What the heck are you doing reading the telegraph web site ? You've got as much chance of finding balanced comment there as you have finding intelligent criticism on whaleoil.

elpenguino:

 

What the heck are you doing reading the telegraph web site ? You've got as much chance of finding balanced comment there as you have finding intelligent criticism on whaleoil.

 

Sometimes such cr@p is spouted on this site.

The Telegraph is higher quality journalism than anything you will find in NZ.  Yes, it is right of centre, just as the Guardian is left of centre.  Nobody made a law that all papers have to be socialist.

Fred99:

 

No sane person could read ISIL propaganda without being convinced that they're entirely 100% evil

 

Apparently not. Just a normal phenomenon according to some.

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." - R Dawkins

shk292:

 

 

 

And yet "

 

Jeremy Corbyn said Isil supporters should not be prosecuted for 'expressing a political point of view' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/05/jeremy-corbyn-said-isil-supporters-should-not-prosecuted-expressing/

 

 

 

So what does that mean and is Corbyn's statement a bad thing? Apparently you think it is - tell me if I am wrong.

Do you believe in freedom of speech or not?

elpenguino:

 

So what does that mean and is Corbyn's statement a bad thing? Apparently you think it is - tell me if I am wrong.

 

Do you believe in freedom of speech or not?

 

 

I do believe in freedom, but also in responsibility.  Just as I wouldn't run a website encouraging people to persecute gays or blacks, and would expect to be arrested if I did, I don't think support of an organisation such as ISIS should be tolerated in a civilised society.

I think Corbyn's statement, like the man itself, is dangerous and idiotic

shk292:

 

elpenguino:

 

So what does that mean and is Corbyn's statement a bad thing? Apparently you think it is - tell me if I am wrong.

 

Do you believe in freedom of speech or not?

 

 

 

I do believe in freedom, but also in responsibility.  Just as I wouldn't run a website encouraging people to persecute gays or blacks, and would expect to be arrested if I did, I don't think support of an organisation such as ISIS should be tolerated in a civilised society.

 

I think Corbyn's statement, like the man itself, is dangerous and idiotic

 

What you are talking about is called hate speech and no sane person wants that. Now that I have cleared that up for you, do you still feel the same about Corbyn's statement? :-)

If ISIL supporters (or anyone else) are to be prosecuted purely for expressing a point of view, then ISIL has won.

elpenguino:

 

What you are talking about is called hate speech and no sane person wants that. Now that I have cleared that up for you, do you still feel the same about Corbyn's statement? :-)

 

Tell me in what way everything ISIL says isn't hate speech.  So I'm saying, if you support hate speech of the sort ISIL produces, you should expect to be prosecuted.  So yes, my opinion of Corbyn remains unchanged.  I find it worrying that Corbyn, and apparently you, seem to think that supporting an evil group such as this is just a valid political viewpoint.

Tell me, do you agree with the extremist Islam opinion that homosexuals should be trhown from tall buildings and that adulterers should be stoned to death?  Do you think it's oppressing free speech to stop them preaching such views?

Rikkitic:

 

If ISIL supporters (or anyone else) are to be prosecuted purely for expressing a point of view, then ISIL has won.

 

 

 

Sorry, I promised not to argue with you but...

So you're saying freedom of expression trumps everything?  Hate speech is OK?  I can make the same sort of statements about blacks, lesbians or Jews as ISIL does about infidels (that's you and me, by the way) and that's just cool because it's freedom of speech?  And if I set up an extremist cult, encouraging the violent death of blacks, lesbians and gypsies, and people publicly support me, then they're just expressing a political opinion and that's just fine also?

I'm not saying you're wrong, because obviously I don't want to infringe your right of free speech, just trying to understand your position.

shk292:

 

elpenguino:

 

What you are talking about is called hate speech and no sane person wants that. Now that I have cleared that up for you, do you still feel the same about Corbyn's statement? :-)

 

 

Tell me in what way everything ISIL says isn't hate speech.  So I'm saying, if you support hate speech of the sort ISIL produces, you should expect to be prosecuted.  So yes, my opinion of Corbyn remains unchanged.  I find it worrying that Corbyn, and apparently you, seem to think that supporting an evil group such as this is just a valid political viewpoint.

 

Tell me, do you agree with the extremist Islam opinion that homosexuals should be trhown from tall buildings and that adulterers should be stoned to death?  Do you think it's oppressing free speech to stop them preaching such views?

