Sir Patrick Moore attacks Germany he still HATES it after 70 years

St.Spodo

One of the hardest historical questions to answer is why so many people carried out the orders of the Fuehrer. It probably has a lot to do with the hierarchy of power in Germany. Those who carried out Hitler's orders would be promoted, those who created innovative ways to carry out the policies of Nazism would move up in the ranks. Without any coherent power structure, people, decent men, had to show themselves as the most committed Nazis and this, in my opinion anyway having thought about it, is probably why so many Germans became complicit in unspeakable evil. This, of course, is not an inherent flaw in the character of Germany's people, but a reality for us all; power corrupts. The innocent Germans born since and indeed before have no more relation with this evil than us.

Nodin

bwatson wrote: »

Ok, so why did you make use of inverted commas?

Just did. Thats what its called, its 5 past midnight or so.....if I want to slag off something, you aren't going to have to read the coded messages via the punctuation.

Isn't there a sticky about this kind of crap?

Born to Die

Show Time wrote: »

History 101 time:

Germany did not start the WWI but got dragged into by the system of alliances that were in place to stop such a war. The end of WWI and the TOV which was way to harsh on the German people set off a chain of events which lead to the rise of the Nazi party and than WWII

I am adding my opinion to the thread, if I say Germany started 2 world wars then Germany started 2 world wars.
How can you be too harsh on a people responsible for the death's of million's of people?

Born to Die History 101.

Dudess

Show Time wrote: »

Sixty years ago when the Nazi were winning the second world war you would have had a hard time trying to find a German who was not a Nazi.

Would you? How are you privy to this information about German people in 1952?

he lived through those times which none of us did.

And yet he blames people who didn't live through those times. And even you, who didn't either, made the above claim.

It is very very easy to say forgive and forget if you are not affected by events that happened sixty years ago.

You're still not getting it - I didn't suggest he should forgive and forget those who were responsible, I know I wouldn't. I said he's utterly wrong to blame all German people for the actions of some - simply due to them being from Germany, including born after WWII.

Too much acceptance of misplaced blame. It happens though due to laziness. Actually do you know which regime was based on hatred of an entire people? Oh yeah, the nazi one.

Show Time

Dudess wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I don't hate the Brits (and idiots who do, are as bad as Moore) therefore I will criticise him all I like.

My Grandfather was a member of the old IRA(Born 1900-1990) and the man went to his grave hating England the people living there and anything British and would not change his views no matter what anyone said. I did not understand this attitude for many years until it was explained to me that he watched his brother and best friend shot in cold blood by the Black and Tans.

Some people will always carry demons with them and i would say that poor old Sir Patrick has his own demons which will never be resolved.

Cavehill Red

St.Spodo wrote: »

Political correctness is essentially treating people with respect.

Define respect. You're not showing Sir Patrick much by insisting he should not be allowed to air his views.
And what PC actually is, is insisting that people show a state or quango-defined form of respect. They remain free to believe whatever they choose, and I think a society which insists on suppressing people's true beliefs and encourages them to lie about their sentiments is a dishonest and hypocritical one. I'd much rather have people speak their mind, no matter how odious. Only then can what's happening on this thread occur - which is a debate, where people can discuss the merits or lack thereof of opinions freely expressed.

St.Spodo wrote: »

I don't know why it is so lamented; people just oppose it because they want to say nasty things.

Because it is fascism, pure and simple. It's a charter for thought crime. It's already gone way too far in Europe, where people can be jailed for things like holding views deemed to be racist or for questioning the holocaust.
Ironically, such laws actually encourage the views they're designed to suppress, because people start wondering "Why can't I question the holocaust like other historical events? Maybe there's something in this.' or 'Why do blacks or gays need laws to protect them from name-calling? Are they so easily butthurt? Maybe they are sub-human/durty pervs.'
It's no accident that Austria is one of the most racist countries in Europe with a large neo-Nazi movement despite all the laws proscribing both. PC has encouraged the very thing it seeks to suppress, because people resist being told what to think or say.
It's much healthier to have a world where people can speak their mind, no matter how odious, and others defend themselves openly, and we can debate all sides of any argument.
PC seeks to prevent any of that from happening. It is dangerous thoughtcrime fascism, and if it comes to me and Patrick Moore being allied along with objectionable hatemongers against that PC fascism, so be it. You can't choose your allies.

