nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What do you think should not be given a platform?

Gimme A Pound

There's no such thing as free speech. This isn't my opinion - it's a fact. You can't publish or broadcast absolutely anything you want, and you never could. Even the oft cited U.S. First Amendment has a bunch of exceptions attached to it.

Freedom of speech is more of an accurate term than free speech, as it implies limits. It applies to the state though, not every organisation. In this country, you don't get sent to prison for expressing your views - and rightly so. Private companies can censor you if they want, without breaching the right to freedom of speech - although I don't agree with monopolies like Facebook, Twitter and Google doing so when it's just a view that's not liberal. Ditto the press. Might not be state run but has a duty to report the truth. And police intervention in the UK regarding tweets is just a whole load of crazy.

But not everything should be given a platform. In my opinion this applies to certain anti vaccination folks. I'm not talking about people asking questions, expressing concerns. But those folk who cite some guy/girl on Facebook as valid research, and because their position is so weak they get defensive and angry, and the absolute vileness of the things they say to and about parents of children who are ill and vaccinated (or not vaccinated). These people should be banned. Not just for being nasty ***** but for the dangerous misinformation they are spreading in relation to a life/death public health matter, and endangering their children. Babies of pre vaccine age shouldn't be at risk because of stupidity and pigheadedness.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh, no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was Beauty killed the Beast.

Wrong thread?

JupiterKid

Dissudent republican terrorists intent on reigniting the Troubles and its senseless cycle of death, misery and violence who have the sheer gall to openly march on our national thoroughfare yesterday.

Your Face

Oh I don't know.
Squirrels?

Capt'n Midnight

NSAman wrote: »

Trains

In America the trains have steps so they don't need platforms that would be needed in civilised places.

NSAman

Trains

n97 mini

People who don't add "Joe" after saying "It's a disgrace"

Bugs the crap out of me when people don't get offended properly.

Capt'n Midnight

lbc2019 wrote: »

Irish Rail

/gets coat

I was going to suggest London Underground , at least until they get trains that fit the platform.

lbc2019

Irish Rail

/gets coat

rays cyst

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

Sprained my ankle in a nightclub. :mad:

Mr Pussy should definitely not have been given those platforms

Gimme A Pound

Some bunch of spiteful individuals here. They get some right enjoyment out of pretending people say or agree with things they don't. Imagine being that way.

BBFAN

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

No, YOU and all the other distorters of what people say need a serious look at YOURselves.

If a person has those feelings involuntarily, what crime have they committed? It only becomes a crime if they touch a child or download child pornography. What they should be doing once they have such feelings is seeking treatment and keeping as far away from children as possible. But you left that bit out.

I don't know whether fancying children is an orientation or not. Certainly can't state categorically that it isn't, but that doesn't in any way mean I think it's ok or normal - what with me saying they should seek treatment and all. Chemical castration if needs be.

I agree, those who say it's normal should not be given a platform.

You said it might not be incorrect, that's all I need to know, thanks.

Gimme A Pound

biko wrote: »

That's not what the first amendment is about.

Aw... you couldn't respond to my questions.

Gimme A Pound

BBFAN wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean. Anyone trying to make out it's normal to be attracted to children does not need a platform EVER EVER EVER.

This is how these guys start rings around the world where they share this crap.

By trying to justify themselves.

You need a serious look at yourself.

No, YOU and all the other distorters of what people say need a serious look at YOURselves.

If a person has those feelings involuntarily, what crime have they committed? It only becomes a crime if they touch a child or download child pornography. What they should be doing once they have such feelings is seeking treatment and keeping as far away from children as possible. But you left that bit out.

I don't know whether fancying children is an orientation or not. Certainly can't state categorically that it isn't, but that doesn't in any way mean I think it's ok or normal - what with me saying they should seek treatment and all. Chemical castration if needs be.

I agree, those who say it's normal should not be given a platform.

BBFAN

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

Definitely don't agree there. It's just an opinion and may not be incorrect. If someone feels attraction to children and obviously doesn't go near children, and gets treatment, well all they've done is think things.

This is exactly what I mean. Anyone trying to make out it's normal to be attracted to children does not need a platform EVER EVER EVER.

This is how these guys start rings around the world where they share this crap.

By trying to justify themselves.

You need a serious look at yourself.

biko

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote: »

Oh wait, even the first amendment has a bunch of exceptions attached to it. Freedom of speech isn't absolute - never was.

That's not what the first amendment is about.

The First Amendment of the Constitution Act 1939 amended the Constitution of Ireland to extend the constitutional definition of "time of war" to include a period during which a war occurs without the state itself being a direct participant.

Gimme A Pound

Pretty Polky wrote: »

Me after I fell off a pair years ago in the way into the off licence.
Id have gotten over it if it was after consumption but limping in was not one of my finest moments in life.

