Australia/Islamic Nation?

[vroom]

Look at Vroom! Trying to change the subject! We were not talking about whether the the claims of “judicial fiat” was substantively correct or not just now, we were discussing motivation - and you said we were all claiming “judicial fiat” not because we thought we were substantively right as a matter of democratic theory, but…wait for it…because we were bigots and arguing in bad faith.

Many arguing that stance are bigots, and have found a nice set of arguments to frame their viewpoint behind. Sorry, having a valid argument (if it should turn out to be so) doesn’t change the nature of the motivation to find such a thing.

How many people, hiding behind the skirts of your argument, actually know anything about it, do you think?

You personally may know a great deal about it, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have millions of bigots cheering you on!

Clown.

[quote]Nice try, ass - you really are a fraud.
[/quote]
Mirror time.

You are either dishonest or stupid? I say both.[/quote]

Mirror time.

Well, that debate was in another thread.

No fucking kidding. It’s long past time we stop worrying about that and get back to this thread.

And, no, my argument doesn’t contradict the protecttions afforded to citziens via the Constitution, at least not the written one I refer to. And the people’s right to impose laws on this kind of thing have always been there, why are they suddenly not?

There is a lot of conflicting opinion on these matters. Why don’t we wait for the supreme court to finally decide the matter and determine which issues will actually be considered of importance?

I have suggested a line of reasoning you don’t agree with. Deal with it. I’m okay with being wrong, should that eventually turn out to be the case.

No - you expressly said those that took the other side from you in the debate were motivated by bigotry, plain and simple. You said it. No chance to weasel out of it now.

These are two different issues. It is certainly possible to find a valid interpretation and to do so motivated by bigotry.

Why are they bigots? Once again, you have exposed your blind idiocy. The people who wanted to pass that legislation could have put plenty of thought into the matter and decided that a ban on gay marriage was the best choice. But wait - there are automatically bigots? Why - because they didn’t agree with you? Why assume they are prejudiced bigots? How could you know? Except…uh oh…they are because you don’t like the way they think?

LOL!

Now we are getting inside Vroom’s real mind. You want a judge to slap down “wrong thinking” as a matter of principle. You have no interest in democratic rights, despite your whining. You think the law should be struck down unless there are some “good reasons” to satsify you.

News flash - if you believe in the democratic rights you claimed you did, you defer to the people passing the laws as to whether those “reasons” are “good” or not. This is exactly the contradiction I raised in my previous posts - the ones you never could explain.

LOL!

You are such a tool. The reason I am glad that they were slapped down is because I believe in giving people as much rights as possible.

If the law was unconstitutional, then it expands the rights available to people, under the laws.

I am certainly for people’s rights to pass laws, as long as they are constitutionally valid. Idiot. There is often a conflict between the laws people attempt to pass and one or more constitutions.

I know you know that.

Anyhow, this may come as a surprise to you, but I really don’t give a shit one way or the other whether or not gay people can get married or not. It makes no difference to me in any possible tangible way.

I do however prefer that people have more rights, except where good reasons can be demonstrated to restrict them.

In the case of the Islamic fundamentalists in Australia we have a whole series of issues at play. I have stated only that free speech is a vital issue in our societies and that we should try to find a way to combat this without violating such principles.

Fuck, it’s a long thread, sue me if in a fit of pedantry you find I’ve discussed more than that. Just try not to make shit up on my behalf.

[quote]Now, once riled up, Vroom has typed what he really believes - Islamists should get to pass their own laws regardless of whether we think they have “good reasons” to as a matter tolerance, but get a gaggle of Christians and the “good reasons” don’t get deference: they need to be slapped down, and deserve no respect.

Now, you are showing that you don’t know what you are talking about once again.

Who said anything about Islamists being able to pass laws that others can’t? I’ve said that citizens should be able to discuss whatever issues they like.

How you concoct a fantasy to suggest this means I support anything they want to do is pure fantasy on your part, like most of the stuff you are making up.

This is hilarious, Vroom - think you are all boned up on the topic better than me? I can’t stop laughing. Wait a justice somewhere said such a thing was bad? Did you bother to see what any other justices might have said?

What is your problem? A former supreme court justice weighed in on the issue, from a professional standpoint, but your thinking is obviously much more important? Yeah, sorry for listening to someone other than your blowhardedness.

I’m never suggesting I’m an expert at this stuff, so when you try to knock me down, as you keep doing, it’s kind of comical.

[quote]Here is your problem - you think there are no good reasons. But lots of other people do. And it doesn’t matter if you agree with their reasons or not - they have a democratic right to not recognize gay marriage if they don’t want to. Your amateurish discussion of rights ignores the fact that the franchise of marriage is and always has been an object of majoritarian preference - and nothing has changed.
[/quote]

Yes they do have the right to pass laws against it, and I haven’t said they don’t. However, these bigots will have to find a way to do so that is not in conflict with their constitutions. And that is all I’m really saying. Get over yourself.