Nodin

Born to Die wrote: »

I am adding my opinion to the thread, if I say Germany started 2 world wars then Germany started 2 world wars.
How can you be too harsh on a people responsible for the death's of million's of people?

Born to Die History 101.

As long as you're equally harsh on the other instigators of mass conflict, though I have to say the idea of blaming "a people" strikes me as a dubious approach to take.

Born to Die

Nodin wrote: »

As long as you're equally harsh on the other instigators of mass conflict, though I have to say the idea of blaming "a people" strikes me as a dubious approach to take.

Oh I blame everyone equally. It's easier than trying to appease some.

Show Time

Dudess wrote: »

Would you? How are you privy to this information about German people in 1952?

And yet he blames people who didn't live through those times. And even you, who didn't either, made the above claim.

You're still not getting it - I didn't suggest he should forgive and forget those who were responsible, I know I wouldn't. I said he's utterly wrong to blame all German people for the actions of some - simply due to them being from Germany, including born after WWII.

Too much acceptance of misplaced blame. It happens though due to laziness. Actually do you know which regime was based on hatred of an entire people? Oh yeah, the nazi one.

It should have been 70 years no need to be such a nazi over it.

Nodin

Born to Die wrote: »

Oh I blame everyone equally. It's easier than trying to appease some.

A people person then. Well, expect the worst and humanity usually won't let you down.

Born to Die

Nodin wrote: »

A people person then. Well, expect the worst and humanity usually won't let you down.

Hasn't so far.

downwithpeace

The Germany today is nothing like the Germany of then, to compare the two is nothing but spite or ignorance.

Born to Die

downwithpeace wrote: »

The Germany today is nothing like the Germany of then, to compare the two is nothing but spite or ignorance.

Ironic username.

bwatson

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Please do enlighten us.

Ok, I shall respond. Not that it will make any difference I don't expect.

The Blitz was a sustained campaign of terror and destruction on Britain and its people which lasted nearly a year. Over two million buildings were destroyed and vast areas pf London, Belfast, Birmingham, Southamption, Cardiff, Glasgow, Coventry, Bristol among multiple others were totally decimated.

On the home front 60,000 people died and its estimated that ten times that number were injured in some way. Millions lost everything they ever had and ever were. They experienced levels of fear and anguish for months and months beyond anything we have to suffer as a society today.

Do you remember, or have you read about, the shock and anger which followed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, or the London Bombings in July 2005? People were "sickened" and "outraged", and for my money rightly so. What we must remember is that less than 40 and 70 respectively were killed and damage to property was (in comparison) minimal. Now, maybe try and imagine multiplying the death toll by fifteen hundred and levels of destruction my a million. It is not something those of us who didnt experience it would be able to ever understand.

I think that British people who lived through it or those who have seen the long term consequences are well within their right to suggest that over the course of that year their nation and society were bombed to oblivion. I believe that it is your aim with your previous post to downplay and diminish the levels of destruction, pain and suffering that were experienced and I believe that is very ignorant and disrespectful. Are you doing so because "its the Brits" and they shouldnt be afforded the same levels of benevolence and commiseration? I've no idea (although I see Morlar has thanked your posts, maybe he thought you did!).

downwithpeace

Born to Die wrote: »

Ironic username.

Plays both fields, nothing ironic with my name.

Show Time

And don't forget the German people were more than willing to turn a blind eye to the extermination of the Jews. It took the shock tactic of dragging the German people into the camps at the end of the war to see the work of the Nazis to make them realise the damage done to a peaceful and gentle race.

