South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 03, 2020, 19:37:53 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

France upholds conviction of Church of Scientology.

 (Read 2337 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2013, 19:40:42 PM »

So, wait, lemme rewind here.

Al, what you basically asked what was illegal that he thought shouldn't be, essentially asking for an opinion. - Let me digress here for a second and say I'm not a fan of people who set parameters on questions they ask. Such as: "Give me an example of X and this example Y that I can easily think of doesn't count" - Be that as it may....

You can't cite case law, or moreover, demand citations for an opinion ... then establish legal definitions and/or illegality as a counter-argument to someone opining that the law is incorrect. That's a bit circular, don't you think? A bit "You're wrong cause it says so in the bible and the bible's right because it says so in the bible".
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2013, 20:30:06 PM »

So, wait, lemme rewind here.

Al, what you basically asked what was illegal that he thought shouldn't be, essentially asking for an opinion. - Let me digress here for a second and say I'm not a fan of people who set parameters on questions they ask. Such as: "Give me an example of X and this example Y that I can easily think of doesn't count" - Be that as it may....


I'm getting a bit lost here - can you refer me to the post that you referring to? I assume you are referring to my interaction with Rigil Kent, but would appreciate clarification before I respond further.

Quote
You can't cite case law, or moreover, demand citations for an opinion ... then establish legal definitions and/or illegality as a counter-argument to someone opining that the law is incorrect. That's a bit circular, don't you think? A bit "You're wrong cause it says so in the bible and the bible's right because it says so in the bible".

I honestly don't see your point. I have been asking for a cite since my second post on this thread. I don't recall seeing words such as "I believe" or "Im speculating here" or "it is my opinion" in any of the posts I responded to. In any case, ny opinion should be backed by some evidence, otherwise why not just join the racist morons  News24. Again, please direct me to the particular post you have a problem with.

Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2013, 21:17:56 PM »

... Let me digress here for a second and say I'm not a fan of people who set parameters on questions they ask. Such as: "Give me an example of X and this example Y that I can easily think of doesn't count" - Be that as it may....


I'm getting a bit lost here - can you refer me to the post that you referring to? I assume you are referring to my interaction with Rigil Kent, but would appreciate clarification before I respond further.

Here:

... I trust you will have something more to offer then a half-baked, over simplified and generalised "anti-hate speech" rant.


Quote
Quote
You can't cite case law, or moreover, demand citations for an opinion ... then establish legal definitions and/or illegality as a counter-argument to someone opining that the law is incorrect. That's a bit circular, don't you think? A bit "You're wrong cause it says so in the bible and the bible's right because it says so in the bible".

I honestly don't see your point. I have been asking for a cite since my second post on this thread. I don't recall seeing words such as "I believe" or "Im speculating here" or "it is my opinion" in any of the posts I responded to.

You wanted examples of these prohibitions, you got one, in fact you even offered one by disclaimer above.

The argument, to me, doesn't seem to be about whether these things are illegal, but it goes to an opinion on whether they should be. It cannot be more than an opinion, the only "proof" one can cite would be in the law, and since it's the law being questioned.... see where I'm going here?

Nobody can "prove" that holocaust denial is necessarily hate-speech (IMHO logic dictates it is not). Especially not by citing the law since the entire question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether it already is/isn't.

Quote
otherwise why not just join the racist morons  News24

If you don't think us worthy of your time, go right ahead.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2013, 05:16:29 AM »

Oh my, the thread has now kind of run away from me, and much that I would have said, has been said by others. Had I known what my only semi-serious and somewhat offhand comment would induce here I never would have made it.

Quote
See preceding post of mine.

You have yet to show that mere Holocaust denial in itself constitutes hate speech. You haven't.

Quote
It (hate speech) is defined in legislation and in international instruments. You can Google it quite easily if you want to.

If the definition is broad enough to include Holocaust denial, then the definition is clearly way too broad. If not, then your original statement that Holocaust denial amounts to hate speech is wrong. Which is it?

Quote
Any examples of prohibitions on "thought"?

That was a bit of rhetoric - obviously, one cannot literally control what people think. However, prohibiting people from saying what they think comes to pretty much the same thing.

