorities for using a gesture created by Dieudonné that many consider to echo the Nazi salute.

Dieudonné posted his controversial Facebook post after attending Sunday’s unity march against extremism that brought more than 1.5 million people on to the streets of Paris in the wake of the attacks.

He described the march – considered the biggest rally in modern French history – as “a magical moment comparable to the big bang”.

The French government has in the past banned Dieudonné’s shows because it considers them “antisemitic”.

Dieudonné has removed the remark from his Facebook page.

PhantomViper wrote:

Does anything in there even remotely pertains to the published picture by any chance or perhaps the explanation about how you make the logic leap from ultra orthodox Jewish newspaper wants to erase Palestinians by removing western women from pictures but leaving actual Palestinian leader in it?

Its not relevant to the comment made, as explained.
You are barking up the wrong tree, because you haven't yet grasped the actual point being made before trying to condemn it.
It is understandable that you remain in ignorance, if you take a logical post that was rationally explained, and given supporting examples and replace it with the word 'rant'.
Clearly you are not open to reason, time to change, eh.

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

Its closely related actually Frazzie. both in terms of conditioning and airbrushing.

Conditioning -
Look at the conditioning the western media has against causing offense to minority cultures. Particularly in Western Europe.
But also from your own post in the USA too, though the US is far less conditioned than Europe nations tends to be, mostly due to a hardcore counterpoint and First Ammendment rights.
There is a lot of soul searching going on right now because people are seeing that people should have freedom of expression and realising that a lot of legislation brought in in many European countries directly work against it.
A lot of papers are discussing whether they should reprint Charlie Hebdo images, and some politicians are saying that they should without looking at the law their parliaments have implemented to support the conditioning.
This raises questions of actual freedom of expression and information especially in th UK and Sweden.

Airbrushing -
Also seeing fundamentalist Islamics want to airbrush out images they dont want and finding that some fundamentalist Jews want something similar is also relevant to the issue. Radical Islam is not a unique problem with no social opposite.

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

Close enough?

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

This is appeasement and history has shown that it doesn't work.

So, let me get this straight, North Korea threatens to use violence against the US because of the portrayal of their leader in a movie and it constitutes a terrible offence against the principles in which the USA was founded...

Islam threatens violence against... well... everyone, because of the portrayal of their prophet in a few newspapers and suddenly its a provocation to show those images.

Nice!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So what was all that talk about free speech again, France?

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Er...can we get this thread back on topic already?

Close enough?

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine’s office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.

Earnest’s defense of those 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine’s office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine’s criticism of Islam’s final prophet.

This is appeasement and history has shown that it doesn't work.

So, let me get this straight, North Korea threatens to use violence against the US because of the portrayal of their leader in a movie and it constitutes a terrible offence against the principles in which the USA was founded...

Islam threatens violence against... well... everyone, because of the portrayal of their prophet in a few newspapers and suddenly its a provocation to show those images.

Nice!

Yup... you got it!

It makes sense if you look at it with a rational understanding of asocial conditioning.

The only people conditioned to consider Kim Jong Un as a special-snowflake are the North Korean people.
Admittedly they are very heavily conditioned, but are totally irrelevant
However there is a fair amount of conditioning to accept and apologise for Islamic extremism.
Admittedly Islam is a far bigger threat than North Korea, but the reaction is not just one of White House dictat. We have already seen this play out over Draw Mohammed Day, and not some extent Inocence of Moslems both of which favoured not offending sensibilities over free speech laws.
As free speech is so central to US philosophy a counter philosophy had to be used to prevent this being a non contest issue by which 1st Amendment right trumps all other arguments.


Islamic extremism also makes sense when you look at it. These guys dont have much and are not in general well organised well equipped or rich compared to the collective West. They dont back down however, and take advantage to move a step forward whenever someone else does. Analysts are now trying to work out when and where the first Islamic country in Western Europe will emerge, not if.
While individual footsoldiers of Islam are often stupid the movement as a whole has a reasonable chance of obtaining its goals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So what was all that talk about free speech again, France?

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

This is in fact an intelligent point. The trick is, can you define hate speech PhantomViper and more relevantly can you ascertain how the Law defines hate speech?

You will find that the definition is entirely flexible and is again linked to conditioning. Hate crime is less or more actionable depending on who the victim is, and who the alleged prepetrator is.

 Orlanth wrote:
It makes sense if you look at it with a rational understanding of asocial conditioning.

