The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:19 am

See how you changed your story? From "most" to all. I'm sure the link is a wonderful read, but before doing so, please confirm the article specifically addresses your statement that: "Well there is an argument to be made that govt should not get involved in regulating business conduct." If you confirm your link actually addresses that argument, I will read it. If it doesn't: you are just too lazy to critically think for yourself.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:17 am

Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:This is just wrong:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-boycott-local-councils-public-bodies-and-student-unions-to-be-banned-from-shunning-israeli-a6874006.html

I find this extremely disturbing, why should anyone be forced to buy goods from a regime it considers distasteful?


Hi Jeff-- I think this article, at least from a US perspective, explains this:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... s-fund-bds

Best,
TB

This para stands out:
But if states can choose to not do business with South African companies because of their politics and practices, it also means they can choose to not do business with private companies because of other discriminatory policies—like a boycott of Israel.
However it also means that states wouldn't do business with the firms that boycotted the SA apartheid regime, had the law that Kontorovich drafted existed at the time. I think it shows the wrongness of such a law.


Sergey-- I think this may address your concern here:
... The federal government and many states require contractors and subcontractors to not discriminate on, among other things, “the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” There is no doubt that the First Amendment protects a potential contractor’s belief that homosexuality is wicked behavior and even his decision to “boycott” gays. But as President Barack Obama said when signing the executive order prohibiting such discrimination in government contracts, the federal government is not required to “subsidize discrimination.”

Of course, some who oppose discrimination against gays may think boycotting Israel is more defensible. But First Amendment protection or lack thereof does not turn on the popularity or content of the relevant views.

What you posted has no relevance whatsoever to what I wrote.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:41 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:This is just wrong:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-boycott-local-councils-public-bodies-and-student-unions-to-be-banned-from-shunning-israeli-a6874006.html

I find this extremely disturbing, why should anyone be forced to buy goods from a regime it considers distasteful?


Hi Jeff-- I think this article, at least from a US perspective, explains this:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-an ... s-fund-bds

Best,
TB

This para stands out:
But if states can choose to not do business with South African companies because of their politics and practices, it also means they can choose to not do business with private companies because of other discriminatory policies—like a boycott of Israel.
However it also means that states wouldn't do business with the firms that boycotted the SA apartheid regime, had the law that Kontorovich drafted existed at the time. I think it shows the wrongness of such a law.


Sergey-- I think this may address your concern here:
... The federal government and many states require contractors and subcontractors to not discriminate on, among other things, “the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” There is no doubt that the First Amendment protects a potential contractor’s belief that homosexuality is wicked behavior and even his decision to “boycott” gays. But as President Barack Obama said when signing the executive order prohibiting such discrimination in government contracts, the federal government is not required to “subsidize discrimination.”

Of course, some who oppose discrimination against gays may think boycotting Israel is more defensible. But First Amendment protection or lack thereof does not turn on the popularity or content of the relevant views.

What you posted has no relevance whatsoever to what I wrote.


Ok. Then I’m not following your argument. How does
But if states can choose to not do business with South African companies because of their politics and practices, it also means they can choose to not do business with private companies because of other discriminatory policies—like a boycott of Israel

Result in
However it also means that states wouldn't do business with the firms that boycotted the SA apartheid regime, had the law that Kontorovich drafted existed at the time. I think it shows the wrongness of such a law.
?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:16 am

Maybe you should re-read the article you posted?

"South Carolina has passed a law restricting state contracting with those who boycott on a nationality basis (the law is not limited to Israel"

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:43 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:Maybe you should re-read the article you posted?

"South Carolina has passed a law restricting state contracting with those who boycott on a nationality basis (the law is not limited to Israel"


Unless the state/fed also boycott that country. Businesses are not allowed to do business with NK. The state/fed decide which countries are boycotted.

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:50 am

And they should be allowed to boycott the apartheid South Africa even if the right-wing govt doesn't.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:02 am

Tallboy: so I assume you understand the error you make?

There is a huge difference between the government boycotting whoever they do and requiring private citizens and businesses to honor that boycott.

Not the same thing at all as the government NOT having a boycott and making it illegal for private citizens and businesses to "choose" not to deal with odious countries, businesses, or people. That does have various free speech, rights of association, and freedom to deal or not deal as one sees fit.

Tell us when you see the difference?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:01 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:And they should be allowed to boycott the apartheid South Africa even if the right-wing govt doesn't.

I agree with you regarding boycotting apartheid South Africa, but there are those that would disagree which is why i pasted the following quote from the article in a previous post:
"But First Amendment protection or lack thereof does not turn on the popularity or content of the relevant views."

Recall that there was a Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act during the Reagan administration (which Reagan vetoed but his veto was overturned by a Republican controlled Senate which shows the bipartisan support for it). so the US (and consequently US companies) did boycott South Africa. on the other hand I don't believe Israeli companies should be boycotted because of Netanyahu's policies any more than i think that US companies should be boycotted due to Trumps policies.

but neither of these are relevant to the point i was addressing, which was whether fed/states have a right to ban companies from discrimination (boycotting) based on nationality, which they do, just like they have a right to ban discrimination based on gender or race. Problem is states' opinions are based on who is making the laws. right-wing lawmakers will make laws differently than left-wing ones. they way to fix this is through the ballot box.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:20 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Tallboy: so I assume you understand the error you make?