 

i think you are either trolling or unable to interpret some words in the english language.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt one last time.

Corbyn;s quote from the oh so balance 'torygraph' was that people should be able to make political statements freely. This means people are able to discuss policies.

I'll give you an example. I don;t agree with the ISIS policy of executing people. Let's try another - hypothetical, in this case. I agree with Isis' dog registration policy and I wish national had the same thing here.

See how I (hypothetically) expressed support for ISIS with out hate speech?

shk292:

BarTender:

shk292: I have the same view on appeasing IRA terrorism or Islamic terrorism as I have of Neville Chamberlain trying appeasement.  Hopefully that's not a case of Godwin's

So following your logic the Good Friday agreement should never have happened?

As Sinn Fein and the Progressive Unionist Party should never have been involved as they were linked to para military / terrorist organisations.

That sounds like what you're proposing to me. Or do I misunderstand that trying to achieve a peace agreement is preferable to boots on the ground to be shot at?

No, the overall peace process was a good thing and its outcome was vastly preferable to the problems preceeding it.  But there is a line between negotiating and "buddying up" with terrorist leaders and honouring their fighters, which Corbyn arguably did http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11924431/Revealed-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

elpenguino:

 

i think you are either trolling or unable to interpret some words in the english language.

 

Wrong on both counts.  And quite patronising

elpenguino:

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt one last time.

 

I don't need any benefit from you, thanks all the same

elpenguino:

 

Corbyn;s quote from the oh so balance 'torygraph' was that people should be able to make political statements freely. This means people are able to discuss policies.

 

I'll give you an example. I don;t agree with the ISIS policy of executing people. Let's try another - hypothetical, in this case. I agree with Isis' dog registration policy and I wish national had the same thing here.

 

 

 

See how I (hypothetically) expressed support for ISIS with out hate speech?

 

I never said the Telegraph is balanced.  They have this thing in the UK called quality journalism, where papers are openly on different parts of the political spectrum and express valid (possibly non-socialist) opinions.  Just because these opinions aren't aligned to your liberal echo-chamber, it doesn't make them worthless.

You seem to be confusing ISIS with some sort of balanced political party.  Here's a surprise for you: they don't have a full manifesto covering all aspects of domestic and foreign policy.  They don't have a dog policy, or an economic policy, or a climate change position, or a public transport impreovement policy.  They're a fundamentalist extremist organistion who preach death to those who don't believe in the same invisible friend as theirs and the hateful practices they believe he advocates.  So, making up some imaginary policy they might have and hypothetically agreeing with it does nothing to further this argument

shk292:

 

elpenguino:

 

i think you are either trolling or unable to interpret some words in the english language.

 

 

Wrong on both counts.  And quite patronising

 

elpenguino:

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt one last time.

 

 

I don't need any benefit from you, thanks all the same

 

elpenguino:

 

Corbyn;s quote from the oh so balance 'torygraph' was that people should be able to make political statements freely. This means people are able to discuss policies.

 

I'll give you an example. I don;t agree with the ISIS policy of executing people. Let's try another - hypothetical, in this case. I agree with Isis' dog registration policy and I wish national had the same thing here.

 

 

 

See how I (hypothetically) expressed support for ISIS with out hate speech?

 

 

I never said the Telegraph is balanced.  They have this thing in the UK called quality journalism, where papers are openly on different parts of the political spectrum and express valid (possibly non-socialist) opinions.  Just because these opinions aren't aligned to your liberal echo-chamber, it doesn't make them worthless.

 

You seem to be confusing ISIS with some sort of balanced political party.  Here's a surprise for you: they don't have a full manifesto covering all aspects of domestic and foreign policy.  They don't have a dog policy, or an economic policy, or a climate change position, or a public transport impreovement policy.  They're a fundamentalist extremist organistion who preach death to those who don't believe in the same invisible friend as theirs and the hateful practices they believe he advocates.  So, making up some imaginary policy they might have and hypothetically agreeing with it does nothing to further this argument

 

sorry - you had your chance for rational discussion.

elpenguino:

 

sorry - you had your chance for rational discussion.

 

Yep, and then you came along.

I'll respect your right to be totally misguided and wish you good night

Newshub: "Families, friends and confidantes are turning the other cheek rather than turning these people in," he said. "Our Islamic communities must clean house by turning these monsters in and it starts with their own families."