The biggest concern is that gay marriage will lead to the end of marriage. If you make the case that gay marriage should be a right because society has no right to tell people they can’t get married, then logically that applies to every conceivalbe consensual arrangement, and any restriction on marriage will be considered arbitrary.

Finally, a fucking point in your nonsense. You can argue this card if you really wish to. Is polygamy legal? Is bestiality legal?

If your only real concern is that marriage may end as an institution, then I’m not sure you really have any concerns. Marriage is already suffering along with an incredibly huge failure rate.

Keeping something static, because it is what we are used to, is a weak argument to make. The slippery slope argument can certainly highlight a danger, but it is very arguable whether it is a realistic one.

Am I saying it can’t be done? Of course not. Am I relishing in calling you a bigot for trying so hard to find a way to stop it? Sure. You appear to be afraid of some nebulous undefined harm and have trouble assigning a rational explanation to it.

Nobody said that bigots couldn’t be intelligent.

[b]I see that same style of irrational prejudicial fear and hatred being applied to all things Islam by many people nowadays. When I stand up for the rights of an unpopular group then I am lumped in with and supposedly support their fundamentalist beliefs and am attacked by a bunch of bigots who put words in my mouth.

Go figure.

Maybe that is precisely why I jumped in with the stance I did?[/b]

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Well duh. That’s why it’s called an analogy, right? To illustrate another concept by borrowing more familiar settings… It’s not my fault it’s an bad analogy, I didn’t make it.
[/quote]

Well, I wasn’t trying to equate the danger from fundamentalists with the danger from bank robbers.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Look, the fact that you can’t see into the minds of others to see the issues involved doesn’t invalidate their thinking.[/quote]

Wow vroom, that’s so deep. We understand the mind of others by what they write. That’s how we slowly build an idea of the individual and his beliefs/opinions/etc.

A lot of people find that your belief tend to change to accommodate the minority du jour. It’s fashionable to bash Christian (hey, I like to partake occasionally myself) but Muslims are on the politically correct protected species list.

It’s not the principles revolving, but the topic under discussion.

Really? Topics change? Oddly, many of the other participants have coherent views and opinions from thread to thread. They don’t seem to get confused by the topic as often as you do. Why do you think that is?

In this case we aren’t talking about whether or not we agree with Islamic fundamentalism.

Right. The topic permeates the initial posting, but you decided that we should simply abstract away the whole thing to “a minority wishes to express itself” and debate that.

Why don’t you start a purely abstract thread on a theoretical free speech situation, if you’re not willing (or able) to address the topic at hand?

Why are some folks so quick to link the two together? It appears to be a tactic intended to discredit people who stick to their principles.

Give it a rest with the “some folks do this” and “tactics that.” Just address the fucking point and stop trying to ascribe everyone’s ulterior motives.

I don’t see anyone working to deny those opposed to gay marriage their right to express that belief.

Yet you haven’t felt the need to point out their right to freely speak their minds. Why the sudden need in this thread?

Why not address the initial article directly?

They may be criticized while doing so, but as has been established in these parts many times, free speech does not protect one from criticism of it.

Oddly, it’s exactly while criticism was being leveled that you came in claiming everyone wanted to deny a minority their rights to free speech.

If criticism is okay, what was the point of your 1st post on this thread?

Bigots, or fundamentalists, also have the right of free speech.

No one has said otherwise. What I mentioned earlier was that free speech did not mean you could say anything you wanted without consequences or repercussions.

I don’t agree with the views of fundamentalists nor do I want them to succeed.

Yet the zeal you show in championing the cause of gay marriage is oddly absent in defending existing constitutions.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but personally I’d place the importance of defending our way of life long before legislating on gay unions. One affects the entire population, the other, a small minority.

However, if they are citizens, they do have rights to express their desires or viewpoints.

Well yes, and if their viewpoints include the planning of various actions to “take over” a country, they will eventually fun afoul of various laws.

Do you have a point besides pointing out the obviously obvious?

In both cases I argue for the adherence to the rights of citizens.

No, you don’t. In the gay marriage case, you argue that it is okay for a judge to rule that the right already exists (even though no one has ever interpreted the law that way before) and that the majority opposing it are bigots.

In the case of the Australian Islamist group, what do you do about the vast Australian majority’s rights as citizen?

Your thinking is quite muddled.

If and when a fundamentalist group tries to curtail rights, I’ll argue against that.

What exactly do you think a take-over of Australia to make it part of a Caliphate entails?

If they try to pass laws against gay marriage or the equality of women, I’ll probably call them bigots.

Probably? Why am I wasting my time with you?

Yes, it’s only a matter of time, but they have to right to talk about their beliefs and wishes, even if I’m against them.

How long do you consider what they’re doing “talk?”

On 9/11, until they actually hijacked the planes, it was just “talk.”

I don’t have to like someone or like what someone stands for in order to stand up for their rights. People are quick to draw their own conclusions about what others think, beyond what the evidence supports.