The only people conditioned to consider Kim Jong Un as a special-snowflake are the North Korean people.
Admittedly they are very heavily conditioned, but are totally irrelevant
However there is a fair amount of conditioning to accept and apologise for Islamic extremism.
Admittedly Islam is a far bigger threat than North Korea, but the reaction is not just one of White House dictat. We have already seen this play out over Draw Mohammed Day, and not some extent Inocence of Moslems both of which favoured not offending sensibilities over free speech laws.
As free speech is so central to US philosophy a counter philosophy had to be used to prevent this being a non contest issue by which 1st Amendment right trumps all other arguments.


Islamic extremism also makes sense when you look at it. These guys dont have much and are not in general well organised well equipped or rich compared to the collective West. They dont back down however, and take advantage to move a step forward whenever someone else does. Analysts are now trying to work out when and where the first Islamic country in Western Europe will emerge, not if.
While individual footsoldiers of Islam are often stupid the movement as a whole has a reasonable chance of obtaining its goals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
So what was all that talk about free speech again, France?

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

This is in fact an intelligent point. The trick is, can you define hate speech PhantomViper and more relevantly can you ascertain how the Law defines hate speech?

You will find that the definition is entirely flexible and is again linked to conditioning. Hate crime is less or more actionable depending on who the victim is, and who the alleged prepetrator is.

It also makes sense to gently remind others how free speech works... and if they don't like it. GTFO.

 whembly wrote:

It also makes sense to gently remind others how free speech works... and if they don't like it. GTFO.

i would love to agree with you. But free speech can and sometimes will land you in court, depending on who complains about what they find offensive.

 Frazzled wrote:

Israelis aren't being conditioned to accept anything, as you've already been told by several people, this is a ultra-orthodox newspaper, without any relevance to actual Israeli society and whose religious rules prohibits them from publishing pictures of women.

To even try and link such a piece with any actual policy regarding the treatment of Palestinians in Israel is... well, I would probably be banned from OT for stating what I think about that.

Indeed, Islam prohibits images of ALL people as well. Not seeing what the issue is. Thats their religious belief. I don't agree with it, but its not harming anyone.

Well, until they try to force their religious belief on to everyone else. This week, we've seen Parisian Muslims condemn the Charlie Hebdo attack, but simultaneously say nobody should have the freedom of speech to offend them by drawing Mohammad. Which leaves me somewhat confused as to where their priorities lie.

Really not feeling the social integration here...

*Source: Sky News, 30 min ago.

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It also makes sense to gently remind others how free speech works... and if they don't like it. GTFO.

i would love to agree with you. But free speech can and sometimes will land you in court, depending on who complains about what they find offensive.

In the UK? Probably...

In the US? Very rare... almost non-existent.

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because it isn't... I don't know another way to answer that question...

If you wan't to know the historical precedent to it, mostly it comes down from post-WW2 European governments trying to find a way to prevent national socialist parties from ever reaching prominence again. Since most of those parties gain popularity by promoting and inciting violence against minorities it was expected that by restricting those types of messages it would help prevent them from gaining much popular support.

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

We ain't free over here that's why. It'd be great if we had Ameican levels but we don't. Freedom is the only way!

There's an ever creeping restriction on free speech as people say "I'm all for free speech, but..." and more and more clauses are put onto free speech. It's pretty Orwellian and you think that Europe would know better.

It's spineless and insipid behaviour at its worst.

Don't let anybody take your guns and don't let them restrict what you say.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

We ain't free over here that's why. It'd be great if we had Ameican levels but we don't. Freedom is the only way!

There's an ever creeping restriction on free speech as people say "I'm all for free speech, but..." and more and more clauses are put onto free speech. It's pretty Orwellian and you think that Europe would know better.

It's spineless and insipid behaviour at its worst.

Don't let anybody take your guns and don't let them restrict what you say.

Yes, your freedom to declare death or harm to a minority is not assured in Europe... This place really is a gulag...

 Medium of Death wrote:

Don't let anybody take your guns and don't let them restrict what you say.

We won't!

Who's asking to declare death and harm?

A fine strawman.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Who's asking to declare death and harm?

A fine strawman.

You are, since you know, that is the one thing that is not permitted under the Free Speech laws. And that is the one thing that lead to the arrest of Dieudonné.

If you are saying that a law is violating your liberty, and that law only forbids the declaration of death and harm to minorities, then you wan't the freedom to declare death and harm to those minorities.

Feel free to back-pedal now.

We do have outrageous libel laws here, the more grasping parts of our London legal fraternity pride themselves on being the first port of call for anyone worldwide with a great deal of money who wants to force someone without a great deal of money to shut up.