Dudess

Cavehill Red wrote: »

it is fascism, pure and simple. It's a charter for thought crime. It's already gone way too far in Europe, where people can be jailed for things like holding views deemed to be racist or for questioning the holocaust.
Ironically, such laws actually encourage the views they're designed to suppress, because people start wondering "Why can't I question the holocaust like other historical events? Maybe there's something in this.' or 'Why do blacks or gays need laws to protect them from name-calling? Are they so easily butthurt? Maybe they are sub-human/durty pervs.'
It's no accident that Austria is one of the most racist countries in Europe with a large neo-Nazi movement despite all the laws proscribing both. PC has encouraged the very thing it seeks to suppress, because people resist being told what to think or say.
It's much healthier to have a world where people can speak their mind, no matter how odious, and others defend themselves openly, and we can debate all sides of any argument.
PC seeks to prevent any of that from happening. It is dangerous thoughtcrime fascism, and if it comes to me and Patrick Moore being allied along with objectionable hatemongers against that PC fascism, so be it. You can't choose your allies.

Surely you can tell the difference between being PC (terrified that you'll even slightly offend someone) and objecting to blind hatred of millions of blameless people? You seem an intelligent person so I'm assuming yes, you can.
Isn't the imprisonment for denying as opposed to questioning the holocaust?
And while PC may sometimes be "mad" today (although much of the time it isn't really - it's just an imagined demon by people who resent not being able to bully) its original tenets were to improve the lives of marginalised, demonised people.

Nodin

bwatson wrote: »

Ok, I shall respond. Not that it will make any difference I don't expect.

The Blitz was a sustained campaign of terror and destruction on Britain and its people which lasted nearly a year. Over two million buildings were destroyed and vast areas pf London, Belfast, Birmingham, Southamption, Cardiff, Glasgow, Coventry, Bristol among multiple others were totally decimated.

On the home front 60,000 people died and its estimated that ten times that number were injured in some way. Millions lost everything they ever had and ever were. They experienced levels of fear and anguish for months and months beyond anything we have to suffer as a society today.

Do you remember, or have you read about, the shock and anger which followed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, or the London Bombings in July 2005? People were "sickened" and "outraged", and for my money rightly so. What we must remember is that less than 40 and 70 respectively were killed and damage to property was (in comparison) minimal. Now, maybe try and imagine multiplying the death toll by fifteen hundred and levels of destruction my a million. It is not something those of us who didnt experience it would be able to ever understand. .

Fair enough, theres nothing out there.

bwatson wrote: »

I think that British people who lived through it or those who have seen the long term consequences are well within their right to suggest that over the course of that year their nation and society were bombed to oblivion.
.

They may feel that way, but that wasn't the case, as touched on earlier.

hooradiation

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Define respect. You're not showing Sir Patrick much by insisting he should not be allowed to air his views.
And what PC actually is, is insisting that people show a state or quango-defined form of respect. They remain free to believe whatever they choose, and I think a society which insists on suppressing people's true beliefs and encourages them to lie about their sentiments is a dishonest and hypocritical one. I'd much rather have people speak their mind, no matter how odious. Only then can what's happening on this thread occur - which is a debate, where people can discuss the merits or lack thereof of opinions freely expressed.



Because it is fascism, pure and simple. It's a charter for thought crime. It's already gone way too far in Europe, where people can be jailed for things like holding views deemed to be racist or for questioning the holocaust.
Ironically, such laws actually encourage the views they're designed to suppress, because people start wondering "Why can't I question the holocaust like other historical events? Maybe there's something in this.' or 'Why do blacks or gays need laws to protect them from name-calling? Are they so easily butthurt? Maybe they are sub-human/durty pervs.'
It's no accident that Austria is one of the most racist countries in Europe with a large neo-Nazi movement despite all the laws proscribing both. PC has encouraged the very thing it seeks to suppress, because people resist being told what to think or say.
It's much healthier to have a world where people can speak their mind, no matter how odious, and others defend themselves openly, and we can debate all sides of any argument.
PC seeks to prevent any of that from happening. It is dangerous thoughtcrime fascism, and if it comes to me and Patrick Moore being allied along with objectionable hatemongers against that PC fascism, so be it. You can't choose your allies.

This is the worst post in the entire thread.

St.Spodo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Define respect. You're not showing Sir Patrick much by insisting he should not be allowed to air his views.
And what PC actually is, is insisting that people show a state or quango-defined form of respect. They remain free to believe whatever they choose, and I think a society which insists on suppressing people's true beliefs and encourages them to lie about their sentiments is a dishonest and hypocritical one. I'd much rather have people speak their mind, no matter how odious. Only then can what's happening on this thread occur - which is a debate, where people can discuss the merits or lack thereof of opinions freely expressed.