There is a huge difference between the government boycotting whoever they do and requiring private citizens and businesses to honor that boycott.

Not the same thing at all as the government NOT having a boycott and making it illegal for private citizens and businesses to "choose" not to deal with odious countries, businesses, or people. That does have various free speech, rights of association, and freedom to deal or not deal as one sees fit.

Tell us when you see the difference?


Bobbo-- You're not understanding the argument. No one is claiming private citizens are not allowed to boycott. no one is forcing you to buy Sabra Hummus. But there is a difference between private citizens and companies. This law pertains to companies as they are required to follow laws that don't necessarily pertain to private citizens, such as those regarding discrimination based on gender, race, nationality, etc. as well as min wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA laws (mold, air quality, 'green' laws, waste disposal laws, etc.). A number of states regard boycotting Israel as a violation of discrimination based on nationality. other states may not feel that way, but the argument is that states have a right to regulate business practices, including boycotts. the article explains this and gives examples of previous boycotts that were deemed illegal.

i don't post often as my life is quite hectic, which is another reason why i keep suggesting that you read the article. it would speed things up if you read the article so we would be starting from the same place.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:37 pm

thats a fair comment Tallboy---thanks. I admit I found the link hard to follow, perhaps my subconscious rebelling against the idea? .... and absent public statements (free speech?) I don't know how a law could be enforced against either a private individual or a business. Its totally the same issues????

It is appropriate to ask/require/assume others will read an article to have some common denominators with you, but I don't think it is appropriate to support any position you want to take by saying: read this. The problem is well demonstrated just in our exchange as you went from many to all. I don't think I'm over emphasizing what is observable all the time? aka: take ONE point and agree/disagree with some quote from the link and if applicable massage one point or the other per your own insights. Too many wild goose chases otherwise.

ymmv.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:02 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:thats a fair comment Tallboy---thanks. I admit I found the link hard to follow, perhaps my subconscious rebelling against the idea? .... and absent public statements (free speech?) I don't know how a law could be enforced against either a private individual or a business. Its totally the same issues????

It is appropriate to ask/require/assume others will read an article to have some common denominators with you, but I don't think it is appropriate to support any position you want to take by saying: read this. The problem is well demonstrated just in our exchange as you went from many to all. I don't think I'm over emphasizing what is observable all the time? aka: take ONE point and agree/disagree with some quote from the link and if applicable massage one point or the other per your own insights. Too many wild goose chases otherwise.

ymmv.


Thanks bobbo, i agree it is inappropriate to say 'read this' as an argument (it's a pet peeve of mine when people do that to me!). in this particular case though, it was the article itself that was under debate. your point about your subconscious mind rebelling against the idea in the article and therefore making it hard to follow is well taken.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:06 pm

I will quibble: it is "never" ""the article/link"" that is under debate BUT RATHER the IDEAS in the article. Hence the requirement not to be irksome?

I suspect we agree on very many issues.......we're just porcupines.........
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:21 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I will quibble: it is "never" ""the article/link"" that is under debate BUT RATHER the IDEAS in the article. Hence the requirement not to be irksome?

I suspect we agree on very many issues.......we're just porcupines.........


i would agree with that as well :D

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:51 pm

Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:And they should be allowed to boycott the apartheid South Africa even if the right-wing govt doesn't.

I agree with you regarding boycotting apartheid South Africa, but there are those that would disagree which is why i pasted the following quote from the article in a previous post:
"But First Amendment protection or lack thereof does not turn on the popularity or content of the relevant views."

Recall that there was a Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act during the Reagan administration (which Reagan vetoed but his veto was overturned by a Republican controlled Senate which shows the bipartisan support for it). so the US (and consequently US companies) did boycott South Africa. on the other hand I don't believe Israeli companies should be boycotted because of Netanyahu's policies any more than i think that US companies should be boycotted due to Trumps policies.

but neither of these are relevant to the point i was addressing, which was whether fed/states have a right to ban companies from discrimination (boycotting) based on nationality, which they do, just like they have a right to ban discrimination based on gender or race. Problem is states' opinions are based on who is making the laws. right-wing lawmakers will make laws differently than left-wing ones. they way to fix this is through the ballot box.

1st Amdt., of which I'm not a fan in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments in this thread.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:06 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:And they should be allowed to boycott the apartheid South Africa even if the right-wing govt doesn't.

I agree with you regarding boycotting apartheid South Africa, but there are those that would disagree which is why i pasted the following quote from the article in a previous post:
"But First Amendment protection or lack thereof does not turn on the popularity or content of the relevant views."

Recall that there was a Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act during the Reagan administration (which Reagan vetoed but his veto was overturned by a Republican controlled Senate which shows the bipartisan support for it). so the US (and consequently US companies) did boycott South Africa. on the other hand I don't believe Israeli companies should be boycotted because of Netanyahu's policies any more than i think that US companies should be boycotted due to Trumps policies.

but neither of these are relevant to the point i was addressing, which was whether fed/states have a right to ban companies from discrimination (boycotting) based on nationality, which they do, just like they have a right to ban discrimination based on gender or race. Problem is states' opinions are based on who is making the laws. right-wing lawmakers will make laws differently than left-wing ones. they way to fix this is through the ballot box.