In your case, the evidence doesn’t support much thinking at all.

It’s that simple. Our societies are set up as a marketplace of ideas. Instead of limiting speech, or discussion of ideas we don’t like, I’d prefer to see the constitutions buttressed to make it much more difficult for religion to be used as a source of governance. This is similar to a business restructuring to make it less ripe for hostile takeover.

Well, there’s an idea. Too bad it comes when the thread is about done.

While some fundamentalists are upset by such ideas, it is possibly a necessary protection against any one religion being used to eliminate the rights enshrined in our founding documents.

Our founding documents? The ones the Brits mailed over 20 years ago? We’re not Americans, you know.

There is another important principle underlying these points. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty”. If these groups want to “overthrow” a country, instead of use democratic means to make changes, then they will certainly have to make and communicate plans and acquire weapons. That is very different than expressing desires and is actionable.

Of course, they’re just holding meetings to shoot the breeze and talk in hypotheticals.

The group has already been banned in many other Western (and even Middle Eastern) countries… how does that fit in your thinking?

Why is Australia wrong when it looks in curtailing the group’s activities?

It’s also possible, during a time of war or other emergency, to declare martial law, suspending the rights of freedom of citizens. I’d prefer not to see it happen, unless absolutely needed, but let’s explore legal ways to handle the threats we face.

Yeah, when the bombs start going off, let’s send them a “Cease and Desist” order.

That’s my viewpoint. We don’t have to sacrifice our principles to win this. We don’t have to sacrifice rights and we don’t have to sacrifice the rule of law. However, we may have to get a little creative to both allow the rights and freedoms that are important and protect ourselves from the use of those rights to subvert our systems.

Who’s talking about sacrificing rights? We already have laws against “hate speech” and against “conspiracies.”

The easy road is simply to throw out our freedoms and knee-jerk against something we don’t like… because we are afraid.

You’re the one who’s having all the knee-jerk reactions. And no one’s talking about throwing out our freedoms… except maybe for Islamist groups, but oddly, they have you as a complicit ally until they actually start pulling triggers.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, I wasn’t trying to equate the danger from fundamentalists with the danger from bank robbers.[/quote]

That’s not how we understood it either. Are you really that stupid? Is that what you’re trying to hide behind your constant and useless verbiage?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Many arguing that stance are bigots, and have found a nice set of arguments to frame their viewpoint behind. Sorry, having a valid argument (if it should turn out to be so) doesn’t change the nature of the motivation to find such a thing.[/quote]

You weren’t talking about anybody’s motivation - you were talking about the arguments we made. Why try and weasel out of it now?

Mirror time.

You see, Vroom - if you must insult someone, it must make sense. Where have I been dishonest? No one is particularly impressed with the “I know you are but what am I?” routine.

There is a lot of conflicting opinion on these matters. Why don’t we wait for the supreme court to finally decide the matter and determine which issues will actually be considered of importance?

If there be ‘a lot of conflicting opinion on these matters’ and therefore I shouldn’t assume my position to be correct, why are you insistent on telling me than my opinion is wrong?

And it is ok to form your opinion outside of what the Supreme Court thinks. Their word is law, but it is ok to be an informed citizen that exercises independent thought.

These are two different issues. It is certainly possible to find a valid interpretation and to do so motivated by bigotry.

And it applies both ways - how many of your ilk aren’t interested in allowing Christians the right to self-govern themselves because of their vile disdain for them? Know anyone like that?

LOL!

That is never a substantive answer, but why waste time expecting more out of you?

You are such a tool. The reason I am glad that they were slapped down is because I believe in giving people as much rights as possible.

Yes, and as long as the good judge slaps down “wrong thinking”, you could give a damn about all the important democratic processes in play. Pookie said it best, and at least now you have admitted it.

I am certainly for people’s rights to pass laws, as long as they are constitutionally valid. Idiot. There is often a conflict between the laws people attempt to pass and one or more constitutions.

Yes, and the crux was always when the constitution is used to take more and more issues away from the people’s rights to pass laws, when those issues have always been available to the people in the past. That doesn’t concern you, even though it is an exercise in arbitrary use of government power - none of your concerns over abuse of power matter as long as “right thinking” is meted out by an all-knowing judge.

I do however prefer that people have more rights, except where good reasons can be demonstrated to restrict them.

Good, and the reasons to restrict gay marriage are plenty.

In the case of the Islamic fundamentalists in Australia we have a whole series of issues at play. I have stated only that free speech is a vital issue in our societies and that we should try to find a way to combat this without violating such principles.

So, you are ok with the marketplace of ideas in theory as long as the results of those ideas don’t manifest themselves as “wrong thinking” in binding legislation, in which case we need a right-thinking monarch to take away the results of the free-flowing marketplace of ideas.

Who said anything about Islamists being able to pass laws that others can’t? I’ve said that citizens should be able to discuss whatever issues they like.