Because it is fascism, pure and simple. It's a charter for thought crime. It's already gone way too far in Europe, where people can be jailed for things like holding views deemed to be racist or for questioning the holocaust.
Ironically, such laws actually encourage the views they're designed to suppress, because people start wondering "Why can't I question the holocaust like other historical events? Maybe there's something in this.' or 'Why do blacks or gays need laws to protect them from name-calling? Are they so easily butthurt? Maybe they are sub-human/durty pervs.'
It's no accident that Austria is one of the most racist countries in Europe with a large neo-Nazi movement despite all the laws proscribing both. PC has encouraged the very thing it seeks to suppress, because people resist being told what to think or say.
It's much healthier to have a world where people can speak their mind, no matter how odious, and others defend themselves openly, and we can debate all sides of any argument.
PC seeks to prevent any of that from happening. It is dangerous thoughtcrime fascism, and if it comes to me and Patrick Moore being allied along with objectionable hatemongers against that PC fascism, so be it. You can't choose your allies.

Nowhere did I insist he should not be allowed hold his views. I just think his views are ludicrous. The first paragraph is textbook strawman stuff.

Secondly, I do not agree with absolute free speech. Speech -hate speech- can be an incredibly dangerous thing.

Nodin

Show Time wrote: »

And don't forget the German people were more than willing to turn a blind eye to the extermination of the Jews. It took the shock tactic of dragging the German people into the camps at the end of the war to see the work of the Nazis to make them realise the damage done to a peaceful and gentle race.

....I'd suggest reading
http://books.google.ie/books/about/The_Coming_Of_The_Third_Reich.html?id=unXu2Ygk2AgC&redir_esc=y
It would give you a better insight into the kind of state that Nazi germany was.

Dostoevsky

Domo230 wrote: »

http://www.historiccoventry.co.uk/blitz/ruins-rubble1.jpg

http://www.darklake-synectics.co.uk/ithilien-web/images/WW%202%20blitz%20woman%20fatality%20copy.jpg

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/covtelegraph/aug2010/4/9/coventry-blitz-jordan-well-443201187.jpg

http://img3.photographersdirect.com/img/262/wm/pd3121405.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mualcEdlhOk/TLg4T6B3nBI/AAAAAAAAAN4/y5ztiGcTNSg/s1600/cov.jpg

What you posted was highly disrespectful and makes light of the suffering they went through.

None of this supports your contention that this old bigot "saw his country bombed into oblivion". Trying to appeal to a British tabloid-style emotion over an impartial analysis of historical fact in World War II is lame: Britain was not "bombed into oblivion" by Nazi Germany in WWII, no matter how you twist historical facts, or emotions for that matter.

If any country has a claim on that (ridiculous) description, it's Russia with its 20 million plus deaths because of the Nazi invasion (as opposed to Britain and its 40,000 - 60,000 deaths). Even then a remedial understanding of the English language would dissuade any barely literate person from describing the Russian experience in the emotive, historically-challenged language you have chosen.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Cavehill Red

Dudess wrote: »

Surely you can tell the difference between being PC (terrified that you'll even slightly offend someone) and objecting to blind hatred of millions of blameless people? You seem an intelligent person so I'm assuming yes, you can.

If you don't like Moore's views, debate them with him. That's the constructive response, not seeking to shut him up or deny him his right to an opinion.

Dudess wrote: »

Isn't the imprisonment for denying as opposed to questioning the holocaust?

No, because they amount to the same thing. The state has effectively defined an historical event and its facts, meaning that any attempt to query the facts as defined by the state is a criminal offence. Apart from being blisteringly anti-intellectual, this also fosters the very beliefs the law was intended to suppress.

Dudess wrote: »

And while PC may sometimes be "mad" today (although much of the time it isn't really - it's just an imagined demon by people who resent not being able to bully) its original tenets were to improve the lives of marginalised, demonised people.