1st Amdt., of which I'm not a fan in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments in this thread.

why are you not a fan of the 1st Amendment?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:26 pm

Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:And they should be allowed to boycott the apartheid South Africa even if the right-wing govt doesn't.

I agree with you regarding boycotting apartheid South Africa, but there are those that would disagree which is why i pasted the following quote from the article in a previous post:
"But First Amendment protection or lack thereof does not turn on the popularity or content of the relevant views."

Recall that there was a Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act during the Reagan administration (which Reagan vetoed but his veto was overturned by a Republican controlled Senate which shows the bipartisan support for it). so the US (and consequently US companies) did boycott South Africa. on the other hand I don't believe Israeli companies should be boycotted because of Netanyahu's policies any more than i think that US companies should be boycotted due to Trumps policies.

but neither of these are relevant to the point i was addressing, which was whether fed/states have a right to ban companies from discrimination (boycotting) based on nationality, which they do, just like they have a right to ban discrimination based on gender or race. Problem is states' opinions are based on who is making the laws. right-wing lawmakers will make laws differently than left-wing ones. they way to fix this is through the ballot box.

1st Amdt., of which I'm not a fan in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments in this thread.

why are you not a fan of the 1st Amendment?

I think hate speech merits punishment.

Tallboy
Poster
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Tallboy » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:43 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tallboy wrote:
Sergey_Romanov wrote:And they should be allowed to boycott the apartheid South Africa even if the right-wing govt doesn't.

I agree with you regarding boycotting apartheid South Africa, but there are those that would disagree which is why i pasted the following quote from the article in a previous post:
"But First Amendment protection or lack thereof does not turn on the popularity or content of the relevant views."

Recall that there was a Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act during the Reagan administration (which Reagan vetoed but his veto was overturned by a Republican controlled Senate which shows the bipartisan support for it). so the US (and consequently US companies) did boycott South Africa. on the other hand I don't believe Israeli companies should be boycotted because of Netanyahu's policies any more than i think that US companies should be boycotted due to Trumps policies.

but neither of these are relevant to the point i was addressing, which was whether fed/states have a right to ban companies from discrimination (boycotting) based on nationality, which they do, just like they have a right to ban discrimination based on gender or race. Problem is states' opinions are based on who is making the laws. right-wing lawmakers will make laws differently than left-wing ones. they way to fix this is through the ballot box.

1st Amdt., of which I'm not a fan in any case, has nothing whatsoever to do with my comments in this thread.

why are you not a fan of the 1st Amendment?

I think hate speech merits punishment.


hmm. suffice it to say that I very much disagree but I'll leave it at that.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:00 pm

Silly to deny the benefits of all the subjects/attitudes/beliefs that Free Speech PROTECTS...JUST because one thinks it goes too far or stops short on some specific issue.

..................Lack of balance.

In many if not most instances, hate speech slops over into calls for action which are illegal and prosecuted....so, often concerns about hate speech one way or the other are really not appreciated.

"I hate Nazis, they should all be killed."==>Protected Free Speech

"I hate Nazis, they should all be killed" when one of them in a Brown Shirt is held by the scruff of the neck in front of an angry crowd and then let go? Not protected free speech.

ymmv.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:04 am

"I hate Jews, they should all be killed." should under no circumstances be protected speech.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:15 am

Time, Place, and Manner..................No Absolutes, No Sacred Cows.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:06 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Time, Place, and Manner..................No Absolutes, No Sacred Cows.

I should have added: Pros and cons to all we do.

But to expand it just a bit: SR: would you outlaw all such statements in that format?....or just Jews?

"I hate Jews, they should all be killed."

"I hate Nazis, they should all be killed."

"I hate Mass Murderers, they should all be killed."

"I hate Slave Owners, they should all be killed."

"I hate Vegans, they should all be killed."

"I hate the Ebola Virus, they should all be killed."

Can you find a formulation you think should not be illegal???? Why illegal rather than just socially ostracized????? why respond with the Iron Fist of Gubment control rather than MORE SPEECH??????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:15 pm

I've given the example that shows that hate speech should be punished. Discussing *other* examples and drawing clear borders is not something that I am obliged to do or something that would be productive in this forum in any case.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:30 pm

Quite right Sergey. You don't need to support what you post.

I asked the question to find out if you are against free speech more generally or only quite specifically when it touches on the Jews. This analysis would help sort what your driving motivation is. Is it being against hate speech, or just against any speech that harms the Jews.

Totally productive, if you want to understand anything......including yourself.

I favor FREEEEEEEEEE SPEECH. It will from time to time, subject to subject, create some harms that could be prevented by making laws against said speech. But those laws raise and cause other harms as well, including, DIRECTLY putting people in jail for thinking. I don't like that.

So....we have a harm which is hate speech. The more debatable issue then becomes what is the right response to it. Just watch how hard you stomp your feet when standing on a slippery slope.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:01 am

Your question was stupid. Of course I include the Russians too.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:56 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:"I hate Jews, they should all be killed." should under no circumstances be protected speech.


