 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Actually, I was referring more to the Catholic sect written about in Angels and Demons...but then, in DaVinci Code, the Pope's assistant was not exactly a picture of purity...
-=Vel=- |
Okay, *SPOILERS* ahead
You have that bass ackwards. The sect was Opus Dei, and was in DaVinci Code. The Pope's Camerlegno was in A&D.
In TDC, the head of Opus Dei is revealed not to be the bastard he seems at the end. That's Brown's trick--he plays up obvious people as "villains," only to have it revealed at the end that they aren't, and that seemingly "good" folks are the evil ones. In TDC, it's the crippled Prof who's the villain, and the Opus Dei guy is actually not evil.
As for A&D, the Camerlegno is not a religious official--he's considered a layman. And while he's deranged, his motivations aren't "evil." He murders the previous pope because he sincerely felt the man had disgraced the Church and his office by siring a bastard child. And he staged his own "martydom" for the purpose of inspiring people to return to the church. But the Church itself comes out looking squeaky-clean in the end.
So neither book remotely qualifies as expressing "hateful" attitudes towards Catholicism or even a sect of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Hmmm... I misread that post as saying that Dan Brown has a long dingus. I was most disturbed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Ahhh yes! Except that yelling "fire" in a crowded building is not an opinion.
Why? Perhaps the person wanted to see the reaction? Why not let him express himself?
The laws against yelling "fire" in a confined, people-filled space have more to do with physics than with a fear that he'll incite violence.
Thusly:
We know that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
We know that humans have a powerful instinctual response to avoid danger or perceived danger.
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded building predictably triggers the aforementioned instinctual response, leading to a mass exodus toward...well, the exits.
We also know that exits are not designed in such a way that every occupant in a fully occupied building can leave at the same moment, and thus, we run up against the limit imposed by the law of physics, which can lead to two or more bodies attempting to occupy the same space at the same time.
In short, it demonstrably leads to human injury.
But that's not the case with your example, and so, the argument does not fly.
quote:
Minus that, your point is taken.
I doubt that. I doubt you are listening to anything you do not want to hear.
On the contrary...I'm listening intently, hoping that you will be able to demonstrate some tangible benefit to this law that it might change my opinon.
So far, you've been rather catty and defensive, falling back on "look, this is what we decided to do" when it becomes clear that none of your other arguments are holding water.
quote:
Minus the fact that this man was not inciting anyone to act on his behalf, your point is taken.
How do you know?
Because I can read, and I read the man's words, as reported by the reporter.
Very enlightening, but I don't blame you for not referring back to them, as there's nothing in them that would support your position.
Well, considering there's not much to your denunciations, other than a fear of a prohibition on your right to incite racial hatred and violence, I agree. there is not much left.
Again, point it out.
Where did he incite action against the jews? To whom? The reporter? Do you honestly believe he was attempting to coerce or convince the reporter to go on a little jew killing spree? Is that what you get out of his words?
If so...wow.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Ahhh yes! Except that yelling "fire" in a crowded building is not an opinion.
Why? Perhaps the person wanted to see the reaction? Why not let him express himself?
The laws against yelling "fire" in a confined, people-filled space have more to do with physics than with a fear that he'll incite violence.
Thusly:
We know that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
We know that humans have a powerful instinctual response to avoid danger or perceived danger.
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded building predictably triggers the aforementioned instinctual response, leading to a mass exodus toward...well, the exits.
We also know that exits are not designed in such a way that every occupant in a fully occupied building can leave at the same moment, and thus, we run up against the limit imposed by the law of physics, which can lead to two or more bodies attempting to occupy the same space at the same time.
In short, it demonstrably leads to human injury.
But that's not the case with your example, and so, the argument does not fly. |
Really? You have statistics to back this up do you? Where are the actuarial tables on death by alarmist in theatres?
I'd imagine that fire and building codes in Canada and the US had been brushed up just a bit since the decisions that relegated alarmism in theatres to the category of illegal act were made.
How long ago was that, anyway?
Now, where is the proof of harm? Or is it that you have simply accepted that such expression can cause harm, so you are willing to banish it?
You can imagine this, but not that; therefore you agree with banishing this, but not that. That is a very egotistical standard, isn't it?
quote:
On the contrary...I'm listening intently, hoping that you will be able to demonstrate some tangible benefit to this law that it might change my opinon.