And its original tenets stop working when they become obligations, with legal action threatened to those who deviate. It ceases to be about persuading people to be respectful and becomes thoughtcrime fascism. And that's where we are today.

Show Time

Nodin wrote: »

....I'd suggest reading
http://books.google.ie/books/about/The_Coming_Of_The_Third_Reich.html?id=unXu2Ygk2AgC&redir_esc=y
It would give you a better insight into the kind of state that Nazi germany was.

Thanks for the link.

I am a bit of a history buff and it looks a good read.

Dudess

Show Time wrote: »

My Grandfather was a member of the old IRA(Born 1900-1990) and the man went to his grave hating England the people living there and anything British and would not change his views no matter what anyone said. I did not understand this attitude for many years until it was explained to me that he watched his brother and best friend shot in cold blood by the Black and Tans.

Maybe he couldn't help how he felt but it is still wrong to blame blameless people. And that can be said without a diminishing of respect for him.

Nodin

Show Time wrote: »

Thanks for the link.

I am a bit of a history buff and it looks a good read.

It is. He doesn't use german terms, which I disagree with, but other than that I've no qualms recommending it.

Cavehill Red

St.Spodo wrote: »

Nowhere did I insist he should not be allowed hold his views. I just think his views are ludicrous. The first paragraph is textbook strawman stuff.

Those sentiments have been expressed in this discussion. I didn't claim that they were yours personally. I was merely responding to your apologia for political correctness, which I object to as thoughtcrime fascism.

St.Spodo wrote: »

Secondly, I do not agree with absolute free speech. Speech -hate speech- can be an incredibly dangerous thing.

No more dangerous than telling people what they should think or say, I'd argue. In any case, I never argued for absolute freedom of speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a definite no-no.

Cavehill Red

hooradiation wrote: »

This is the worst post in the entire thread.

Feel free to debate me on it, then. Or would you rather have me carted off for re-education?

H2UMrsRobinson

Aquila wrote: »

Are my eyes deceiving me?
There are posters here who are trying to say that England suffered more than Russia in WW2?
Words fail...

No...the suffering was the same just on a different scale - Innocent people lost homes and families in both,

I don't even know why Russia was brought into it, Patrick Moore is not Russian !

St.Spodo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Those sentiments have been expressed in this discussion. I didn't claim that they were yours personally. I was merely responding to your apologia for political correctness, which I object to as thoughtcrime fascism.



No more dangerous than telling people what they should think or say, I'd argue. In any case, I never argued for absolute freedom of speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a definite no-no.

In that case, what speech do you think should be opposed by law?

Cavehill Red

St.Spodo wrote: »

In that case, what speech do you think should be opposed by law?

I just told you - yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or libels (though our libel laws in particular need a desperately urgent overhaul.)

Dudess

Cavehill Red wrote: »

If you don't like Moore's views, debate them with him. That's the constructive response, not seeking to shut him up or deny him his right to an opinion

I've done neither - I have outlined why I think his views are repugnant. Debated them - as you endorse. I agree it's better that unappetising views be challenged in the open but I wouldn't expect the opposition not to turn nasty if the person who initially provokes is being so.

JupiterKid

bwatson wrote: »

Ok, I shall respond. Not that it will make any difference I don't expect.

The Blitz was a sustained campaign of terror and destruction on Britain and its people which lasted nearly a year. Over two million buildings were destroyed and vast areas pf London, Belfast, Birmingham, Southamption, Cardiff, Glasgow, Coventry, Bristol among multiple others were totally decimated.

On the home front 60,000 people died and its estimated that ten times that number were injured in some way. Millions lost everything they ever had and ever were. They experienced levels of fear and anguish for months and months beyond anything we have to suffer as a society today.

Do you remember, or have you read about, the shock and anger which followed the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, or the London Bombings in July 2005? People were "sickened" and "outraged", and for my money rightly so. What we must remember is that less than 40 and 70 respectively were killed and damage to property was (in comparison) minimal. Now, maybe try and imagine multiplying the death toll by fifteen hundred and levels of destruction my a million. It is not something those of us who didnt experience it would be able to ever understand.

