Vladamir Putin a clear and present danger to peace in Europe.

Elmer Blooker

InTheTrees wrote: »

I missed this before.

Funny.

YOU dont seem to grasp the concept of Free Speech at all.

Short of child porn, or actual death threats (maybe), It actually does mean you can print "deliberate lies to mislead".

Interesting that you should mention "deliberate lies"
Heres the latest lie from this sinister organization.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/215255-nato-russian-incursion-into-ukraine-happened-overnight
They have been telling us for six months now that the Russians are "massed" along the border and ready to invade, they haven't so lets invent an invasion! The first casualty of war is the truth!
I know these NATO countries like to play "war games" - it seems that in their latest game they pretend that the Russians have invaded Ukraine!

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

So do you think that's ok?

Whats okay? People telling lies or letting people tell lies?

The question you really should be asking is how would you begin to stop people from telling lies? And how you would define "lies"?

How would you deal with religion? There's a lot of conflicting opinion in religion so some of them must be lying right? So you'd have to decide who was lying and then censor them. I'd be interested to know what criteria you'd use for that.

And would you outlaw casual lies? Could people sue each other for lying? You'd need to establish a Ministry Of Truth, so you could "help" people differentiate between Lies and Truth wouldnt you?

And what about critics of your rules? You should clamp down on people telling lies about how awful your new rules are.

And on and on it goes, down the slope into censorship and oppression.

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

So do you think that's ok?

So please describe how you would clamp down on free speech then?

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whats okay? People telling lies or letting people tell lies?

The question you really should be asking is how would you begin to stop people from telling lies? And how you would define "lies"?

How would you deal with religion? There's a lot of conflicting opinion in religion so some of them must be lying right? So you'd have to decide who was lying and then censor them. I'd be interested to know what criteria you'd use for that.

And would you outlaw casual lies? Could people sue each other for lying? You'd need to establish a Ministry Of Truth, so you could "help" people differentiate between Lies and Truth wouldnt you?

And what about critics of your rules? You should clamp down on people telling lies about how awful your new rules are.

And on and on it goes, down the slope into censorship and oppression.

you should read back to my post-i said DELIBERATE lies- this thread isn't about religion or the beliefs of people,people who follow/practice religion believe in it,. Media putting in deliberate lies,knowingly doing so,are deceiving people intentionally,i'm asking you,do you think that's right,

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

So please describe how you would clamp down on free speech then?

why would i want to clamp down on free speech,?

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

Whats okay? People telling lies or letting people tell lies?

The question you really should be asking is how would you begin to stop people from telling lies? And how you would define "lies"?

How would you deal with religion? There's a lot of conflicting opinion in religion so some of them must be lying right? So you'd have to decide who was lying and then censor them. I'd be interested to know what criteria you'd use for that.

And would you outlaw casual lies? Could people sue each other for lying? You'd need to establish a Ministry Of Truth, so you could "help" people differentiate between Lies and Truth wouldnt you?

And what about critics of your rules? You should clamp down on people telling lies about how awful your new rules are.

And on and on it goes, down the slope into censorship and oppression.

eh,the opposite of the truth:rolleyes:

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

eh,the opposite of the truth:rolleyes:

Oh come on you can do better than that.

You said people shouldnt be able to tell deliberate lies.

So can you describe how you would enforce that?

MRnotlob606

I'ts also worth noting that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe.

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

Oh come on you can do better than that.

You said people shouldnt be able to tell deliberate lies.

So can you describe how you would enforce that?

i didn't say anything about enforcing it- why won't you answer my question

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

why would i want to clamp down on free speech,?

Because you said people shouldnt be able to tell deliberate lies.

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

Because you said people shouldnt be able to tell deliberate lies.

didn't say people,i said media and i asked do you think it's ok?

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

i didn't say anything about enforcing it- why won't you answer my question

What question.

You've said free speech means some people shouldnt tell deliberate lies but you're unclear on what a "deliberate lie" is.

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

didn't say people,i said media and i asked do you think it's ok?

Ah ok.

So you're fine with censoring the press?

Not censoring individuals though?

And you still havent given a definition of these "deliberate" lies? Presumably honest mistakes are okay?

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

didn't say people,i said media and i asked do you think it's ok?

Freedom of the Press is kind of a cornerstone of a free society.

So yes.

Its fascinating to see you try and justify a censored news media. Please explain more!

AbusesToilets

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Interesting that you should mention "deliberate lies"
Heres the latest lie from this sinister organization.
http://thehill.com/policy/international/215255-nato-russian-incursion-into-ukraine-happened-overnight
They have been telling us for six months now that the Russians are "massed" along the border and ready to invade, they haven't so lets invent an invasion! The first casualty of war is the truth!
I know these NATO countries like to play "war games" - it seems that in their latest game they pretend that the Russians have invaded Ukraine!

They did invade the Ukraine, months ago, in Crimea.

AbusesToilets

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I'ts also worth noting that Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe.