So far, you've been rather catty and defensive, falling back on "look, this is what we decided to do" when it becomes clear that none of your other arguments are holding water. |
Now, there's another matter of opinion. You think that protecting minorities has no tangible benefit, I guess. Yes?
Otherwise, why would you ignore any and all reasons given to support the law?
quote:
quote:
Minus the fact that this man was not inciting anyone to act on his behalf, your point is taken.
How do you know?
Because I can read, and I read the man's words, as reported by the reporter.
Very enlightening, but I don't blame you for not referring back to them, as there's nothing in them that would support your position. |
Well, glad you're here to tell us that Naziism has nothing to do with recent acts of violence against Jewish people and property.
Hallehluliah! They should feel safer already. Vel said so.
quote:
Well, considering there's not much to your denunciations, other than a fear of a prohibition on your right to incite racial hatred and violence, I agree. there is not much left.
Again, point it out.
Where did he incite action against the jews? To whom? The reporter? Do you honestly believe he was attempting to coerce or convince the reporter to go on a little jew killing spree? Is that what you get out of his words?
If so...wow.
-=Vel=- |
Yes, wow. I am amazed that someone could read 'they are a disease, so and so was right to fry 6 million of them' as anything but an endorsement to do more of the same.
Last edited by notyoueither on 16-07-2005 at 10:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Really? You have statistics to back this up do you? Where are the actuarial tables on death by alarmist in theatres?
I'd imagine that fire and building codes in Canada and the US had been brushed up just a bit since the decisions that relegated alarmism in theatres to the category of illegal act were made.
How long ago was that, anyway?
Now, where is the proof of harm? Or is it that you have simply accepted that such expression can cause harm, so you are willing to banish it?
You can imagine this, but not that; therefore you agree with banishing this, but not that. That is a very egotistical standard, isn't it?
Yes...really.
I can't help it if you cannot see the tangible difference between the two examples of speech.
One has its grounding in immediate physical impact, based on well known, deeply imbedded components of the human psyche and plain old physics. The other is based on conjecture.
Now, there's another matter of opinion. You think that protecting minorities has no tangible benefit, I guess. Yes?
Otherwise, why would you ignore any and all reasons given to support the law?
Where did I say that? What I take issue with...what I call into question is whether this law does what you say it does.
If it did, it seems to me that you would be able to point to a tangible increase in violence or planned violence that was prevented against the group in question after this man was arrested.
So far, despite repeated requests, no information of that sort has been forthcoming.
One must conclude then, that, having made several reasonable requests, and having the subject dodged, skirted, or ignored repeatedly, that the reason FOR that behavior is that there is no information forthcoming that would support your position.
Well, glad you're here to tell us that Naziism has nothing to do with recent acts of violence against Jewish people and property.
Hallehluliah! They should feel safer already. Vel said so.
Naziism is not at issue here. This man's statements are at issue. Thus, the issue is, did this man's statements have anything to do with the recent acts of violence against Jewish people and property. Again, I've asked repeatedly to see examples of this, only to find your side coming up empty handed and attempting to deflect the subject to some other area (like this, your most recent quote).
Yes, wow. I am amazed that someone could read 'they are a disease, so and so was right to fry 6 million of them' as anything but an endorsement to do more of the same.
So...earlier, when I said the Mongols sweeping toward Europe were a plague, and the Europeans were right to kill mass thousands of them...your interpretation of my statement then, is that I am actively inciting Europeans to kill Mongols?
Come now NYE...you're smarter than that.
Of course, admitting that I was NOT inciting violence would defeat your position entirely, and I don't suppose you'll allow that, so...I'd best prepare for another deflection.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
One has its grounding in immediate physical impact, based on well known, deeply imbedded components of the human psyche and plain old physics. The other is based on conjecture. |
The Nuremberg speeches are conjecture, are they?
The fact that we are still grappling with the aftermath of that era is conjecture, is it?
I'd say far more people have died on the pyre of Nazi expression in the last 60 years than ever dreamt of fleeing theatres due to any alarm.
quote:
Now, there's another matter of opinion. You think that protecting minorities has no tangible benefit, I guess. Yes?
Otherwise, why would you ignore any and all reasons given to support the law?
Where did I say that? What I take issue with...what I call into question is whether this law does what you say it does.
If it did, it seems to me that you would be able to point to a tangible increase in violence or planned violence that was prevented against the group in question after this man was arrested.
So far, despite repeated requests, no information of that sort has been forthcoming.