Then where is the teary speech on the natural righst the Islamists can’t touch, even via democratic action?

What is your problem? A former supreme court justice weighed in on the issue, from a professional standpoint, but your thinking is obviously much more important? Yeah, sorry for listening to someone other than your blowhardedness.

You idiot - you took the position of one judge and cited it as the truth for your cause. I simply asked if you did your due diligence and considered the other eight justices. It is not my thinking - you acted like a moron marching in with what ‘some justice’ somewhere said as is that is the sole opinion.

I’m never suggesting I’m an expert at this stuff, so when you try to knock me down, as you keep doing, it’s kind of comical.

No, you aren’t an expert, and not even really an amateur.

Yes they do have the right to pass laws against it, and I haven’t said they don’t. However, these bigots will have to find a way to do so that is not in conflict with their constitutions. And that is all I’m really saying. Get over yourself.

Actually, they did based on the constitution they had the day before a judge invented a new concept out of whole cloth. Ain’t a bitch when referees rig the game to get an outcome they like?

Finally, a fucking point in your nonsense. You can argue this card if you really wish to. Is polygamy legal? Is bestiality legal?

You make a common mistake. Legislatures can pick and choose all kinds of outcomes that may or may not seem arbitrary. Maybe a state says yes to gay marriage, but no to polygamy. No problem.

But when a court says the government cannot have one institution without the others as a matter of Equal Protection fairness, then arbitrary distinctions can’t apply - as a matter of Equal Protection, you can’t say yes to gay marriage but no to ploygamy.

See the difference? You can create all the differences you want when it is left to the legislature. When the court decides that marriage can’t be isolated from non-traditional relationships, it doesn’t have the ability to pick and choose some and not all. Pandora’s box is opened.

But, likely you hadn’t thought of that. No surprise.

If your only real concern is that marriage may end as an institution, then I’m not sure you really have any concerns. Marriage is already suffering along with an incredibly huge failure rate.

Wrong issue - just because people are failing marriage doesn’t mean marriage is failing.

Am I saying it can’t be done? Of course not. Am I relishing in calling you a bigot for trying so hard to find a way to stop it? Sure. You appear to be afraid of some nebulous undefined harm and have trouble assigning a rational explanation to it.

Nonsense - I can’t possibly explain it anymore. There is no nebulous harm in my mind, and my explanation was completely rational. What is weird is that you feel the need to tell people they aren’t rational when you really aren’t all that impressive.

Just because you say I haven’t made a rational case doesn’t mean it is true. It is perfectly rational - you just happen not to like it.

Oh, and your definition of bigot will naturally be applied to anyone who doesn’t share your opinion, so it is meaningless.

Hmm. Tell you what, I bave a gay friend who doesn’t believe in gay marriage either - tell me, is he a bigot too?

I see that same style of irrational prejudicial fear and hatred being applied to all things Islam by many people nowadays. When I stand up for the rights of an unpopular group then I am lumped in with and supposedly support their fundamentalist beliefs and am attacked by a bunch of bigots who put words in my mouth.

You aren’t some crusader on behalf of some unpopular group. You are a fop drunk on the false wisdom of multiculturalism.

And here comes the ‘bigot’ label again - oooooh, is it the new ‘cheerleader’? Or ‘Kool Aid drinker’?

Wanting to protect your cultural values from those that would destroy them is no act of bigotry at all. The fact that you keep suggetsing so is very telling - the focus here has been squarely on Islamists who admit they want to overthrow the government. Bigotry? To stand in defiance of them? You are no protector or crusader of ‘what is right’ at all - far from it.

The question is difficult, but who deserves the right to enjoy rights that they want to destroy for everyone else? Does that mean I say round 'em all up for the gulag? No, but this notion that they deserve the very rights that they want to extinguish is an act of pure moral cowardice and cultural suicide.

But just think Vroom, groups of people may be dead, but they at least they will die tolerant!!!

Now I think I am really done. Oh and Vroom for President - the US may be part of the calihpate in four years, but at least we will all be able to say we didn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.

[jawara]

I just happend to be listening to Michael Savage and according to the translatation of the speech that was made by this arab dude in Austrailia the arabs DO intend to take over Austrailia!!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000920.php

[vroom]

What is this, a tag team?

[quote]pookie wrote:
A lot of people find that your belief tend to change to accommodate the minority du jour. It’s fashionable to bash Christian (hey, I like to partake occasionally myself) but Muslims are on the politically correct protected species list.
[/quote]

Sure, make my point for me. The fact you don’t see the underlying principles at play in each particular conversation doesn’t imply changing beliefs.

I keep seeing people equate “beliefs” to things that are not warranted by the application of underlying principles and resultant stances.

The issues in question here share something in common. They are one group of citizens attempting to define the rights of other groups of citizens.

The fact that you and I both “know” what another group is thinking, or planning, is not really a good legal justification for action. I’m not as big a fan of speculative preemption as you.