Impossible, Ireland is a part of Europe.

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

Ah ok.

So you're fine with censoring the press?

Not censoring individuals though?

And you still havent given a definition of these "deliberate" lies? Presumably honest mistakes are okay?

simple question and you can't answer

mulbot

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They did invade the Ukraine, months ago, in Crimea.

they actually didn't

AbusesToilets

mulbot wrote: »

they actually didn't

Just imagined all those Russian uniformed troops in the Crimea so?

mulbot

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Just imagined all those Russian uniformed troops in the Crimea so?

go read back the thread,you'll find some answers there(Russia already had troops there for years,go research your history)

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

simple question and you can't answer

Seriously?

I've said over and over again.

"Deliberate lies" are part of free speech.

You seem to have no concept or idea of what freedom of speech actually means. And as you are a supporter of Putin I suppose that does make sense.

You're arguing around in circles that you think deliberate lies by the media shouldnt be allowed but you cant define what that means. It seems to be anything you dont personally agree with, or anything that contradicts an opinion you agree with.

And now you've lapsed into obfuscation to try and divert attention.

"simple question and you can't answer"?? Really?

How about giving us all a definition of Free Speech?

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

go read back the thread,you'll find some answers there(Russia already had troops there for years,go research your history)

You dont like to make much effort to back up your claims do you?

Maybe you're busy researching the fourth estate. One can hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

AbusesToilets

mulbot wrote: »

go read back the thread,you'll find some answers there(Russia already had troops there for years,go research your history)

Here are some news articles, from a variety of sources, quoting Putin as he refers to the recent situation in the Crimea. The Russian conducted a classic Unconventional Warfare operation, utilizing special forces troops to support local militia groups to overthrow the government power.

http://rt.com/news/crimea-defense-russian-soldiers-108/

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/vladimir-putin-admits-russian-forces-helped-crimea-separatists-n82756

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/putin-ukraine_n_5165913.html

Those links are just from a quick google search. The Russian have had a Naval presence in the region for decades. The troops mentioned as being involved in the uprising were not part of those forces. Securing that access to the sea was likely one of the main reasons for Russian actions.

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

Seriously?

I've said over and over again.

"Deliberate lies" are part of free speech.

You seem to have no concept or idea of what freedom of speech actually means. And as you are a supporter of Putin I suppose that does make sense.

You're arguing around in circles that you think deliberate lies by the media shouldnt be allowed but you cant define what that means. It seems to be anything you dont personally agree with, or anything that contradicts an opinion you agree with.

And now you've lapsed into obfuscation to try and divert attention.

"simple question and you can't answer"?? Really?

How about giving us all a definition of Free Speech?

i think we've seen the best example of irony ever

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

i think we've seen the best example of irony ever

why?

mulbot

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Here are some news articles, from a variety of sources, quoting Putin as he refers to the recent situation in the Crimea. The Russian conducted a classic Unconventional Warfare operation, utilizing special forces troops to support local militia groups to overthrow the government power.

http://rt.com/news/crimea-defense-russian-soldiers-108/

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/vladimir-putin-admits-russian-forces-helped-crimea-separatists-n82756

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/putin-ukraine_n_5165913.html

Those links are just from a quick google search. The Russian have had a Naval presence in the region for decades. The troops mentioned as being involved in the uprising were not part of those forces. Securing that access to the sea was likely one of the main reasons for Russian actions.

really? you know the in-depth policies of the Russian government? And do you think the Russian troops from the naval service spend their lives on a boat? No,there are people running the base there who dont go to sea at all-extra troops brought in cannot be considered to be invading,

Corkfeen

mulbot wrote: »

really? you know the in-depth policies of the Russian government? And do you think the Russian troops from the naval service spend their lives on a boat? No,there are people running the base there who dont go to sea at all-extra troops brought in cannot be considered to be invading,

Crimea was annexed while troop presence had increased. Ya that's invading tbh, a referendum organised within a week isn't ever going to be legitimate.

AbusesToilets

mulbot wrote: »

really? you know the in-depth policies of the Russian government? And do you think the Russian troops from the naval service spend their lives on a boat? No,there are people running the base there who dont go to sea at all-extra troops brought in cannot be considered to be invading,

So you're just going to ignore Putin's own words where he explicitly states that Russian special forces were brought in to help the Separatists overthrow the Ukrainian government?

By your logic, you wouldn't consider it an invasion if the US sent in armored columns into Berlin to seize the city because they've had bases there for decades?

mulbot

InTheTrees wrote: »

You dont like to make much effort to back up your claims do you?

Maybe you're busy researching the fourth estate. One can hope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

i see you still ducked the question i put to you? fourth estate? fourth branch is more appropriate to western media

InTheTrees

mulbot wrote: »

i see you still ducked the question i put to you?

What question? I keep asking what question when you try this tactic.

I've asked you over and over and over to describe what Free Speech means to you and you dont answer. I've given links to wiki's, I've asked over and over.

At some point this becomes trolling doesnt it?