God Hates Fags

No lasting damage WTF? being trooden on your entire life wouldnt affect you , no?

Yes it would. But then I would seek to address the larger societal issues which cause me to be downtrodden, not to criminalise the speech of a few idiots who may hang around the odd street corner and sling slurs at passers by. I also think you're exaggerating. Minorities generally do not tend to go through life being harassed and insulted at random. The persecution they face is far more invious than that. Anyway, there is a tendency to always view minorities, and every member therein, as perpetual victims. They're not, and laws shouldn't be drafted which assume this. For example, Barack Obama is surely a member of minority. Alan Shatter too. Should people be arrested for referring to them in a xenophobic manner? Of course not, and I'd wager they'd be the first to dimiss such a proposal out of hand.

Any idea what its like to be in a miniority in society ?? didnt think so.

I'm sorry, but how would you know? It's not wise to make assumptions about people you don't know just because they happen to disagree with you.

You've just made the whole point but cant seem to see it .... this is inciting hatred.

It's not. There's a huge differnece, logically and legally, between expressing an offensive opinion and inciting hatred against an individual or a group.

You might think homosexuality is a sin also, doesnt mean you have the right to stand on a step ladder shouting it at people.

I hope you're using "you" in the sense of "one" here, and not directing it towards me?

And I do believe one has the right to do just that. Otherwise, we'll have to call in the pilice to raid a fair few churches and places of worship in this country and around the world.

Brianna Limited Pimple wrote: »

Well, there are degrees to which free speech should be practiced, that should not continue to the level of racial slurs or the likes. Speak your mind, but there's no need to be like that to other people, you know?

I completely disagree with you on this I should be allowed say whatever I fell like saying and no one should have the right to imprison me for doing so, even if it is deemed a racial slur by some.

Doc wrote: »

I completely disagree with you on this I should be allowed say whatever I fell like saying and no one should have the right to imprison me for doing so, even if it is deemed a racial slur by some.

Well, trying going into an airport, while screaming about Allah..... see how that goes down, as is your right, with free speech an all

Like I said earlier, there's a right to free speach and there's inciting hatred and being a racist/gay basher. Neither are acceptable and both should be punished.

Inciting hatred and causing offence are two entirely different things though; one causes actual harm to a person or groups, the other doesn't. I'm actually deeply uneasy about the way that free speech is espoused on this thread as an ideal, and yet followed by the suggestion that those who say things we don't like, should be punished. Again, who decides what's acceptable?

I honestly cannot make a comment on gingers as it's in a different categorey.

One of your justifications for your stance is the pain and suffering, indeed mental anguish, that offensive remarks might engender. The ability to take genuine offence isn't confined within a particular race or orientation, and therefore the legislation that would seek to mitigate it would have to be similarly wide ranging. It would be absurd to prosecute a racist on behalf of a black person who didn't take offence to a slur, but dismiss the genuine offence and pain that a woman/redhead/handicapped person might take should a vile comment be directed towards them

My question was:

For what reason would a person have to use the N word towards somebody? What is the point? Their aim?

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. There are a lot of pointless things in the world (some might even say that arguing at 5am on boards is one of them:eek:), but we don't seek to prohibit them. The legality of a thing doesn't depend on its usefulness or otherwise.

It sure can, over a period of time. Once off that person may have a problem with the area in which the situation occured. This doesn't mean they have mental health issues. It means they are human and assosiate that place with negative feelings. It's quite normal. We are not talking electro shock therapy here, or luny bins. Councelling could be sought afterwards. It would depend on the situation. If somebody said it once, or if they followed the person shouting and being aggressive... I could understand how somebody could be effected by that.

Fair enough. But then you'd have to grant that a redhead/burn victim/handicapped person might also feel the same way when at the receiving end of a vicious jibe. But you won't admit that because is exposes the logical limitations of your policy. Your argument necessitates denying that anyone other than people of colour or homosexuals can be pained by slurs on their character. This, you know, is untrue. You're admitted so yourself.

Free from the torment of others is what I was getting at. How can you not understand that people can be effected, however small the incident. In a similar way, people are not effected by serious incidents.

Again, how can you not understand that a redhair/woman/amputee might be as grievously affected by such incidents? You do undertand I think, but choose to obfuscate because to do otherwise undermines your argument.

The state would, as they do with all laws. What the person may find to be offensive is another things.

So the state should prosecute someone on a black persons behalf, even if the "victim" doesn't feel victimised? Again, the problem arises, where does one draw the line?

You said ginger, it's staying that way :P

Ok then, a comprimise. Venetian blonde?

Red heads get a load of crap too, but not to the extent as Africans or Gays, where they have been persecuted to death through out history. I am unaware of any ginger death squads or the likes. Were they targeted by the nazis? No idea.

They weren't persecuted but that's not the point. We can't prosecute people now on the basis of past abuses suffered by his victim's antecedents. And your points rest on offence being caused, which has absolutely nothing to do with historical actions. Offence is, as I keep on coming back to, purely subjective. A Jew, with all the tribulations that his people have undergone, may not take umbrage at an anti-semitic remark. An amputee may be grieviously pained by a slur directed at him. Do we discount the suffering of the latter, and take offence on behalf of the former for the sake of his forebears? As you can see, we're only skimming the =surface here, and it's already bogged down. You simply cannot legislate for offence.

Well you would have to use descretion. I don't think southpark incites hatred, but rather takes the piss out of everything.

That's because you probably like South Park. But it often uses racial or ethnic stereotypes to make a wider point. Many people however, don't see beyond what they consider the racism or sexism or homophobia, and take offence. Just look at furore over the depiction of the prophet Mohammad last week, or the outrage caused by the publishing of the Danish cartoons. Many Muslims were genuinely offended by it all. But you weren't so it's ok, no harm done!

I don't like the idea of it being ok for somebody to throw racial slurs in public and it being perfectly legal under the freedom of speech act. Something not right about it.

It's not right. It's morally and ethically wrong. But we have to make comprimises if we want to live in a free society. And allowing some idiots to spew their bile is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for safeguarding our right to free speech.

Also, there's no need to use the N word in it's entirity. There are other ways of saying it without spelling it out. It's an eyesore.

Sorry, to abbreviate the word nigger is pointless, because you know what it means, and read it in full in your head. It serves no purpose to omit a few letters.

And now I'm off to comb my golden curls of Venetian/Strawberry blonde hair before I go to bed!

MagicMarker wrote: »

eh?

In the Bible like, not in reality! No-one could read the Bible and claim it's gay-friendly. Since it explicitly says a man should not lie with another man and it's the word of God, it's not much of a stretch to assume God in that context wouldn't be a fan of homosexuality.

Quite why an all powerful creator would create gay people then damn them for being gay isn't clear....

starbelgrade wrote: »

I've always found that the Church's views on homosexuality are not very, well, Christian.

The church's views on most things are not very christian. In fact as far as i can see the only church with a christian outlook is the church of the flying spaghetti monster.
Pastafarianism people...... for a better world:D

Looks like we`ve come full circle, 50 years ago you`d get arrested for saying homosexuality is not a sin, now you`d get arrested for saying it is !

Can`t say I blame him though, street preachers must get annoying after a while !

Quite why an all powerful creator would create gay people then damn them for being gay isn't clear....

Not to bring AH down to the level of the theology forum or anything.. but the whole debate there is centred around free will, afaik the church believes its all the mind, like other the other sins, aka being gay is like robbing a bank. The counter argument is that your born gay, eg its a gene or something to the effect.