Agree with you. But your example is clearly a call for murder more than the expression of an opinion. Actually, it is the second part of that sentence that should be punished, while expression of hatred, even if it is a sign of profound stupidity, without call for murder can be protected.

Regarding the main issue, that is "should boycotts be made illegal", it is the latest absurdity promoted by well intended people who cannot realize how badly it is perceived by the broad public. Jeff, you'll be sad that such a law has been past in France a couple of years ago. Not only it is illegal to not buying Israeli products, but is also a criminal offense to call for such a boycott.

I just love the concept of "discrimination based on nationality"...probably the most insane of all the initiatives. Love the "all nationality is concerned, not just Israel" bluff. Can anyone give just ONE example of a boycott who was targeting a "nationality"? Good luck.
One of those hypocrite instance of a law that intend to punish a crime that has never been committed before.

Back in the 80's, we were not boycotting South African goods because of the South African nationality but because of a shameful policy led by the South African government. And as it worked out, the boycott was lifted when the infamous policy had been abandoned. Simple as that.

To assimilate "political" boycotts to discrimination, especially when those are motivated by racism or intolerance is intellectually dishonest and, as i said, consists to assimilate a "imaginary crime" with "existing criminal behavior" (or at least behavior that should be considered illegal in case they are not forbidden). No one has ever called for boycott of Israeli product (actually only those made in the occupied territories are concerned) because those product were made by "Jews"... If that were the case, then this would be discrimination, not based on "nationality" but motivated by plain Antisemitism.
BUT THIS IS JUST NOT THE CASE...so the whole logic is wrong.

This kind of articles, like the one from Tablet, is pure manipulation through amalgams, misrepresentations and pure lies. Sorry for those who feels offended.

I personally do not support the BDS movement, as it does more harm than good in my opinion, but the idea that those who do should be considered as criminal is unacceptable under the circumstances. This is just another kick on democratic values. And the danger is even greater those kicks creep into laws.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8371
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:59 pm

See, I find that outrageous.

Illegal to call for a boycott???????
‘I have not left anybody in the dark about the fact that this time, millions of adult men would not die, and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not be burnt or bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit, albeit by more humane means, having to pay for his guilt.’
Adolf Hitler
Final Will and Testament

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:56 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:See, I find that outrageous.

Illegal to call for a boycott???????


Actually, this is the first country where this insane logic, that is "to call for a boycott of Israel's product" = a call for discrimination, has been adopted. Of course, the absurdity has limits. You can still call for a boycott of Israel so to speak, but NOT to NOT BUY ITS PRODUCT.
This is the result of a decision of the French Supreme Court (2015)... In B.D.S...you can still call for D or S, but not for the B.
The scandal reached its high when the french minister of Justice - that was under president Sarkozy - asked the public prosecutors to "systematically" prosecute those calling for the boycott... The present situation, quite weird, is the result of the judgements...
Some judges having decided that a call for a boycott is a right under "freedom of Speech", this is unless it specify "not to buy Israel's product" which is still regarded as a "call for discrimination"...

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8371
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:11 am

The problem is equating a call for a boycott or criticizing Israeli policies an antisemitic act. It is not.
‘I have not left anybody in the dark about the fact that this time, millions of adult men would not die, and hundreds of thousands of women and children would not be burnt or bombed to death in the cities, without the actual culprit, albeit by more humane means, having to pay for his guilt.’
Adolf Hitler
Final Will and Testament

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:53 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:The problem is equating a call for a boycott or criticizing Israeli policies an antisemitic act. It is not.

The problem is inversely proportional to how formally Israel becomes a Jewish State. The pressure to finally pass multiple resolutions to that effect only grows as the Palestinian Effort to wipe Jews from the map continues unabated. Some distinctions, while true, aren't worth making.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:45 pm

It comes down to an opinion, I'm very clear about that. Everybody should be.

I think that racial/ethnic and religious* hate incitement should be punished. A call to kill the Nazis doesn't fall under this (though it might fall under incitement to murder, a separate issue) since they're not such a group.

---

* Religion takes place somewhere in-between pure ideology and an immutable characteristic - there's no question that religion itself, as a set of beliefs, should be criticized freely, but public incitement against whole religious groups (e.g. Muslims) should be punished. How to define "incitement" it is an interesting question of course - e.g. there's no shame in criticizing all Jehovah's witnesses for their stance on blood transfusion, or all CoS members for their sheep-like obedience to their masters - but that's not hatred, just facts. Calling Muslims terrorists is hatred/incitement, since it's not true.

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:46 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:See, I find that outrageous.

Illegal to call for a boycott???????

Quite obvious, but fanatics don't care.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 11, 2018 1:34 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:It comes down to an opinion, I'm very clear about that. Everybody should be.

I think that racial/ethnic and religious* hate incitement should be punished.

Opinions based on values. Some opinions and values better than others with Pros and Cons to all we do.

So...."punished." Ok........but why by the "LAW" rather than social ostracism or rebuke?

or.... why punish? Why not "responded to" with education, rebuke, or MORE SPEECH.

.................and..........I just noticed a key difference: racial and ethnic are categories applied by people with or without the consent/choice of those so labeled. But religion, like Nazism is a CHOICE of those who profess such beliefs. Seems to me they should be subject to the very limits of free speech, whatever society decides they should be.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:59 pm

Bobo why do you keep asking question to which the answers are so evident?