Sprained my ankle in a nightclub. :mad:

Pretty Polky

Me after I fell off a pair years ago in the way into the off licence.
Id have gotten over it if it was after consumption but limping in was not one of my finest moments in life.

Gimme A Pound

BBFAN wrote: »

Anyone who claims that sexual attraction towards children is a preference should be banned from everywhere for life.

Definitely don't agree there. It's just an opinion and may not be incorrect. If someone feels attraction to children and obviously doesn't go near children, and gets treatment, well all they've done is think things.

BBFAN

Anyone who claims that sexual attraction towards children is a preference should be banned from everywhere for life.

Gimme A Pound

touts wrote: »

If you can't argue against them and have to ban them to win in the short term then in reality they are winning in the long term.

Absolutely when children's health/lives aren't at risk.

touts

If you can't argue against them and have to ban them to win in the short term then in reality they are winning in the long term.

Gimme A Pound

biko wrote: »

Either you believe your worst enemy should be allowed to speak, or you don't really believe in freedom of speech.

This is such glib bollox - ok with kids being verbally bullied are you? I mean it's "freedom of speech"?

Oh wait, even the US first amendment has a bunch of exceptions attached to it. Freedom of speech isn't absolute - never was. That's why it's not called free speech and is called freedom of speech instead. Actually there was way more censorship in the past.

Why is there always such dishonesty and distortion of what people say on this topic?

I don't think opinions or supported facts should be censored at all.

I do think dangerous lies and systematic harassment should be.

Gimme A Pound

biko wrote: »

Yay, another "something that should be free.............................but..."

Who said that and what are the other threads? (Oh wait, it's biko - lack of reply imminent).

biko

Yay, another "something that should be free.............................but..."

Either you believe your worst enemy should be allowed to speak, or you don't really believe in freedom of speech.

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You think someone disagreeing with banning opposing views is hostile? Now that's bizarre.

But that's not what I said - I disagree with being told I said something which I didn't. What is your problem?

Plumbthedepths

Ariadne Eager Patio wrote:

Because of your bizarre hostility towards my view, and stating I said something which I didn't say. The one thing (only one) I said I believed should not be given a platform is misinformation/harassment when it comes to childhood vaccinations - nothing else, yet you said "So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?", "I can only assume Earth" when someone asked where I think this should be banned from (obviously from being published - where else would I mean), "Of course you don't. ;-)" when I said, backing myself up, that I don't support censorship of anyone whom I believe is wrong (and I don't just believe people who spread misinformation about childhood vaccinations are wrong - they objectively ARE wrong).

You think someone disagreeing with banning opposing views is hostile? Now that's bizarre.

Gimme A Pound

BattleCorp wrote: »

Who decides what constitutes verbal abuse? If I say to Donald Trump that he is doing a 'sh1te job', does that constitute verbal abuse?

Obviously not. That whole thing of "who decides", "where do you draw the line" etc could be said about anything. Sustained verbal abuse and harassment and intimidatory behaviour towards an individual (not the president of the USA who has a Secret Service team and millions of supporters on the flipside) in the form of messages - should this be given a platform?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nothing at all, as far as I'm concerned. No-platforming is a cancer on democracy and on internet freedom.

Not misinformation that's potentially dangerous and it appears is spreading and leading to an increase in preventable illnesses? Not sustained verbal abuse and harassment like above? Not advocating violence? Child abuse?

Of course there are things that shouldn't be given a platform.

When it comes to opinions or statements based on fact - even if not very palatable - that's different. The censorship of those is endorsed by some, and I certainly don't agree with that, but this thing of absolutely nothing whatsoever should be refused a platform... it's pretty disingenuous, and stubborn.

On this thread there are also people just listing people and views they don't like - that's just as useless.

How come it's always so hard to have a conversation about this topic?

Gimme A Pound

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Can you explain the reasoning behind this accusation and it's purpose?

Because of your bizarre hostility towards my view, and stating I said something which I didn't say. The one thing (only one) I said I believed should not be given a platform is misinformation/harassment when it comes to childhood vaccinations - nothing else, yet you said "So basically you want the views of others banned if you believe they are wrong?", "I can only assume Earth" when someone asked where I think this should be banned from (obviously from being published - where else would I mean), "Of course you don't. ;-)" when I said, backing myself up, that I don't support censorship of anyone whom I believe is wrong (and I don't just believe people who spread misinformation about childhood vaccinations are wrong - they objectively ARE wrong).

So on the basis of the above, I - logically - told you I suspected you are an anti vaccines person. I didn't say you are one, I said I suspect you are one, which I did - and not to take it personally if so. You on the other hand told me what I think, despite me making it clear I don't. How come it's ok for you to tell someone what they think, but not for them to tell you what they suspect what you think?

RobbingBandit

Vegan agenda, **** off with your imported food flown in from thousands of miles away you counterintuitive nonsensical fascists.

kowloon

padd b1975 wrote: »

Anyone who tells me how to live my life but earns less than me.

But you're fine with wealthier people doing it?