If Muslim issues are being discussed outside of citizenship, then the nature of the discussion will be very different indeed.

Right. The topic permeates the initial posting, but you decided that we should simply abstract away the whole thing to “a minority wishes to express itself” and debate that.

Well, at any time if you wish to start debating issues, instead of my view of things, simply drop them out for consideration.

I’ve tried a few times to deflect the conversation towards ways to combat an eventual overthrow attempt without resorting to flagrant rights violations. Feel free to address those issues at any point in time.

Yet you haven’t felt the need to point out their right to freely speak their minds. Why the sudden need in this thread?

Nobody seems on the verge of oppressing them or their rights, so why bother to speak up to defend them?

Why not address the initial article directly?

Like, perhaps, quoting the part where the Attorney General suggests that at this time there is nothing they can legally do about it?

Yet the zeal you show in championing the cause of gay marriage is oddly absent in defending existing constitutions.

Gay marriage really has nothing to do with this… and whatever zeal I put forth there is probably a reflection of the zeal put forth by an opposing viewpoint. How strange is that?

[quote]No, you don’t. In the gay marriage case, you argue that it is okay for a judge to rule that the right already exists (even though no one has ever interpreted the law that way before) and that the majority opposing it are bigots.

In the case of the Australian Islamist group, what do you do about the vast Australian majority’s rights as citizen?
[/quote]
Are you going to get upset about the issue of labelling people as bigots as well? The whole gay marriage thing has been a big waste of time since it has been drawn into this thread.

As for the rights of majority, perhaps you should read some of the posts I’ve tried to create that are on that topic, when you and Thunderdolt aren’t dragging this thread all over the place.

What exactly do you think a take-over of Australia to make it part of a Caliphate entails?

Wake the fuck up! There is a difference between a group saying that want to do so (peaceably) and actually taking an illegal action. We certainly may have to make adjustments to our laws, to protect ourselves, but don’t go around calling my thinking muddied when you and Thunderdolt can’t tell the difference between talk and action.

How long do you consider what they’re doing “talk?”

Perhaps I have a bit more faith in the Australian authorities than you?

On 9/11, until they actually hijacked the planes, it was just “talk.”

Oh, procuring supplies, drawing up plans, training to fly, getting on the planes, taking over the planes, were all those just talk?

In your case, the evidence doesn’t support much thinking at all.

Enough of the childish insults. You are much better around these parts than that. Are you lending your account to someone or something?

Well, there’s an idea. Too bad it comes when the thread is about done.

Perhaps you could have addressed it when I first raised it?

Our founding documents? The ones the Brits mailed over 20 years ago? We’re not Americans, you know.

We’re talking about western civilizations here. All of our countries have a lot in common. Even now our own constitution is very similar to the original BNA act.

The group has already been banned in many other Western (and even Middle Eastern) countries… how does that fit in your thinking?

Why is Australia wrong when it looks in curtailing the group’s activities?

Well, fucking duh, perhaps Australia should bolster it’s laws? The article, in fact, shows that Australia is NOT currently acting to curtail the group’s activities.

Hello?

Yeah, when the bombs start going off, let’s send them a “Cease and Desist” order.

Is fear your only point?

Who’s talking about sacrificing rights? We already have laws against “hate speech” and against “conspiracies.”

LOL. Which country are you talking about now? As far as I know this issue isn’t occurring in Canada… but in Australia. So, excuse me if I’m not fully aware of their “hate speech” or related laws.

I’m assuming their own Attorney General is. Is that a fair fucking assumption? Maybe somebody should get busy gathering evidence… I bet nobody has thought of that yet!

[vroom]

Fix the quotes in the rest of your crap and I’ll look at it… as for this…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And it is ok to form your opinion outside of what the Supreme Court thinks. Their word is law, but it is ok to be an informed citizen that exercises independent thought.[/quote]

And what part of my putting forth an argument about rights unless excepted by law and why the decision was in line with that falls outside of someone having independent thought.

You have shit all over me for having it, calling me stupid and misinformed, compared to you, and then you want to tell me that I’m against people having their own thoughts.

Mirror time yet again buddy.

Anyhow, is there any fucking chance at all you will eventually decide to address the Australian situation, or are you just hung up on the gay marriage issue?

[Headhunter]

[quote]vroom wrote:

It appears, and perhaps I’m mistaken, but it appears that many are afraid of homosexuality and want to outlaw it because they fear it.

These people have every right to use the legal system to pass laws reflecting their own values, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be bigots if they want to enact laws simply because they are afraid of something for no real reason.

[/quote]

Finding a behavior disgusting does not make someone a bigot. You certainly like throwing that term around. Bigotry does not equate with religious beliefs, else there goes your defense of the Islamists.

Carry on, gents!

[Headhunter]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If this post wasn’t a ROYAL REAMING of Vroom (and modern rubber-definition liberalism), then I don’t know what is!

Headhunter, I hope you’ve been reading along carefully.