Quote
Me, previously: Hate speech is such a neatly blurry term you can fit ever more and more into it.

Al asked: Such as?

Such as Holocaust denial, as we have now seen.

And lest you think I'm some racist rightwing nut, I am every bit as disturbed by the proposed legislation in France some years ago to prohibit ladies from wearing Muslim garb (was the legislation merely proposed or has it since actually been passed? I can't remember, but either way, that is not how we run a free country). And now we see a crackdown on the Church of Scientology, a relatively obscure little organisation of rich nuts, whose beliefs and practices are no more nutty or harmful than those of the Catholics. Who'll be next, one has to wonder.

Quote
I knew when I first responded to your post, that a Daily Mail link would inevitably follow; it tends to be a favourite of those who claim that the UK/Western Europe is a nanny state or too  "politically correct" . (Speaking generally - I know you did not say raise the "politically correct" strawman.)  I didn't click on the link and I don't intend to; it is a disgusting rag that distorts and omits facts on the few occasions that it is not telling outright lies. I trust you can find examples of a nanny state from a non-tabloid?

Um, I explicitly stated that I believe that report to be false or exaggerated. So let me explicitly state it again: I know that a lot of the nanny state stuff is crap reported in the media. But some of it is apparently for real. Any of it is too much of it.

Anyway, I'm far less concerned about European nanny states than the continued but luckily inept attempts by our own government to turn South Africa into one... :-)
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +20/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2521


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2013, 18:48:49 PM »

Apologies, had to scuttle off for a while. Where were we?

So denying the holocaust is no different to liking pork?
Quite. If the former, as a rejection of a belief that some hold dear, constitutes hate speech, then so should the latter.  

Quote
please provide a SINGLE source of holocaust denial that is not anti-semitic, According to you, this should be very easy to do.
Don't put words in my mouth. I will not be surprised or dispute that the notion of holocaust denial will appeal to anti-Semitic outfits. But that is, once again, besides the point. What I said is that it is illogical to equate mere holocaust denial with hate speech. It does not matter how many human rights courts feel otherwise. One reason is that one can conceivably reject the holocaust on grounds other than anti-Semitism.

Quote
On the contrary,  I get that that is the wholly unsupported point you are making. I disagree.
You claim that holocaust denial equates to hate speech. I say that it doesn't. It would be trivial for me to to demonstrate that two clearly separate things are separate things. I suggest you read up on the burden of proof when it comes to positive claims.

Especially not by citing the law since the entire question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether it already is/isn't.
Exactly.

Rigil
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 19:01:16 PM by Rigil Kent » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +63/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3782


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2013, 11:09:56 AM »

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
The above definition is clearly too loose and too wide.  The last sentence implies that Holocaust denial is hate speech because it is a “form of expression regarded as offensive to [Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli and Gypsy] groups.”  By the same token, those Danish cartoons are equally hate speech because they are a “form of expression regarded as offensive to [Muslim] groups.”  In fact, the definition allows one very easily to construe almost any meaningful expression as “hate speech” by mere virtue of the fact that it’s typically not hard to find a discrete (minority) group of people who will take offence based on any one or more of “race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.”  (To be sure, the first sentence of the above definition appears in fact to exclude Holocaust denial because it is absurd to maintain that Holocaust denial “carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group,” in this case Jews and Gypsies.)

Ergo, such a definition is essentially useless for want of unambiguous decision/separation criteria.

All of the above is quite beside the glaring logical fallacy of conflating Holocaust denial with (anti-Semitic) hate speech, as has been amply and ably demonstrated by others.  The fact that the two are usually associated doesn’t mean they are universally and necessarily associated.  Moreover, instead of prompting Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic sentiments could could arise as a consequence of the widespread fanatical condemnation of even just sincere questioning of some aspects of the Holocaust.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2013, 05:27:32 AM »

This thread is now a bit dead, but loet me briefly revive it with another example of the nanny state in action:

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/11/parents-fined-for-not-sending-ritz.html

This time not from the Daily Mail either, although arguably an even less reliable source... :-)

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: aplods skeptic 1mobel com google


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.603 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 23:43:08 PM
Privacy Policy