But directly on-topic, last weeks shootings have led to 3 million copies of Charlie Hebdo (compared to 60,000 usually) in at least 6 languages being printed this week, which hopefully will make the vast majority of those who follow Islam understand that whilst they can certainly be offended by what others choose to print, most of the rest of the world utterly deplores murderous thugs who think killing because someone offended their faith is acceptable.

Where did he call for death and harm?

It's not the only thing, you're lying. "Grossly offensive" remarks aren't permitted, this is sliding down to "offensive". People don't have the right not to be offended.

 Orlanth wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

If hardline Israelis are willing to airbrush out the female population, even those of their own kind.
I wonder what future they intend for the Palestinians.

These aren't "hardline Israelis," they're ULTRA ORTHODOX Israelis, who don't work, don't serve in the military, don't really pay taxes, and do not reflect the views, beliefs, or attitudes of the majority of Israelis They're the Jewish equivalent of Taliban, but far less violent. Beyond that, their decision to photoshop out women, while stupid, has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinians. You'll have to find a new way to bash Israel - this one is a stretch, even for you.

While they are not suicide bombers these radicals do cause social problems and have an unhealthy contempt for others. They are in a way a microcosm of the worst facets of Israel in general, but Israelis notice the difference as the people they show total contempt for are other Israelis.
You fail to grasp the salient points, what the ultra orthodox are to other Jews most Israelis (but very clearly not all) are to the 'goyim'

If a section of society is willing to airbrush out other sections of society. What does that say about that society. Israel is well down the slippery slope

However it is nice to see Nuggz appreciate that the extremists are different from the general population. We have been waiting a while for him to have this epiphany. So next time an extremist sends a rocket into Israel and Israel 'responds' with large scale airstrikes or artillery strikes, he will know to condemn the overreaction like any reasonable person would. I wont hold my breath waiting for such a U turn though.

What a mouthbreathing response...I don't even know where to begin.

"Most Israelis" are what exactly to "the goyim?" Most Israelis have more in common with secular Westerners than they do with the ultra-orthodox.

You are lumping the ultra-orthodox in with right wing Israelis which is completely idiotic. They are a separate entity and they (the orthodox) usually vote in one huge block - usually for whoever will give them better benefits. My response had nothing to do with "extremists" as this religious group is completely separate.

As for your estimates of what constitutes a reasonable response, most Israelis supported the nation's response to daily rocket and mortar attacks against the civilian population. None of them give a damn about YOUR notion of "reasonable" sitting comfy thousands of miles away from the fighting. Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

Let's not forget how we got here - your completely absurd assertion that Ultra-Orthodox Jews photoshopping women out of a picture somehow equates to genocide against Palestinians. Logic like that gives you about as much credibility as Baghdad Bob.



"Religious Jews photoshop women. Therefore, genocide against Palestinians!"



Your bias borders on hilarious and your understanding of Israeli politics is laughable. Your reply constitutes nothing more than trolling and I'm not going to be dragged into a moronic slugfest with the ignorant.

It's sorta sounding like someone outside America conflating, say, the Amish and the Westboro Baptist Church together?

I don't think comparisons will do it justice properly as it seems to be a fairly unique situation.

The kind of voting power/tight knit of the community seems to be a fairly important factor. I can't think of any direct comparisons off the top of my head.

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because a society with wholly unrestricted free speech is totally unworkable both in theory and in practice. Our culture, like ever other culture, has to draw a line at what provides the most pragmatism and workability with the most freedom, and as a whole we've decided that fighting words, fraud, inciting riots, and hate speech should not have protection of law, but rather prohibition.

 Medium of Death wrote:
I don't think comparisons will do it justice properly as it seems to be a fairly unique situation.

The kind of voting power/tight knit of the community seems to be a fairly important factor. I can't think of any direct comparisons off the top of my head.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but it's like conflating Christian Americans with the Westboro Baptist Church. With the additional leap (read: gap) in logic being,

Christian Americans put milk and cookies out for Santa, therefore they're putting landmines in San Francisco to kill gay people.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because a society with wholly unrestricted free speech is totally unworkable both in theory and in practice.

What you define as Hate Speech and what we define as Hate Speech are two different things.

The Westboro Baptist Church wouldn't be able to do anything over here. I've probably picked a bad example for presenting why this is a bad thing.

It's a slippery slope in repressing what the majority consider to be odious opinions.

 Medium of Death wrote:
What you define as Hate Speech and what we define as Hate Speech are two different things.

I'm aware, I was just responding to Frazzled.

I think Canada's prohibitions are even more stringent than yours, if we're comparing. IIRC Ann Coulter was once going to travel to Canada to give a speech and was warned by someone at the event that some of the things she routinely says could have her arrested and charged if she were to say them in Canada. I can't google it up right now, that's just how I remembered it.