One must conclude then, that, having made several reasonable requests, and having the subject dodged, skirted, or ignored repeatedly, that the reason FOR that behavior is that there is no information forthcoming that would support your position. |
BZZT. Wrong. Again.
Success is not the measure that he got prosecuted for. He got prosecuted for crossing the line. Whether he incited a single act or not is not relevant.
Now, if you wish to deny that other people have been able to get others to act on their words, you are free to do so. You'll be a right silly bastard, but you are free to do so.
quote:
Well, glad you're here to tell us that Naziism has nothing to do with recent acts of violence against Jewish people and property.
Hallehluliah! They should feel safer already. Vel said so.
Naziism is not at issue here. This man's statements are at issue. Thus, the issue is, did this man's statements have anything to do with the recent acts of violence against Jewish people and property. Again, I've asked repeatedly to see examples of this, only to find your side coming up empty handed and attempting to deflect the subject to some other area (like this, your most recent quote). |
BZZT. Wrong. Again. Neonazis very much are at issue here, in Canada, with regard to racist violence against Jewish people and property. So are assorted other loons, and we see no need to allow for greater encouragement.
quote:
Yes, wow. I am amazed that someone could read 'they are a disease, so and so was right to fry 6 million of them' as anything but an endorsement to do more of the same.
So...earlier, when I said the Mongols sweeping toward Europe were a plague, and the Europeans were right to kill mass thousands of them...your interpretation of my statement then, is that I am actively inciting Europeans to kill Mongols?
Come now NYE...you're smarter than that. |
No, Vel, you should be smarter than that. There is no current problem with anti-Mongol hate crime.
Do try to keep up with current events, will you?
quote:
Of course, admitting that I was NOT inciting violence would defeat your position entirely, and I don't suppose you'll allow that, so...I'd best prepare for another deflection.
-=Vel=- |
Deflect what? More red herrings?
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm of the sort that likes fish.
Last edited by notyoueither on 16-07-2005 at 11:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Yep...I'm sure there are.
Interesting though, the paralells that can be drawn. To date, no instances of violence against jews can be traced back to this man's statements.
I'd contend too, that the books' status as fictional novels isn't relevant. I'm a writer, and if I were so inclined to hate a particular group, I could easily slip it into the mainstream, simply by "writing a story," and if anybody raised an eyebrow at it, I could shrug and say "well, it IS fiction," and secretly, my message of carefully fictionalized-and-hidden hate would be out there circulating.
The point is, Dan Brown is no more at fault for any of his reader's POTENTIAL, hypothetical, possible future actions than this poor simp is for stating a stupid opinion.
Fortunately, stupidity is not yet an arrestable offense in most places...Canada notwithstanding, apparently.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
The Nuremberg speeches are conjecture, are they?
The fact that we are still grappling with the aftermath of that era is conjecture, is it?
I'd say far more people have died on the pyre of Nazi expression in the last 60 years than ever dreamt of fleeing theatres due to any alarm.
I was not aware that the star of our thread quoted anything from the Nuremberg speeches. I was not aware they had anything to do with the case at hand. Perhaps you have access to more of this man's words than I?
BZZT. Wrong. Again.
Success is not the measure that he got prosecuted for. He got prosecuted for crossing the line. Whether he incited a single act or not is not relevant.
Now, if you wish to deny that other people have been able to get others to act on their words, you are free to do so. You'll be a right silly bastard, but you are free to do so.
Crossed a line by having an opinon. And that speaks to the heart of the matter. You may find that this line's current position is a right comfy one. That is your perogative.
I disagree, and that is mine.
You have (you, meaning supporters of this law) failed utterly to demonstrate how his "line crossing" had ANYTHING to do with increased instances of violence, which is the very thing this law seeks to prevent.
That his speech (not actions, mind you, speech) in no way led to an increase of violence against the people his opinion was against, points to the utter uselessness of this law.
It prevented nothing, because there was nothing to prevent.
Except freedom of thought, as we have already covered.
Yes...Under specific circumstances (none of which were met by this buffoon), actions can stem directly from the spoken word. No denying that.
Just as there's no denying that this wasn't one of those times, no matter how hard you squeeze your eyes shut and wish it were so.
No, Vel, you should be smarter than that. There is no current problem with anti-Mongol hate crime.
Do try to keep up with current evernts, will you?