First, Sergey's opinion is not just based on "values". He is, like me, a European. In Europe, "hate incitement" is punished in every countries. Why, because of our history. European history is haunted with "intolerance and all kind of nasty consequences" and of course with the Holocaust. To make short, we are aware of what "hate incitement" can lead to.

Now if a society wants to punish a behavior, LAW is the only way to do it. To be ostracized for an opinion that is not punished by law would be itself a dirty social behavior, actually quite similar to "hate incitement".

Bobo:
"I just noticed a key difference: racial and ethnic are categories applied by people with or without the consent/choice of those so labeled. But religion, like Nazism is a CHOICE of those who profess such beliefs. Seems to me they should be subject to the very limits of free speech, whatever society decides they should be."

This is a wrong premise: A Jew is not a Jew only because other people labeled them "Jew". Same way, if it is now known (at least it should be) that there is only ONE Human race, the color of your skin depends on your genes. You are black no matter what other people label you.
The notion that religion is purely a choice should also be tempered. If you were born in a religious family, hence your received a religious education, and if in addition you are living in a heavily religious society/community...the individual choice is quite limited.
Catholics are baptized as soon as they are born, and that makes your officially a catholic even if you later chose not to follow the catholic rules.
Persecutions are rarely is based on individual cases: a target will not be persecuted depending on his religious behavior, but because he is officially considered as member of the targeted religion.

And anyway, there should not be any distinction at all because basic human rights have stated that no one should suffer discrimination or persecution based on his ethnicity, religion, etc.
There is this thing called "freedom of religion", and that should be enough.

Of course, and this the main problem i have, the fight against this type of crime should be "careful" and "responsible", definitions of what constitutes a "hate incitement" should be strict and well thought...and that is not always the case, i am afraid.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:55 pm

Whoa!!!!! An excellent question.........and I'm drunk looking for my glue gun. What to do????

As always: answer as honestly as I can....quick scan says I might find a wrinkle in my smooth skin? Lets see:

1. Bobo why do you keep asking question to which the answers are so evident? /// I haven't reviewed the thread, just answering your post. I have to ask: what question specifically? and I do note your complaint that I keep asking it? That usually occurs when the interrogatee is not answering that question? But without identifying the question...... who knows?

2. First, Sergey's opinion is not just based on "values". He is, like me, a European. In Europe, "hate incitement" is punished in every countries. Why, because of our history. European history is haunted with "intolerance and all kind of nasty consequences" and of course with the Holocaust. To make short, we are aware of what "hate incitement" can lead to. //// I don't track on how the history of the issue establishes the issue as anything but a values question. Your history explains, justifies, supports the Why of how the value is established. It is interesting that USA has a history of great atrocities.........but we don't admit them. No Nuremberg trial??????? Makes a big difference. But YES: History = experience = values. USA uniquely has a FIRST AMENDMENT THAT ENSHRINES FREE SPEECH. That IS my history..... my values.

3, Now if a society wants to punish a behavior, LAW is the only way to do it. To be ostracized for an opinion that is not punished by law would be itself a dirty social behavior, actually quite similar to "hate incitement". //// I disagree totally, and assume you will too on a moments reflection. Society, capital S, is the Laws. But are we not all individuals as well?..............I think so. Its actually what values/morals are all about: what you do on your own without conforming to the laws as the controlling element.

4. Bobo:
"I just noticed a key difference: racial and ethnic are categories applied by people with or without the consent/choice of those so labeled. But religion, like Nazism is a CHOICE of those who profess such beliefs. Seems to me they should be subject to the very limits of free speech, whatever society decides they should be."

This is a wrong premise: A Jew is not a Jew only because other people labeled them "Jew". Same way, if it is now known (at least it should be) that there is only ONE Human race, the color of your skin depends on your genes. You are black no matter what other people label you.
The notion that religion is purely a choice should also be tempered. If you were born in a religious family, hence your received a religious education, and if in addition you are living in a heavily religious society/community...the individual choice is quite limited. //// All true...............BUT.............. ALL.....still a choice. UNLIKE race and ethnicity. You have not breached the distinction.

5. Catholics are baptized as soon as they are born, and that makes your officially a catholic even if you later chose not to follow the catholic rules. //// Ha, ha......."officially?" Sezs who????? It JUST NOW occurred to me how "State Oriented" you are....at least in this thread, on this issue, so far: The STATE decides what morality is, what can be said and not said any AND you think everyone should fall in line? Likewise, very STATIST thinking that what the Catholic Church pronounces is some kind of life long brand that can never be negated BY INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. I disagree. I don't buy your premise, nor the consequences that flow therefrom. WE DECIDE WHO WE ARE......anyone else doing so: just an excuse.'

6. Persecutions are rarely is based on individual cases: a target will not be persecuted depending on his religious behavior, but because he is officially considered as member of the targeted religion. /// I agree. But..... how else is said person considered the targeted religion? Lots of overlap on those Venn Diagrams.... which allows for the exception you might think makes the rule?

7. And anyway, there should not be any distinction at all because basic human rights have stated that no one should suffer discrimination or persecution based on his ethnicity, religion, etc. //// We agree. The still live, I assume repeated question is: what should the remedy be?