You are another person that needs to learn to discern what is being said instead of simply making assumptions based on who is doing the speaking and whether or not it is aligned with your own viewpoint.

Just because he’s attacking me, that doesn’t excuse his sloppy logic nor his wild assumptions. You however, show your normal propensity to swallow such shit whole and cheer it on.

I guess this is like your favorite infotainment channel? It says things that sound good and attacks those you don’t like, so you don’t bother to actually do any thinking for yourself to figure out what principles are actually involved…[/quote]

ThunderBOLT is a greater debater and knows way more than I ever will. I give him tons of credit and I especially like to see him shred the wishy-washy rubber band logic that can be stretched to fit any position, in which you specialize.

If more people in this world thought as clearly and deeply as him, the world would be a better place.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Sure, make my point for me. The fact you don’t see the underlying principles at play in each particular conversation doesn’t imply changing beliefs.[/quote]

The principles are the same. A religious group wishes to curtail the freedoms of others based on tenets of their faith.

You personally oppose one group, but defend the other’s right to free speech.

I’ve tried a few times to deflect the conversation towards ways to combat an eventual overthrow attempt without resorting to flagrant rights violations. Feel free to address those issues at any point in time.

Oddly, before you found that convenient dodge, you were remonstrating people who had suggested nothing in the way of rights violation, about the virtues of free speech.

Your 1st posting was the third one on the thread, just after Ren had just said that there was legally little the Aussies could do. The initial post had no commentary other than quotes from the article.

So, tell us again why you chose that particular moment to defend free speech?

Gay marriage really has nothing to do with this…

The issues themselves have nothing in common. Your stance on both speaks volume, though.

Are you going to get upset about the issue of labelling people as bigots as well?

It seems that, to you, “bigot” simply means anyone who disagrees with you about any issue.

The whole gay marriage thing has been a big waste of time since it has been drawn into this thread.

Gay marriage has been drawn into the thread because it shows your “principled stand” to be largely hypocritical.

Wake the fuck up! There is a difference between a group saying that want to do so (peaceably) and actually taking an illegal action. We certainly may have to make adjustments to our laws, to protect ourselves, but don’t go around calling my thinking muddied when you and Thunderdolt can’t tell the difference between talk and action.

Question: At what point do you draw the line between protected speech and conspiracy?

Perhaps I have a bit more faith in the Australian authorities than you?

The ones that can’t do anything about the group?

Oh, procuring supplies, drawing up plans, training to fly, getting on the planes, taking over the planes, were all those just talk?

Supplies? What supplies? Nail clippers? I believe you can buy those legally. Flight lessons are also legal. I have a friend who’s a pilot and I’m sure he clips his nails occasionally. Should we arrest him?

He’s never spoken of overthrowing the government, but from your obfuscated logic, he should be stopped, while groups meeting to discuss the take over of Australia can carry on.

Enough of the childish insults. You are much better around these parts than that. Are you lending your account to someone or something?

…says the idiot who can’t make one post without insulting someone.

Perhaps you could have addressed it when I first raised it?

Please point out where that was.

[quote]Well, fucking duh, perhaps Australia should bolster it’s laws? The article, in fact, shows that Australia is NOT currently acting to curtail the group’s activities.

Hello?[/quote]

Hello yourself, moron. If Australia’s Attorney General is commenting on the issue, it’s BECAUSE they’ve looked into it. It’s not yet ACTING because they haven’t enough of a case to defend in court.

Is fear your only point?

It’s not about fear. It’s about defending our freedoms against groups who use those very freedoms to try and have them removed.

Apparently, you support no action at all, or are unable to explain when you would support it, until the final plot is in full execution.

LOL. Which country are you talking about now? As far as I know this issue isn’t occurring in Canada… but in Australia. So, excuse me if I’m not fully aware of their “hate speech” or related laws.

Sigh. Two paragraphs ago you were arguing about how similar all our countries are.

Poor vroom. Don’t you get dizzy from all the spinning around, as you try to argue both sides of an issue?

I’m assuming their own Attorney General is. Is that a fair fucking assumption? Maybe somebody should get busy gathering evidence… I bet nobody has thought of that yet!

But vroomy, doesn’t gathering evidence against them curtails their freedom of speech? Can they really speak freely if the room is bugged or an informant is present?

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
The principles are the same. A religious group wishes to curtail the freedoms of others based on tenets of their faith.

You personally oppose one group, but defend the other’s right to free speech.
[/quote]

Both groups have the right to free speech. Both groups have the ability to be stopped from doing so, curtailing the freedoms of others, by laws.

Your 1st posting was the third one on the thread, just after Ren had just said that there was legally little the Aussies could do. The initial post had no commentary other than quotes from the article.

So, tell us again why you chose that particular moment to defend free speech?

Because Headhunter made the initial post…

It seems that, to you, “bigot” simply means anyone who disagrees with you about any issue.

