mrcat1990 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Free speech being stopped by the government might be one thing to argue against but it's not what happened in this case. People petitioned and asked for the meetings to be stopped but the government haven't stopped the meetings and these petitions etc are simply that, petitions. If people want to protest against him speaking or confront them about it then I think that's fine. The right to free speech doesn't mean you don't get challenged or the you don't face the consequences of what you say. I think the people arranging protests etc are simply the consequences for him, of what he has said/written so far. Yes but people did want the government to ban the meeting from going ahead. The Government didn't but the fact they even recently discussed banning Trump from the UK is annoying to me. Like you said, free speech allows counter movements to challenge these views which is what I'd rather see than a simple case of shutting someone out for their crap views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 In a civilised society there isn't absolute free speech. Where the line is drawn will always be a matter of contention but I doubt there is anyone on here who would not have their own line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofjenova Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Different political views = thick. Sound mate. RooshV, homophones and racists all share horrendous views, however the should be free to believe in those views should they wish. I'm all for the belief that there should be space for points of view regardless of being correct or not, assuming you aren't forcing those views on others. Theirs a feint chance your correct here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I spent ages trying to think of a joke for homophone. Seems easy. It's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I spent ages trying to think of a joke for homophone. Seems easy. It's not. It's the gay helpline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 More information at our fingertips than at any point in history, yet some folk would still rather flail around in ignorance and guesswork than actually: a) read the article in question; b) research why it's satirical if not already apparent. 'Progressives' once again shouting for the restriction of speech, even speech in private spaces as noted by mrcat1990. Everyone who doesn't agree is obviously a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a <insert here>. An eye-rollingly tired silencing tactic that would be amusing in it's childishness if it wasn't so fucking scary how many people subscribe to and demand the enforcing of it, including two people in the thread substantially involved in local 'Progressive' politics. Let that sink in for a moment. Satire apparently doesn't exist any more (or only when allowed)! Which might explain why numerous comedians will no longer go near the 'Progressive', social justice hotbeds that are university campuses for fear of being smeared and having their careers damaged. Various speakers are also being banned/no-platformed from talks and debates for having the wrong opinions. Be careful what you wish for, and keep the delicious ad hominems and troll accusations coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I don't think he's a troll, I got the impression that he tries to argue the opposite viewpoint as perhaps he doesn't like the mob mentality that can build up in some subjects, especially ones like these. +1 Jambomo, I'm out of greenies. Having an opposite viewpoint is not the main reason. Challenging misrepresentation, half-truths, lies, and full-on dogma with facts/logic/perspective is the main reason, from which opposite views often come when dealing with those who can't or won't look much beyond a headline, or those invested in clinging to their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hk blues Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 +1 Jambomo, I'm out of greenies. Having an opposite viewpoint is not the main reason. Challenging misrepresentation, half-truths, lies, and full-on dogma with facts/logic/perspective is the main reason, from which opposite views often come when dealing with those who can't or won't look much beyond a headline, or those invested in clinging to their beliefs. Whilst i might agree with the sentiment of your post banana, i think i'd have chosen somebody like Ronny Deila to champion instead of this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Whilst i might agree with the sentiment of your post banana, i think i'd have chosen somebody like Ronny Deila to champion instead of this guy. 'Mon the Rooshie Roar? I'm not championing him, and there's quite a bit of circular reasoning going on - he's a monster, anything said that suggests he's not quite the monster he's being made out to be is bad... because, y'know, he's a monster. Every person deserves a hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The guy sounds like a total attention seeking waste of time. He doesn't deserve the attention he has even got from this thread i don't see why you want to hear what he has to say about raping women on private property. There are people far more deserving of this kind of attention who are trying to do good on this earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I'm just glad banana was here to keep everything honest. Now we know that whilst this guy is a complete dickhead with very little respect for the will of a woman, he's never said he's pro-rape so he's not as bad as we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 More information at our fingertips than at any point in history, yet some folk would still rather flail around in ignorance and guesswork than actually: a) read the article in question; b) research why it's satirical if not already apparent. 'Progressives' once again shouting for the restriction of speech, even speech in private spaces as noted by mrcat1990. Everyone who doesn't agree is obviously a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a <insert here>. An eye-rollingly tired silencing tactic that would be amusing in it's childishness if it wasn't so fucking scary how many people subscribe to and demand the enforcing of it, including two people in the thread substantially involved in local 'Progressive' politics. Let that sink in for a moment. Satire apparently doesn't exist any more (or only when allowed)! Which might explain why numerous comedians will no longer go near the 'Progressive', social justice hotbeds that are university campuses for fear of being smeared and having their careers damaged. Various speakers are also being banned/no-platformed from talks and debates for having the wrong opinions. Be careful what you wish for, and keep the delicious ad hominems and troll accusations coming Mon then. I'm open minded really. What was he satirising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I'm just glad banana was here to keep everything honest. Now we know that whilst this guy is a complete dickhead with very little respect for the will of a woman, he's never said he's pro-rape so he's not as bad as we think. Well he has said it, but it was just a hilarious bit of satire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Just the question I was about to ask. Quote us a bit of this guy's satire please banana. Be very specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