8. There is this thing called "freedom of religion", and that should be enough. /// No. Freedom is the freedom to do..... NOT to be free from the consequences of such decisions.

9. Of course, and this the main problem i have, the fight against this type of crime should be "careful" and "responsible", definitions of what constitutes a "hate incitement" should be strict and well thought...and that is not always the case, i am afraid. ///// Ahhhhhh.....you are conflating hate speech (the issue I advocate for a heavy bias in favor of FREE SPEECH) with hate incitement which IS AGAINST THE LAW in many jurisdictions. I support anti Hate Incitement laws.///////////////Hmmmmmm.......I may have that wrong by way of definition? Incitement is so close to a call for action.....which should be illegal, but you probably mean "the ideas" as inciting hatred? You know: as most religions do themselves?????? Yes, those are harder cases.

Well, that was ONE BEER. But I had a late dinner, no room for steak and eggs.

ymmv.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:03 pm

I've already specified religious incitement as a special case, in case this was not noticed.

Ostracism etc. assumes that the society is healthy and will not fall ill.

Clearly any society that would elect someone like Trump, Orban and Erdogan is ill.

Ostracism and more speech - how did it work out for the Weimar Germany?

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1735
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Balsamo » Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:47 pm

Bobo:
I haven't reviewed the thread, just answering your post. I have to ask: what question specifically? and I do note your complaint that I keep asking it? That usually occurs when the interrogatee is not answering that question? But without identifying the question...... who knows?


I reacted because you accused one poster of not having supported his opinion.
The poster wrote: " I am not a fan of the 1st A"
He has been asked why?
He answered: " because some speeches should not be protected" like "hate incitement" giving an example probably inspired by the vocation of this subforum : "I hate the Jews, they should all be killed".
He could have given others examples like "I hate all pragmatic bobo's of the world, they should all have their tongue cut off"...
That was clear to everyone but you. But you still accused him of not supporting his post...well what is it you don't understand in making a distinction between a "speech" that is "an expression of opinion" and a "hate incitement" that is a "call to act against a target"?
What kind of arguments should be added?

I don't track on how the history of the issue establishes the issue as anything but a values question. Your history explains, justifies, supports the Why of how the value is established. It is interesting that USA has a history of great atrocities.........but we don't admit them. No Nuremberg trial??????? Makes a big difference. But YES: History = experience = values. USA uniquely has a FIRST AMENDMENT THAT ENSHRINES FREE SPEECH. That IS my history..... my values.


Again, you like to make amalgams, to oversimplify things.
In order to accept the kind of simplification, like "History=experiences=values", we should supposed that there is a common history so to speak shared by every European individuals. Not that simple. Europe has the characteristic to have way too many cultures and history grouped in quite small territory.
It is also wrong that the USA uniquely has such an amendment as it was incuded in the French revolutionary "Declaration of Human rights" of 1789 (note that the first A had been added in 1791). And it is also to be found in the "Universal Declaration of Human rights" of 1948 (article 18, irrc").

As far as i know, Sergey's opinion is not based on purely personal opinion (how he defines its limit clearly IS, though), nor is it opinion of a personal or national history...If there is a value involved, that would be a legal one that is the very same "Universal declaration of human rights" not just taken at face value but in a way that...and that should sound nice to you...is pragmatic.
There is a common conclusion from countries that do not share common history or value that agree that ONE article granting a right (here article 18) cannot and should bot be used to justify actions that would put at risk ONE of or ALL the others articles of the very same declaration by over-extending one.

Bobo still:
I disagree totally, and assume you will too on a moments reflection. Society, capital S, is the Laws. But are we not all individuals as well?..............I think so. Its actually what values/morals are all about: what you do on your own without conforming to the laws as the controlling element.


This is pure Bull {!#%@}, sorry.
Society with or without a bid S, is not the law. Society with a big S issues LAWS in order to maintain civil peace among it. And it does so by respecting democratic rules (that is in a democratic society).
By saying what you say, you just defend the 1st Amendment while disregarding the others.
Or in my logic, promoting article 18 disregarding article 11 and all those that follows.
Remember this one?
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed.


Bobo:
All true...............BUT.............. ALL.....still a choice. UNLIKE race and ethnicity. You have not breached the distinction.


Well depending who makes the definition when persecuting.
But that is not what you said. You said:
"racial and ethnic are categories applied by people with or without the consent/choice of those so labeled"

So you are still missing the point, that - again to take the Jewish example - it did not matter if the Jew was a believer or not.
When someone says that all Muslims are terrorists, well then everyone who chose to listen to him will consider a Muslim as a terrorist and therefore justify whatever might happened to this individual Muslim.
This is precisely the kind of logic that kind of allowed the Holocaust to take place. Even Himmler in his Posen speech recognized that every Germans, even among the Nazis had his "Prima Jude", the good one, all the other were of course evil, but this Schlomo was a good guy...Well mathematically, following this logic, no Jude should have been prosecuted as there was at least 20 times more Nazis than Jews...So Himmler concluded that no exception should be made...

This is the result of using concept like "inherent and collective guilt", if this concept is not accepted, then no genocide is possible...if it is then everything is possible...and become acceptable...And this is the idea of the opposition against "Hate Incitements"...

