anyone watching that <snip> on prime time

My name is URL

blacklilly wrote: »

How Miriam kept her composure, particularly in regards to the last sad excuse for a human being is beyond me.

He was so smug and aggressive in his body language, pointing to the camera in nearly a threatening manner.

Comparing the killings in Paris to that of the killings in Iraq, the killings in Paris were due to some little retarded fundamentalist f*ckface who took offence to cartoons depicting their oh so scared religion in a bad light.
The absolute irony of it is near unbelievable.

People like this man should not be tolerated, his opinions should not be aired

Well now that's fairly ironic too tbh

Fcuk him but he's entitled to his opinion and should be free to share it.

What were RTE thinking by giving him a platform though? He's not exactly a stranger to the media so they would have known full well what position he'd be taking on it.

Meanwhile, the French ambassador to Ireland was on the Vincent Browne show... which seems like a far more appropriate guest to have on in the wake of such a tragedy.

The_Kew_Tour

newmug wrote: »

You go away aswell with your racism. "That bad" and "yikes". Muslim =/= murderer.

Lol

OK Mr I haven't a ****ing clue what I'm talking about

The_Kew_Tour

Vice news on youtube have videos about demonstrations in Germany and Sweden.

Its getting out of hand going by them.

Amirani

newmug wrote: »

Go away u fool, 12 people were murdered by a nutcase group who even killed one of their own, now is not the time to pretend you're a victim.






You go away aswell with your racism. "That bad" and "yikes". Muslim =/= murderer.

Not exactly racism. There's generally a high correlation with levels of religiosity and how messed up a State is. Bemoaning the growth of the religious population, Muslim or otherwise, seems a pretty rational stance to take.

Secular Sweden has done pretty well for itself.

blacklilly

My name is URL wrote: »

Well now that's fairly ironic too tbh

Fcuk him but he's entitled to his opinion and should be free to share it.

What were RTE thinking by giving him a platform though? He's not exactly a stranger to the media so they would have known full well what position he'd be taking on it.

Meanwhile, the French ambassador to Ireland was on the Vincent Browne show... which seems like a far more appropriate guest to have on in the wake of such a tragedy.

I don't see the irony in my comment. While freedom of speech is of course so important, in fact vital in any democracy, the problem is that there are people who become brainwashed by listening to a person like this and it must also be acknowledged that some opinions are not valid in a civilised society.
I think RTE made a big mistake giving him air time.

better call saul

Can someone explain all the snips? I've been under a rock the last few days

newmug

K4t wrote: »

Even if that is true, it does not mean that absolute freedom of speech is wrong. You can't have your own idea of freedom of speech with limits attached, or else you're are just quoting that idiot on prime time tonight.

Paisley didn't force people to murder each other, and certainly not by the use of his tongue.

Are you simple or something? OF FCUKING COURSE there should be limits on freedom of speech, it should stop when it becomes HATE! This is exactly why the loyalists killed people, because they listened to paisley and his inciting verbal poison, and a lot of them were simple ba$tards who acted on what he said!


Believe it or not, there are some window-licking fcukwits out there who kill others, and themselves, because other people encourage them!

K4t

blacklilly wrote: »

I don't see the irony in my comment. While freedom of speech is of course so important, in fact vital in any democracy, the problem is that there are people who become brainwashed by listening to a person like this and it must also be acknowledged that some opinions are not valid in a civilised society.
I think RTE made a big mistake giving him air time.

Never.

They may be invalid but evenso people should never be denied the freedom to express those opinions.

fryup

blacklilly wrote: »

I don't see the irony in my comment. While freedom of speech is of course so important, in fact vital in any democracy, the problem is that there are people who become brainwashed by listening to a person like this and it must also be acknowledged that some opinions are not valid in a civilised society.
I think RTE made a big mistake giving him air time.

well it could be argued the same thing was said about gerry adams and SF not so long ago....and look at them now :cool:

Amirani

newmug wrote: »

Are you simple or something? OF FCUKING COURSE there should be limits on freedom of speech, it should stop when it becomes HATE! This is exactly why the loyalists killed people, because they listened to paisley and his inciting verbal poison, and a lot of them were simple ba$tards who acted on what he said!


Believe it or not, there are some window-licking fcukwits out there who kill others, and themselves, because other people encourage them!

Seems appropriate that we should ban the Quran so. Or at least Muhammad's murderous campaigns therein.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

the_syco

Trollhättan wrote: »

They let him rant too long!

I didn't see it, but I hope they gave him enough rope to hang himself.

blacklilly

K4t wrote: »

Never.

They may be invalid but evenso people should never be denied the freedom to express those opinions.

I have not at any stage said that they shouldn't b allowed voice their opinions, I have said that they shouldn't be given air time.

Also there are times when of course people can de denied the freedom of speech, this is written into our statute.

K4t

newmug wrote: »

Are you simple or something? OF FCUKING COURSE there should be limits on freedom of speech, it should stop when it becomes HATE! This is exactly why the loyalists killed people, because they listened to paisley and his inciting verbal poison, and a lot of them were simple ba$tards who acted on what he said!


Believe it or not, there are some window-licking fcukwits out there who kill others, and themselves, because other people encourage them!