Ahahahaha. Not you too! The word bigot is well defined in the dictionary. As Headhunter has noticed and suggested, I am actually have a bit of fun throwing it around today.

Gay marriage has been drawn into the thread because it shows your “principled stand” to be largely hypocritical.

You and Thunderdolt obviously want to see it that way, but it is really just showing your own bias or desire to do so. Knock yourself out, but you’ll find the rule of law, and my hope that it increases our freedoms, is underlying it all.

Boohoo.

Question: At what point do you draw the line between protected speech and conspiracy?

That’s actually a pretty complicated question. I’d defer to the legal definitions already in place to deal with this issue, but when people are publicly looking for other individuals that may be of like mind, that probably doesn’t qualify.

I’m generally more worried about the closed door secret meetings that the public doesn’t get invited to attend.

Supplies? What supplies? Nail clippers? I believe you can buy those legally. Flight lessons are also legal. I have a friend who’s a pilot and I’m sure he clips his nails occasionally. Should we arrest him?

Box cutters are not the same thing as nail clippers. Play obtuse all you like, but don’t cry and whine if I play obtuse as well.

There are many risks that we simply cannot protect ourselves against. Some of us, myself included, are willing to assume those risks as part of not living in a police state.

If people are abiding by the laws, and they are CITIZENS, which I don’t believe the 9/11 perpetrators were, then they generally get the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us, at least under current laws.

Please point out where that was.

Try reading the rest of the thread…

Hello yourself, moron. If Australia’s Attorney General is commenting on the issue, it’s BECAUSE they’ve looked into it. It’s not yet ACTING because they haven’t enough of a case to defend in court.

Perhaps you should read what the Attorney General said? He’s basically constrained by the current laws and has enough principles to abide by those laws even and allow whatever meeting is being proposed even though he’d probably prefer not to.

It’s not about fear. It’s about defending our freedoms against groups who use those very freedoms to try and have them removed.

Apparently, you support no action at all, or are unable to explain when you would support it, until the final plot is in full execution.

Again, perhaps you should read the posts where I talk about changing the existing laws.

I’m not against action, but I would prefer it to be lawful action. How fucking hard is that to comprehend?

Sigh. Two paragraphs ago you were arguing about how similar all our countries are.

Poor vroom. Don’t you get dizzy from all the spinning around, as you try to argue both sides of an issue?

You were the one chastising me as if I was discussing US laws as our own… don’t blame me if I give it back to you.

But vroomy, doesn’t gathering evidence against them curtails their freedom of speech? Can they really speak freely if the room is bugged or an informant is present?

LOL.

You so want me to be on the side of terrorists don’t you? Get real. We have systems in place for gathering evidence…

Nowhere have I said that those should not be used. In fact, if you’ve bothered to pay attention, which I suspect you haven’t, getting all riled up behind Thunderdolts ridiculous comments instead, you’d have seen posts suggesting changes in laws or other tactics designed to bolster western democracies against such actions.

I’m getting tired of having you guys make up whatever stance you like because you don’t like what I’ve started out with on this thread.

Grow up.

[ShaunW]

Whilst i understand this thread has become a shitfight between pookie, vroom and thunderbolt - to get back to the crux - the american version of constitutional-based rights and free speach doesn’t apply to Oz.
Heres our constitution:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/handbook/constitution/index.htm

same goes for free speech:
http://libertus.net/censor/fspeechlaw.html

Secondly
By the results of the 2001 census - 68% of orstraylians are a varietal of christian, and 1.6% of ozzies are islam-based.
Now I don’t personally believe the 68% bit (the only time most blokes here will say the lords’ prayer is at a funeral) - most are only ‘christian’ due to inheritance, it keeps our mums’ happy.
Thirdly, we love tossers making fools of themselves, so we’ll probly encourage this mufti to keep on making speeches.
It’s good for a laugh.
like this thread has become.

cheers

[aussie486]

Gotta agree with shaun, the mufti’s a tosser andeveryone reakons he a turd.

I have enjoyed the debate between vroom, pookie and thunderbolt, was a heavy weight slugfest, just hope you guys are still mates.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Both groups have the right to free speech. Both groups have the ability to be stopped from doing so, curtailing the freedoms of others, by laws.[/quote]

So, two similar groups, yet two different approaches from you. Odd.

Because Headhunter made the initial post…

He quoted an article and added zero commentary.

So basically, your first post was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the thread author?

Duly noted. It’ll save time next time.

Ahahahaha. Not you too! The word bigot is well defined in the dictionary.

Look it up, because it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

That’s actually a pretty complicated question.

I guess we won’t get anything worthwhile from you then.

Box cutters are not the same thing as nail clippers.

Yeah, I forgot you have to apply for a permit to get those and wait 5 days for the investigation to complete… Little vroomy is such an astute observer.

If people are abiding by the laws, and they are CITIZENS, which I don’t believe the 9/11 perpetrators were, then they generally get the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us, at least under current laws.