Again, i repeat, as i am repeating for the last 20 years, i do not agree with the way this sane objective is pursued, but that is another thing,

We agree. The still live, I assume repeated question is: what should the remedy be?


Well this is precisely what i meant by "another thing". I think our "western societies" have a too limited view. You can easily "systematically prosecute" everyone who express "politically incorrect idea", but that will never erase where this idea comes from. And it seems that we are contented with this superficial approach.
I tried to explain the "public perception" vs "reality" many times across the discussions of this forum, but i agree that there are no easy answers.
I tend to think that a democratic society should show its strength by letting people scream out their hatred, at least in order to identify the problem and conceive a remedy to it.
I would rather have 20 million people allowed to scream "i hate the Jews i want them killed" than to have " a dozen sentenced to jail" when this awful idea is shared in silence by million of unknown followers. But that is what i call a pragmatic approach, contrary to the idealistic approach saying that "it should be a right to promote killing Jews"...sense the difference?
Well that might be the main difference between Sergey and many others and me...But that does not mean that i defend the right to call for the killing of Jews or whatever other communities based on ethnicity, "race" or religion or sexual orientation, political stances, etc.

My personal remedy is to show the strength of a "democratic society" by showing tolerance until a certain point.
I can only give an example: in the mid 50's or 60's, there is a interview available on youtube (sound only) of a famous Jewish French journalist - Jacques Chancel - interviewing and debating with one of the most despicable French collaborator called Rebatet who was sentenced to life in prison but graced. The politeness of the interview was the most astonishing exhibition of strength of the present against (the French 5th Republic) against the past (the Vichy Regime, and worst in this case as Rebatet was an unrepentant Nazi). In International affairs, we call such power the "smart power", which is the one that fits with the ideals we are supposed to fight for).
But as i said, that is another debate, and took many occasion to express it on this forum in the past.

Bobo:
No. Freedom is the freedom to do..... NOT to be free from the consequences of such decisions.


So you see your problem? you agree twice and then contradict yourself with such silly statement...
To make it clear, legal or political freedoms should not come with bad consequences. There is no freedom, even in principle, if you lose your job exercising your freedom...then it is not a freedom.
It is like saying to a slave "Ok you do not want to be slave, then go, but if we catch you we will kill you"...this kind of maxim should not be confused with freedom principles.
On a more personal mode, that was what my mother used to say when she did not agree with my choice: It always started with "You do what you want, BUT...." As far as freedom is concerned they should never be any "BUT".
On the other hand, to chose to become a "murderer" should not be the result of the exercise of any "right" even less inspired by "human rights".
And yes, we are in such a silly situation that today, at least in Europe, it is the Far rights or the Far left which have invested themselves in the defense of the "freedom of speech"...which is clearly insane...but this paradox is the result of the wrong choices that have been made for the last 18 years or so.
All this in a purely European perspective.

Ahhhhhh.....you are conflating hate speech (the issue I advocate for a heavy bias in favor of FREE SPEECH) with hate incitement which IS AGAINST THE LAW in many jurisdictions. I support anti Hate Incitement laws.///////////////Hmmmmmm.......I may have that wrong by way of definition? Incitement is so close to a call for action.....which should be illegal, but you probably mean "the ideas" as inciting hatred? You know: as most religions do themselves?????? Yes, those are harder cases.


Absolutly not...This is why i made above the distinction between " I hate Jews" (hate speech) and "they should all be killed" (Hate incitment)...In Europe, and in the Western world, to take a contemporary example, it is why we make a distinction between "Muslims" and "Islamist", the first requesting their rights to follow their personal belief, the others calling for the annihilation of the infidels... (that is our western definition anyway)
Well put it that way: Unfortunately, i know someone who lost a close relative in the "attacks in Brussels" not so long ago...I would no even try to convince him that all Muslims are not guilty. In his personal awful perspective, they all are...I respect that somehow, and i won't judge him...I don't agree but i would never feel the right to judge him...But if had the next step for him been to publish call for punishing Muslims at every occasion...then i would lose all my initial compassion.
This is the best example of the difference between "freedom of opinion and belief" which is a right and "Hate incitement" which should never be considered as one.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:17 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:I've already specified religious incitement as a special case, in case this was not noticed.

Ostracism etc. assumes that the society is healthy and will not fall ill.

Clearly any society that would elect someone like Trump, Orban and Erdogan is ill.

Ostracism and more speech - how did it work out for the Weimar Germany?

There was no ostracism and more speech in Weimar Germany. It is often said by advocates the first thing a tyrannical STATE does is take away the guns...........but before that, they take away free speech.

This comes down NOT to a contest of right vs wrongs but of trade-offs and choices with the consequences that flow therefrom. You start CRIMINALIZING SPEECH, which is nothing but IDEAS, and you go down one slippery slope. You let FREE SPEECH lose, and you get a different set of problems. One way to appreciate a subject is NOT for the upfront values espoused, but rather in evaluating what the downstream consequences are. How bad can the reasonable to expect horrors be? How easy to stop?? What does THAT society look like?