Ahhh, so because there have been no headline making events in your neck of the wood...because the Jewish people have been getting more airtime, then there's no problem, right? Even one's too many, right? Isn't that what you said? And surely in all the wide world, there's at least ONE act of violence against someone of Mongol descent.
But...you'll try to deflect the argument again, cos it doesn't win any points to stand the current ground.
Understandable, but also pointing clearly to that quicksand you're standing on.
Deflect what? More red herrings?
In case you hadn't noticed, I of the sort that likes fish.
Deflect what indeed. Deflect the argument away from the fact that thus far, your side has yet to come up with a single shred of evidence that this man a) was in any way attempting to incite violence against the jews, b) was in any way attempting to coerce or convince anyone to act on his behalf, and c) was in any way making a statement to further a genocidal agenda.
He made an ill considered, stupid comment to a reporter.
That's the beginning and end of it.
If you'd like to pretend that his arrest somehow prevented mass killings of canadian jews, that's your perogative, of course.
But here in the real world, we call that foolishness.
And on that note, I'm goin' to bed. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
The Nuremberg speeches are conjecture, are they?
The fact that we are still grappling with the aftermath of that era is conjecture, is it?
I'd say far more people have died on the pyre of Nazi expression in the last 60 years than ever dreamt of fleeing theatres due to any alarm.
I was not aware that the star of our thread quoted anything from the Nuremberg speeches. I was not aware they had anything to do with the case at hand. Perhaps you have access to more of this man's words than I? |
You see no connection between Nazi ideology, the killing of millions of people for no crime, and a man saying that they were right?
What sort of willful ignorance award are you after?
quote:
BZZT. Wrong. Again.
Success is not the measure that he got prosecuted for. He got prosecuted for crossing the line. Whether he incited a single act or not is not relevant.
Now, if you wish to deny that other people have been able to get others to act on their words, you are free to do so. You'll be a right silly bastard, but you are free to do so.
Crossed a line by having an opinon. And that speaks to the heart of the matter. You may find that this line's current position is a right comfy one. That is your perogative.
I disagree, and that is mine. |
Crossed a line by inciting hatred, doing it publically, and doing it more than once.
He didn't simply have an opinion.
quote:
You have (you, meaning supporters of this law) failed utterly to demonstrate how his "line crossing" had ANYTHING to do with increased instances of violence, which is the very thing this law seeks to prevent.
That his speech (not actions, mind you, speech) in no way led to an increase of violence against the people his opinion was against, points to the utter uselessness of this law. |
How do you know this? It seems to me that you are assuming a lot.
I have no idea if his words have spurred action, and I live here. I simply admit that I am not going to be able to describe to you the inner working of the mind of every loon who has committed a racially motivatted crime in Canada over the past year.
And again, success is not what he was prosecuted for. Are you just ignoring that?
quote:
It prevented nothing, because there was nothing to prevent.
Except freedom of thought, as we have already covered. |
There is nothing to prevent, is there?
Are you a spokesman for Ernst Zundel? The Aryan Nations? The Klan? The Nazis? The PLO?
You assume a lot, if I may say so.
quote:
Yes...Under specific circumstances (none of which were met by this buffoon), actions can stem directly from the spoken word. No denying that.
Just as there's no denying that this wasn't one of those times, no matter how hard you squeeze your eyes shut and wish it were so. |
So, you've granted that such expression can be harmful in this context. Thank you very much.
You'll have to forgive a Canadian court, acting without your enlightened presence to lead them, for getting it wrong.
quote:
No, Vel, you should be smarter than that. There is no current problem with anti-Mongol hate crime.
Do try to keep up with current evernts, will you?
Ahhh, so because there have been no headline making events in your neck of the wood...because the Jewish people have been getting more airtime, then there's no problem, right? Even one's too many, right? Isn't that what you said? And surely in all the wide world, there's at least ONE act of violence against someone of Mongol descent. |
Find me the loon saying Mongols should be killed, and I'll forward the information to the Crown attorney. Deal?
quote:
But...you'll try to deflect the argument again, cos it doesn't win any points to stand the current ground.
Understandable, but also pointing clearly to that quicksand you're standing on. |
Deflect what? Your hand-wringing over the loss of your right to promote hatred if you ever come to Canada?
Perhaps you think your denial of recent history is firm ground to stand upon?
quote:
Deflect what? More red herrings?
In case you hadn't noticed, I of the sort that likes fish.