-Yes, I'm simple, but if somebody told me to murder someone else I wouldn't automatically do it.
-Now you also say that the loyalists who killed after being inspired by Paisley are simple
-But I've just said I'm simple and wouldn't have murdered because Paisley told me to.
-So obviously Paisley's words don't have magical powers that fly out of his mouth and force a man to kill another man against his will.

blacklilly

fryup wrote: »

well it could be argued the same thing was said about gerry adams and SF not so long ago....and look at them now :cool:

This thread is not about Gerry Adams or SF

newmug

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Not exactly racism. There's generally a high correlation with levels of religiosity and how messed up a State is. Bemoaning the growth of the religious population, Muslim or otherwise, seems a pretty rational stance to take.

That's a very weird take on things. Completely religionless USSR? Basketcase. Worldwide Catholic HQ in Rome? Rome is one of Earth's finest cities. How messed up a state is, is completely down to its government. And to state that the Muslim population on the rise is "bad" is definitely xenophobic to say the least.

K4t

blacklilly wrote: »

I have not at any stage said that they shouldn't b allowed voice their opinions, I have said that they shouldn't be given air time.

In your opinion. I believe that they should be given air time because the more we know about these people the better.

Also there are times when of course people can de denied the freedom of speech, this is written into our statute.

And it's completely wrong and incredibly stupid.

fryup

blacklilly wrote: »

This thread is not about Gerry Adams or SF

my point is... some people were saying during the troubles that gerry adams shouldn't have been given air time because he was seen as a dangerous militant

in short..we can't ban people from the airwaves just because we don't agree with their views

Amirani

newmug wrote: »

That's a very weird take on things. Completely religionless USSR? Basketcase. Worldwide Catholic HQ in Rome? Rome is one of Earth's finest cities. How messed up a state is, is completely down to its government. And to state that the Muslim population on the rise is "bad" is definitely xenophobic to say the least.

Worldwide Catholic HQ is in the Vatican, which is a bit of a disaster as far as States go. Nothing got to do with Rome.

USSR effectively substited one warped ideology for another. Communism and democratic secularism aren't remotely close.

I said that rising levels of religiosity, which naturally includes Muslims but also includes about 1000 other religions is a bad thing for Sweden. This is xenophobic how?

newmug

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Seems appropriate that we should ban the Quran so. Or at least Muhammad's murderous campaigns therein.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

We should "ban" (or jail/deport/be wary of) people who act on it. Not jail people because they identify with it as their traditional belief system.

blacklilly

K4t wrote: »

And it's completely wrong and incredibly stupid.

I'm sorry, but are you actually serious or in some way trolling?

If someone incites hatred you think they should be granted freedom of speech?

If I get on the radio tomorrow and say that "we should all take our guns and kill every Muslim (for instance) we know" you think I should be afforded the right to say that?

take everything

WIT lecturer well able for that guy.
Only bit of sense in the debate.
Miriam O' Callaghan was poorish.

Amirani

newmug wrote: »

We should "ban" (or jail/deport/be wary of) people who act on it. Not jail people because they identify with it as their traditional belief system.

It promotes violence, similar to Ian Paisley supposedly, who you wanted to censor. How come promoting violence via the Quran is fair game in free speech terms?

Agricola

Wibbs wrote: »

TL;DR? to a Muslim, even a laissez faire Muslim, any attack on their prophet hits deep, way deeper than your average European may think, even a religious one. It's more an insult to them, as much as to the faith/prophet.

Yep, this is probably the thing most western/christian/secular (untick as necessary) people can't really get their head around. It's not the same as lampooning JC from a Christian perspective. It seems to be more like if a newspaper printed a cartoon of your own mother in a compromising position with a male sheep, with her name, address and a caption underneath saying "She loves it!"

Personally, in that eventuality I would probably seek legal advice rather than storm the head office killing people because of my huge offence. But that's just me.

ezra_pound

Vandango wrote: »

If the Pope doesn't speak for all Irish Catholics, then it's probably safe to say he doesn't speak for all Irish Muslims. So I don't know what qualifies you to state that he does. Carry out a nationwide survey by any chance?

The pope speaks for ALL Catholics. Not just the Irish ones.


If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.[145]

We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Saviour, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema."

K4t

blacklilly wrote: »

If someone incites hatred you think they should be granted freedom of speech?

Yes.

If I get on the radio tomorrow and say that "we should all take our guns and kill every Muslim (for instance) we know" you think I should be afforded the right to say that?

Yes. Do you think I would kill every Muslim I know? Also, just take a step back for a moment and try and see how condescending your post is towards the listeners, your neighbours.

Kermit.de.frog

I wonder how Trinity College feels about his views.

Molester Stallone II

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How do those fruitcakes get through passport control,

"Hi id love to come to your country and kill some of you"

Fáilte go hÉireann

Fáilte go Norn Iron

blacklilly

K4t wrote: »

Yes.

Yes. Do you think I would kill every Muslim I know? Also, just take a step back for a moment and try and see how condescending your post is towards the listeners, your neighbours.

I have no idea, I don't know you but it is absolutely naive to think that if I was speaking from a position of authority to some, that my words would have no influence on them.

Anyway, thankfully we live in a society where incitement of hatred is not tolerated.

blacklilly

Agricola wrote: »

Yep, this is probably the thing most western/christian/secular (untick as necessary) people can't really get their head around. It's not the same as lampooning JC from a Christian perspective. It seems to be more like if a newspaper printed a cartoon of your own mother in a compromising position with a male sheep, with her name, address and a caption underneath saying "She loves it!"

While I understand the deeply held conviction of various religions, it is not a rational, civilised response to kill people because they drew a picture that you took offence to.
These people are absolute fundamentalists and their actions are completely inexcusable and are rightfully being condemned by the vast majority of people, Governments and religious leaders.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

This snip fella sounds like a bit of a bollocks tbh.

both of 'em