throbber Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Is banana a Supras alias pretending to be on the side of the rapist this time to confuse us all? Fair play if he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So anonymous have posted this guy's personal details. A great example of how to refute the free speech argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 +1 Jambomo, I'm out of greenies. Having an opposite viewpoint is not the main reason. Challenging misrepresentation, half-truths, lies, and full-on dogma with facts/logic/perspective is the main reason, from which opposite views often come when dealing with those who can't or won't look much beyond a headline, or those invested in clinging to their beliefs. +1 Jambomo, I'm out of greenies. Having an opposite viewpoint is not the main reason. Challenging misrepresentation, half-truths, lies, and full-on dogma with facts/logic/perspective is the main reason, from which opposite views often come when dealing with those who can't or won't look much beyond a headline, or those invested in clinging to their beliefs. I do completely agree with people doing that, thinking and judging for yourself is the most important thing you can do. Taking the contrary position and trying to justify it isn't really challenging it though, you have to be able to argue the case and in considering this RooshV guy, what has been said about him generally fits with the evidence. You talk about reading beyond the headlines which if fair enough but in the case of this guy, reading beyond the headlines simply provides the evidence for the accusations made against him. Reading the 'How to stop rape' blog, he is talking a narrow situation and extrapolating it beyond reasonable a point. First of all he focuses on rape of women who are drunk/drugged. Now I don't disagree that women should look after themselves and getting blind driunk isn't exactly doing that but there is a bit of a jump in logic to then say that you should make rape on private property legal. He say's "For all orther rapes, however, especially if done on a dwelling or private property, any and all rape that happens should be completely legal". So this would extrapolate to any woman who has a man in her house or goes to the home of a friend, or any other man. For example, i take German lessons at my (female) tutors house. What if my tutor was male, should I not take lessons because I would be learning in his home? if he raped me would you really want to say it was my fault for being on the premises? His own arguments are invalid and not worth defending. The argument that he isn't pro-rape doesn't follow either. He clearly is. He isn't pro all kinds of rape as in his blog he states it shouldn't be legal for "seedy and deranged men who select their victims on alleys and jogging trails" however the law states that rape of women on public grounds is illegal, and he wants to challenge this, he wants this to be permissibile so it followes that he is pro-rape in at least one situational area (on private property). His blog now has an area at the top that says it is a satirical thought experiment which I gather was added after the initial publication. The piece isn't satirical though, there is criticism but its not really satirical in its language or tone. Its not a thought experiment either - given that the body of the text makes no reference to it being so which it should if you are writing as such. 'Mon the Rooshie Roar? I'm not championing him, and there's quite a bit of circular reasoning going on - he's a monster, anything said that suggests he's not quite the monster he's being made out to be is bad... because, y'know, he's a monster. Every person deserves a hearing. Does every person deserve a hearing? I find this runs along similar lines as 'My opinion is as good as everyone elses'. There are some people in the world that are more worth listening to than others, generally by education i.e I'd listen to a doctors opinion on my health before, say, my friend and I'd listen to a scientist's opinion on climate change over a taxi driver's. Everyone has the chance to have a hearing or an opinion, but others get to judge whether its a well informed opinion or views, and if they think they should be listened to. What qualifies this guy to be worth listening to? His opinions and views appear to be badly formed and not based in any great evidence and I think that is what leads to this outpouring of critiscim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boostin' Kev Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 There's no chance I'm reading all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 banana's position as purely a devil's advocate might appear more credible if his misogynistic tendencies were not so well known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smpar Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 This guy seems to be a severely damaged and misguided person to have the viewpoints that he has. He justifies some sickening actions and behaviours with the most obscene reasoning. For example, albeit the most notable point of bus that everyone knows about by now, is the "make rape legal and woman will learn to protect themselves." His thought behind it is laughable and extremely outdated, I can't believe this rally appears to have as many followers as it does. Someone give the wee fanny a Tumblr account, then he'll have a sound understanding of rape culture and how it affects the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.