In a vacuum, I even support the notion of making it illegal to deny the Holocaust. That is a factual question. I'm willing to live in a society that stands or falls by declaring certain facts. "Killing all (the target" is very much the same issue....being willing to live in a society that stands or falls by declaring certain values...but it is slightly less supportable because IDEAS are involved, not facts.

Pros and Cons to all we do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 12, 2018 1:51 am

Balsamo wrote:Bobo:
I haven't reviewed the thread, just answering your post. I have to ask: what question specifically? and I do note your complaint that I keep asking it? That usually occurs when the interrogatee is not answering that question? But without identifying the question...... who knows?


I reacted because you accused one poster of not having supported his opinion.
The poster wrote: " I am not a fan of the 1st A"
He has been asked why?
He answered: " because some speeches should not be protected" like "hate incitement" giving an example probably inspired by the vocation of this subforum : "I hate the Jews, they should all be killed".
He could have given others examples like "I hate all pragmatic bobo's of the world, they should all have their tongue cut off"...
That was clear to everyone but you. But you still accused him of not supporting his post...well what is it you don't understand in making a distinction between a "speech" that is "an expression of opinion" and a "hate incitement" that is a "call to act against a target"?
What kind of arguments should be added?


Well, this looks like its going to be a grind. And thats a good thing, not all the time, but on occasion...and I haven't been challenged for some time. I look forward to seeing if my position changes. It rarely does, but each time is a victory.

1. The poster wrote: " I am not a fan of the 1st A" /// Yes, that was Sergey

2. He has been asked why? /// yes, that was Tallboy.

3. He answered: " because some speeches should not be protected" like "hate incitement" giving an example probably inspired by the vocation of this subforum : "I hate the Jews, they should all be killed". //// Before that, he answered: "I think hate speech merits punishment." which sounds responsive but substantively just rephrases the premise: "I'm against free speech is the same idea as hate speech merits punishment." One can only quibble against this equivalency. Note that Tallboy very much disagrees. I only mostly disagree noting the pros and cons should be fully analysed as either position has them. I called hate speech a "lack of balance."

Gee Balsamo....Sergey left the discussion at this point calling my question stupid. Re-reading: I find it MOST EXCELLENT and still not responded to. Its the self righteous tyrant that forbids free speech and can't offer up any defense for it. "Off with their Heads!" The bottom of that slippery slope........ha, ha.... the other one too, but lots more ground to cover to get there.

4. He could have given others examples like "I hate all pragmatic bobo's of the world, they should all have their tongue cut off"... //// Now, now...do you know the mind of Sergey that well?....or not at all???? He also could have thought more about the question made and figure out if his anti-hate speech is general or just Jew focused. We don't know. If more general.......there is the slippery slope.

5. That was clear to everyone but you. /// What was clear?

6. But you still accused him of not supporting his post.../// He in fact has not as laid out above. Just because you agree with what you imagine him to mean does not mean he supported his position. Neither have you.

7. well what is it you don't understand in making a distinction between a "speech" that is "an expression of opinion" and a "hate incitement" that is a "call to act against a target"? /// I understand the distinction all too well.....in detail and set out the concerns involved. There is ambiguity in this point #7...."What is it I don't understand in the distinction between free protectable speech about ideas vs hate incitement that I pointed out could be about protectable free speech right at the boundary of appropriate legality or about "acting against a target" which is a call to action and ACTION IS NOT SPEECH. A number of lose threads that could be taken up or not as desired.

8. What kind of arguments should be added? /// To what premise? We have several unanswered questions and identified ambiguities. No need to add to them?

A logarithmic explosion of free speech!!!!! Illegal where certain ideas are not tolerated by those in charge. Not pragmatic to go forward. I'll respond to your further points after we thrash through this one, or freestanding for my own benefit, but still.....later.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Tue Jun 12, 2018 6:26 am

> There was no ostracism and more speech in Weimar Germany.

Exactly my point. Where were they?

> CRIMINALIZING SPEECH, which is nothing but IDEAS

Uh, no. Ideas are in your head. Speech is action.

> I even support the notion of making it illegal to deny the Holocaust

I don't. LOL.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14370
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:00 am

Sergey: looks like many of your definitions of words is the opposite of mine. I use the dictionary:

1.
There was no ostracism and more speech in Weimar Germany.

Exactly my point. Where were they?
They were outlawed as Hate Speech.

2.
> CRIMINALIZING SPEECH, which is nothing but IDEAS

Uh, no. Ideas are in your head
. Yes, but to communicate/discuss/improve these ideas in your head you have to have Free Speech...spoken or written, heard or seen.

3.
Speech is action.
Not in the legal sense which is the only relevant context.

4.
I even support the notion of making it illegal to deny the Holocaust

I don't.
You would outlaw saying kill the jews but not denying the fact of their killing? Can you explain the distinction you draw?.......But I confess, I would not vote for such a ban myself, I just would not feel uncomfortable or "personally" injured if my society made that the rule. Trying not to be an absolutist....so things don't have to be perfectly my preferences in order to be acceptable. Second Choice is often ok.

5.
LOL.
Yes...we have some word/idea bans here in USA and they are laughable. I'm thinking of the State of Florida that has made it a "rule" that government employees cannot use the term "Climate Change." Make for some funny silences in committee testimony.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: istellabot [Bot], Matthew Ellard and 1 guest