I think that British people who lived through it or those who have seen the long term consequences are well within their right to suggest that over the course of that year their nation and society were bombed to oblivion. I believe that it is your aim with your previous post to downplay and diminish the levels of destruction, pain and suffering that were experienced and I believe that is very ignorant and disrespectful. Are you doing so because "its the Brits" and they shouldnt be afforded the same levels of benevolence and commiseration? I've no idea (although I see Morlar has thanked your posts, maybe he thought you did!).

I largely agree. My dad grew up on the Antrim road in Belfast and the blitz devastated all the houses around his when he was just a baby of less than 2. My grandmother, as a young woman and my grandfather as a young man had to shelter in their basement (they were lucky to have one) whilst Belfast was literally being blown to smithereens all around them. Hunderds of people died in the streets off the Antrim Road alone in 1942.

I can totally understand why my late grandmother completely disliked Germans because of what she lived through but it still doesn't make Patrick Moore's comments any less unpleasant. Just more understandable.

Dostoevsky

bwatson wrote: »

I think that British people who lived through it or those who have seen the long term consequences are well within their right to suggest that over the course of that year their nation and society were bombed to oblivion.

I'm still not getting the part which produces historical evidence that Britain was "bombed into oblivion" by the Nazis in WWII. I'm getting the emotion and misguided nationalistically-motivated sentimentality (would you be this defensive if it were about another people other than your own?) in bucket loads, however. British people can, as you contend, suggest that they were bombed into oblivion. They could also contend a lot of other ridiculous things. Does the obvious need to be stated? Try and stick to the original claim which you defended rather than trying to deflect from your inability to now defend it with historical fact.

This meaning of 'oblivion':

ob·liv·i·on   [uh-bliv-ee-uhn]
noun
1.
the state of being completely forgotten or unknown: a former movie star now in oblivion.
2.
the state of forgetting or of being oblivious: the oblivion of sleep.
3.
official disregard or overlooking of offenses; pardon; amnesty.

Now that you grasp the meaning of the word, continue....

Cavehill Red

Dudess wrote: »

I've done neither - I have outlined why I think his views are repugnant. Debated them - as you endorse. I agree it's better that unappetising views be challenged in the open but I wouldn't expect the opposition not to turn nasty if the person who initially provokes is being so.

Again, I wasn't addressing that personally. I meant it rhetorically to all.
Also, I'd say that attempting to legislate for what people may think or say is nasty in itself.

Jesus Wept

He's an old fool who needs to shut up and get someone to buy longer trousers for him, what is left to debate.

St.Spodo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I just told you - yelling fire in a crowded theatre, or libels (though our libel laws in particular need a desperately urgent overhaul.)

I fail to see how libels are more dangerous than the dissemination of racist ideas. The Holocaust, while probably unique in magnitude and ambition, was not a once off thing. Hate speech in Rwanda about the ''Tsotsi vermin'' was broadcast to millions of people who went out and slaughtered them. My point is that I don't think you understand the potential disaster which can occur when you consistently alienate and dehumanise a type of people. Hate speech is an enemy of a fair society.

Dudess

Show Time wrote: »

And don't forget the German people were more than willing to turn a blind eye to the extermination of the Jews.

"More than willing?" It's infinitely more complex than that, unless you've some unique insight into a society you have no concept of being part of. Try living in a state under an extremely powerful regime where any subversion is swiftly crushed and then get back to me. There were German people who were brave enough to stand up to the regime - I know I wouldn't have had such courage because I'm not deluded - and suffered greatly when caught. Germans died at the hands of the nazis too you know.

H2UMrsRobinson

I think this oblivion thing is getting out of hand, it's a turn of phrase rather than a literal meaning.

On the other hand if I woke up one morning and my house was no longer there and my family was dead I would call that pretty damn close to oblivion.

It all depends on your view-point.

Anyway I can see where this thread is headed so I'm out.

Show Time

Dudess wrote: »

Maybe he couldn't help how he felt but it is still wrong to blame blameless people. And that can be said without a diminishing of respect for him.

More than likely he is spinning in his grave at that fact one of his grand kids is a civil servant for Queen and Country now(Not me btw):D

I have nothing but respect and love for him. He had a limp most of his life over pouring oil down a chimney of a Black and Tan station in North Cork. He cooked a a few tans but spent months in a field hospital for his troubles.