Deflect what indeed. Deflect the argument away from the fact that thus far, your side has yet to come up with a single shred of evidence that this man a) was in any way attempting to incite violence against the jews, b) was in any way attempting to coerce or convince anyone to act on his behalf, and c) was in any way making a statement to further a genocidal agenda.
He made an ill considered, stupid comment to a reporter.
That's the beginning and end of it. |
No. He made the comments, got lambasted, and then repeated them.
Apparently he doesn't share your view of the end of it.
quote:
If you'd like to pretend that his arrest somehow prevented mass killings of canadian jews, that's your perogative, of course. |
I don't. I never did. That is one more straw man.
I said that he did something wrong and he got prosecuted for it.
Nice try to put words in my mouth though.
Last edited by notyoueither on 16-07-2005 at 12:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
You see no connection between Nazi ideology, the killing of millions of people for no crime, and a man saying that they were right?
What sort of willful ignorance award are you after?
Sure I see a connection. Just not the same one you do. About the only connection I see is that he referenced the historical event in his speech. You seem to think he had a plan and an agenda.
Crossed a line by inciting hatred, doing it publically, and doing it more than once.
He didn't simply have an opinion.
Advice: Look up the word "incite" and get back to me.
The man did no such thing.
How do you know this? It seems to me that you are assuming a lot.
I have no idea if his words have spurred action, and I live here. I simply admit that I am not going to be able to describe to you the inner working of the mind of every loon who has committed a racially motivatted crime in Canada over the past year.
And again, success is not what he was prosecuted for. Are you just ignoring that?
Hey...it's your law. According to you, this man said something that was liable to increase acts of violence against the jews.
He got arrested after the fact, which meant that the damage had already been done. Thus, we should have seen a measurable increase of acts of violence against the jews in canada after this man's words became widely known. The problem with your little puzzle box here, is that we didn't. Nothing of the kind was reported, which blows a rather large-sized hole in your position.
There is nothing to prevent, is there?
Are you a spokesman for Ernst Zundel? The Aryan Nations? The Klan? The Nazis? The PLO?
You assume a lot, if I may say so.
Nope, and this guy's not a spokesman for any of those groups either. Kindly stop treating him as though he were.
So, you've granted that such expression can be harmful in this context. Thank you very much.
You'll have to forgive a Canadian court, acting without your enlightened presence to lead them, for getting it wrong.
Yes. I freely admit that under certain very specific circumstances, speech can lead directly to action or the plan FOR action.
And, had you bothered to READ my post, I said that this guy met NONE of the requirements for doing so.
Or...to put in your language...BZZZZT! Wrong again.
Find me the loon saying Mongols should be killed, and I'll forward the information to the Crown attorney. Deal?
I just said it. Last page. And obviously you take me to be a loon. Better run along now and report me, 'eh?
Deflect what? Your hand-wringing over the loss of your right to promote hatred if you ever come to Canada?
Perhaps you think your denial of recent history is firm ground to stand upon?
Nope. More like the fact that you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that your law does what it says it will do. That being, protect those poor, innocent minority groups. And when asked for such evidence, you freely admit that you can't provide any, and then try to take the argument in ANY other direction to minimize the impact of your failure to produce any tangible evidence to support your argument.
No. He made the comments, got lambasted, and then repeated them.
Apparently he doesn't share your view of the end of it.
I didn't say the man was smart, but again, stupidity isn't a crime in most places. Canada notwithstanding, apparently.
quote:
If you'd like to pretend that his arrest somehow prevented mass killings of canadian jews, that's your perogative, of course.
I don't. I never did. That is one more straw man.
I said that he did something wrong and he got prosecuted for it.
Nice try to put words in my mouth though.
Oh yes you did, good sir. Oh yes you did. Earlier you stated that the purpose of this law was to prevent harm from befalling those poor defenseless minority groups in Canada (implication: Harm WILL befall those groups without this law in place), AND you have repeatedly brought up the fact that there is an atmosphere of violence against the jewish population, AND you continually refer to this man's words as a call to incite further violence against the jews.
Nice attempt to dodge what you said tho.
I'm saying that prosecutors would take your words, current situations, and likely effects into account.
Contrary to your belief, Canadian courts are not jonsing for an opportunity to pass judgement on people for things they say.
Ahhh...well, given their less-than-enlightened decision in the case of Dingleberry here, forgive me for being less than enthusiastic about my chances.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-07-2005 09:54
Oh, yes yes!
|
|