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

[quote]Please point out where that was.

Try reading the rest of the thread…[/quote]

I did. It’s not there.

Like most of your other assertions, it was simply made up on the spot to avoid a question.

Perhaps you should read what the Attorney General said? He’s basically constrained by the current laws and has enough principles to abide by those laws even and allow whatever meeting is being proposed even though he’d probably prefer not to.

Yes, and that was the gist of the thread when you came and suggested that people were offended by the exercise of free speech.

Next time, we’ll know you haven’t even read the article, and are simply addressing Headhunter directly. It’ll save time.

Again, perhaps you should read the posts where I talk about changing the existing laws.

Perhaps you should read my response where I indicate that that is most likely not necessary; the current laws in place should do fine.

I’m not against action, but I would prefer it to be lawful action. How fucking hard is that to comprehend?

No one has suggested illegal action, little vroomy, why are you arguing that?

You were the one chastising me as if I was discussing US laws as our own… don’t blame me if I give it back to you.

No problem, but don’t pout when people remember that you change tack whenever it suits you, out of convenience. You argue simply to argue, you have no principle, no stance, no views. Zero integrity.

LOL.

Do you have “LOL”, “bigots”, “mirror” and “knee-jerk” on some sort of quick paste function? 80% of your debating ability hinges on those few words…

You so want me to be on the side of terrorists don’t you?

No, no, you’re clearly on the sides of the airheads. LOLLOL!!1!!1!

Nowhere have I said that those should not be used.

Yeah, we all know you were simply reacting to Headhunter… he can play you like a flute, can’t he?

The rest of your arguments are as vacuous as they are pointless.

I’m getting tired of having you guys make up whatever stance you like because you don’t like what I’ve started out with on this thread.

My mistake. I thought you had a position other than dumb reaction to seeing HH’s name beside the OP.

Grow up.

LOL!!! Ahahaha! LOL! Mirror time little vroomy, you knee-jerking bigot. Knock off the kool-aid. The sky is falling, folks! Panic! Panic! Etc, etc.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]aussie486 wrote:
… the mufti’s a tosser …[/quote]

I love the Aussies. They can so so much with so few words.

[Ren]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
aussie486 wrote:
… the mufti’s a tosser …

I love the Aussies. They can so so much with so few words.[/quote]

and they have the coolest slang ever!

[paul_bunyan]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:

Throwing around words like Nazi’s and so on is great, but it means you lose the debate.

Nice jump in logic. Because comparing despotic and violent ideologies is an auto -loss? Islamic totalitarianism is our Nazism. It isn’t some defeated and marginalized threat. It’s a thriving ideal that continues to grow in the present.

It brutalizes, oppresses, and destroys throughout the muslim mid-east. It sponsors violent and bloody Islamic separatist movements across the globe. Exporting terror to countries far and wide.

I don’t hesitate comparing the two. In fact, I believe Islamic totalitarianism will soon eclipse Nazism as the greater of historical evils.[/quote]

The fact that people with your outlook vote in elections whose results determine who controls 10 000 nuclear weapons is downright frightening.

[Sloth]

[quote]paul bunyan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
vroom wrote:

Throwing around words like Nazi’s and so on is great, but it means you lose the debate.

Nice jump in logic. Because comparing despotic and violent ideologies is an auto -loss? Islamic totalitarianism is our Nazism. It isn’t some defeated and marginalized threat. It’s a thriving ideal that continues to grow in the present.

It brutalizes, oppresses, and destroys throughout the muslim mid-east. It sponsors violent and bloody Islamic separatist movements across the globe. Exporting terror to countries far and wide.

I don’t hesitate comparing the two. In fact, I believe Islamic totalitarianism will soon eclipse Nazism as the greater of historical evils.

The fact that people with your outlook vote in elections whose results determine who controls 10 000 nuclear weapons is downright frightening.[/quote]

Oh? And exactly what part of this quote do you disagree with? Was I really so wrong to point out the brutal and oppressive nature of Islamic totalitarianism throughout much of the mid-east? Or, was it my commenting on the spread of Islamic separatism and terrorism around the world (it isn’t just the western nation dealing with this)? Was any of this false? Is it my comparing of Islamic jihadists with Nazis?

[Headhunter]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
paul bunyan wrote:

The fact that people with your outlook vote in elections whose results determine who controls 10 000 nuclear weapons is downright frightening.

Oh? And exactly what part of this quote do you disagree with? Was I really so wrong to point out the brutal and oppressive nature of Islamic totalitarianism throughout much of the mid-east? Or, was it my commenting on the spread of Islamic separatism and terrorism around the world (it isn’t just the western nation dealing with this)? Was any of this false? Is it my comparing of Islamic jihadists with Nazis? [/quote]

The Grand Mufti was a ally of Hitler and recruited muslims from the Balkans into the S.S. Their division fought in the battle for Berlin, against the Russians.

The ties between Islam and Fascism go way back.