This is a strange spot for me to be in defending Sir Patrick as i don't believe in violence and i try and see the good in everyone.:)

I can see both sides to this debate and my final take on it is that Sir Patrick should have kept his views to himself.

sheesh

I don't think the death of your wife is something you would get over. I think he is entitled to feel that way. I heard a guy that had fought in the war of independence (he was over 100) say something similar.

Cavehill Red

St.Spodo wrote: »

I fail to see how libels are more dangerous than the dissemination of racist ideas. The Holocaust, while probably unique in magnitude and ambition, was not a once off thing. Hate speech in Rwanda about the ''Tsotsi vermin'' was broadcast to millions of people who went out and slaughtered them. My point is that I don't think you understand the potential disaster which can occur when you consistently alienate and dehumanise a type of people. Hate speech is an enemy of a fair society.

You have no idea what I understand or do not.

1. Libels need to be legislated for because they are personal assaults on an individual's reputation and integrity which often have a damaging effect on their livelihood. In that regard, recourse to justice is needed no less than it would in a situation where someone firebombs someone else's shop to put them out of business.

2. Tsotsi ARE vermin. They are flies that carry a number of potentially fatal parasites. I presume you meant to refer to the Tutsi people of the great lakes region. Edit: Actually, we're both wrong. Tsotsi is a South African movie. The fly is Tsetse.

3. So-called 'hate' speech doesn't kill anyone. As the old story about guns goes, it's people who kill people, and we already have laws against all violent person-on-person crime.

bwatson

Dostoevsky wrote: »

I'm still not getting the part which produces historical evidence that Britain was "bombed into oblivion" by the Nazis in WWII. I'm getting the emotion and misguided nationalistically-motivated sentimentality (would you be this defensive if it were about another people other than your own?) in bucket loads, however. British people can, as you contend, suggest that they were bombed into oblivion. They could also contend a lot of other ridiculous things. Does the obvious need to be stated? Try and stick to the original claim which you defended rather than trying to deflect from your inability to now defend it with historical fact.

This meaning of 'oblivion':

ob·liv·i·on   [uh-bliv-ee-uhn]
noun
1.
the state of being completely forgotten or unknown: a former movie star now in oblivion.

I think you actually are reinforcing my point with this dictionary defenition, notably the bolded parts. British society was scarred immeasurably and without exception Britain's most important centres of economy, industry and culture were flattened beyond recognition.

Dudess

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'd say that attempting to legislate for what people may think or say is nasty in itself.

If a person goes to prison for storming into a synagogue yelling nazi slogans, imprison the ****er IMO. Choose a more appropriate audience/environment at least.
"What about free speech?", "Political correctness gone mad!" and "That's censorship!" are lines used by people who are just pissed off that they can't bully. Doubt they'd give a **** about the free speech etc of the groups they enjoy hating.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Born to Die

Free speech for all.
Political correctness for all.

Kills free thinking. :mad:

Born to Die

Aquila wrote: »

I truly wonder where some get their historical information from..

Some strange information all right, do you think Google might be broke?

St.Spodo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

You have no idea what I understand or do not.

1. Libels need to be legislated for because they are personal assaults on an individual's reputation and integrity which often have a damaging effect on their livelihood. In that regard, recourse to justice is needed no less than it would in a situation where someone firebombs someone else's shop to put them out of business.

2. Tsotsi ARE vermin. They are flies that carry a number of potentially fatal parasites. I presume you meant to refer to the Tutsi people of the great lakes region. Edit: Actually, we're both wrong. Tsotsi is a South African movie. The fly is Tsetse.

3. So-called 'hate' speech doesn't kill anyone. As the old story about guns goes, it's people who kill people, and we already have laws against all violent person-on-person crime.

My bad about the spelling. I completely disagree on the third point, I am not arguing about the dangers of inciting hatred and dehumanising people again. History argues that point for me very well.

bwatson

Aquila wrote: »

I truly wonder where some get their historical information from..

You really should reread this thread. Absolutely nobody has suggested anything close to what you believed had been written in your previous post.