I have long been a proponent of Free Speech. When I was young, I was part of a religion that fought and won many court cases on the issue. After I left that, I found the value of expressing my views in philosophy, politics etc freely.
Sarah Palin has recently defended Rush Limbaugh, calling his slurs of 'slut' and 'prostitute' 'Free Speech.
Since I've moved to Turkey, I've been exposed to a different philosophy on Freedom of Speech. Here, free speech is valued... within a few limits. If the Speech is false (Obama isn't truly an American citizen) or designed to simply be inflammatory ( She is a slut because I don't agree with her philosophy) they are NOT considered Free speech... they are considered lies, or speech designed to inflame hatred or cause rifts between people.
I understand the risks associated with limits on free speech. Recently the Turks got a taste of this when France made it illegal to disagree with the belief that the Ottoman empire committed genocide against the Armenians. I agree, that its good to know who the 'crazies' are, so they can be avoided.... BUT, I have to wonder, sometimes, if valueless rhetoric and baseless lies, designed only to engender division, should be something protected.
Perhaps even our valued freedom of speech is part of the Two-Man Con.
A guy here, Andrew Bolt was fined for stomping around like an arsehole ranting about how some Aboriginals aren't 'real aboriginals'.
They basically said the conversation was soothsayers but there was a lack of good faith at play which was why the guilty verdict was met.
If I'm honest with myself though I know I feel like I like the verdict only because Bolt is a revolt creature. I do wonder if 'good faith' is a sensible restriction on the manner of free speech.
It's a tricky spot.
That kind of speech definitely is dangerous because it relies upon the tried and true idea that there are a lot of idiots running around who will believe anything and, well, run with it. It so quickly becomes an ingrained narrative that no amount of exposes, fact-checking, etc., is going to make any difference.
But, by that same token, punishing the person who utters the speech probably isn't going to change anything either. For example, if Rush were somehow legally sanctioned for what he said, it is pretty unlikely it would change the minds of any of his ditto-heads, indeed, they'd probably just dig in deeper out of defense and deference to the fat fuck.
So I wonder if creating some kind of legal structure to beat back that kind of speech would really accomplish anything. And in the end, protecting the value of free speech seems to be the only option, on a practical level. You then just have to try your darnedest to impeach the speech.
Here's the thing that Americans who say stupid shit in the media don't seem to understand. No one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The First Amendment says that you can say whatever the fuck you want and the government won't interfere.
The government didn't interfere here.
Now, there's consequences to being able to say whatever the fuck you want. It opens you up to other people saying whatever they think about you for saying what you said. If you want to say that's infringing on free speech, then by your logic you're infringing on the critic's free speech.
There's a simple solution to all of this.
If you host a radio show don't say stupid shit if you don't want to accept the consequences.
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 08, 2012, 01:11:09 PM
It's a tricky spot.
That kind of speech definitely is dangerous because it relies upon the tried and true idea that there are a lot of idiots running around who will believe anything and, well, run with it. It so quickly becomes an ingrained narrative that no amount of exposes, fact-checking, etc., is going to make any difference.
But, by that same token, punishing the person who utters the speech probably isn't going to change anything either. For example, if Rush were somehow legally sanctioned for what he said, it is pretty unlikely it would change the minds of any of his ditto-heads, indeed, they'd probably just dig in deeper out of defense and deference to the fat fuck.
So I wonder if creating some kind of legal structure to beat back that kind of speech would really accomplish anything. And in the end, protecting the value of free speech seems to be the only option, on a practical level. You then just have to try your darnedest to impeach the speech.
In Turkey, it seems that the knowledge of the consequences naturally limits the speech. Once the speech is out there, punitive punishment is not gonna fix it. However, if everyone knew that they would be held accountable for their speech, maybe such a thing wouldn't be said in the first place.
I'm not arguing that Rush shouldn't be allowed to disagree with the health care plan, even forcefully... but it does seem that hurtful name calling, or outright lies contribute nothing valuable to the speech. He didn't call her a slut to make a key point, he called her a slut (and grossly lied about the content of her testimony) to hurt her, to incite his dittoheads and to drive a further wedge between citizens with different opinions.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 01:17:13 PM
Here's the thing that Americans who say stupid shit in the media don't seem to understand. No one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The First Amendment says that you can say whatever the fuck you want and the government won't interfere.
The government didn't interfere here.
Now, there's consequences to being able to say whatever the fuck you want. It opens you up to other people saying whatever they think about you for saying what you said. If you want to say that's infringing on free speech, then by your logic you're infringing on the critic's free speech.
There's a simple solution to all of this.
If you host a radio show don't say stupid shit if you don't want to accept the consequences.
Agreed.
Though, I do sometimes wonder if the guys that wrote the Constitution really meant "Everyone has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, as loudly as they want with no limit". It's sort of like the second amendment... did they really mean everyone should have flamethrowers and AK-47's?
ETA:
On of the other key touchstones in the Turkish view is if the speech was intended to be disrespectful. Is psychological abuse (certainly being called a slut, and being considered a slut by millions of people could result in psychological damage) all that different than physical abuse?
A limited right isn't a right.
Somewhat free speech isn't free speech.
Remembering, of course, the Thurgood Marshall distinction between speech and an overt act...ie, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an overt act, and stating an opinion about someone is protected speech.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 01:17:13 PM
Here's the thing that Americans who say stupid shit in the media don't seem to understand. No one's freedom of speech is being infringed upon. The First Amendment says that you can say whatever the fuck you want and the government won't interfere.
The government didn't interfere here.
This. The first amendment doesn't protect you from sponsors, etc, pulling their ads.
It might be nice to tighten up the libel and slander laws for public speakers, though. Imagine if pundits, politicians, and the media were actually held accountable to the truth?
Quote from: What's-His-Name? on March 08, 2012, 01:11:09 PM
But, by that same token, punishing the person who utters the speech probably isn't going to change anything either. For example, if Rush were somehow legally sanctioned for what he said, it is pretty unlikely it would change the minds of any of his ditto-heads, indeed, they'd probably just dig in deeper out of defense and deference to the fat fuck.
Oooh, yeah. The second Rush got fined they'd start going on about how The Obama Administration is running a fourth reich (people love nazi name calling...) and the fact that Rush is being fined just proves he was right.
And Twid is right, too. People are always acting like free speech means you can say whatever you want, but I can't talk shit about it in response.
On a side note, Palin and Rush are drug-fueled nazi liberal homosexuals. FREE SPEECH!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 08, 2012, 03:43:19 PM
It might be nice to tighten up the libel and slander laws for public speakers, though. Imagine if pundits, politicians, and the media were actually held accountable to the truth?
Pundits are by definition op-ed. If we decide that opinion is no longer tolerable in the press (etc), then we may as well just shitcan two clauses in the 1st amendment.
Freedom was never meant to be safe or pretty. The right wing has a problem with the first part of that, and the left tends to have a problem with the second part.
If an asshole can't say something unpopular, then why bother with the 1st amendment? Popular speech doesn't need protecting...at least from the government. Rush is already paying a penalty. Several penalties.
1. He has lost 30 sponsors, 15 of which are heavy-hitters, money-wise.
2. Rush & Peter Gabriel have forced him to stop using their music (which he was using without paying), eliminating his signature "Sledgehammer" seque, among other things.
3. 3 Superpacs are funnelling him money to keep him on the air, thus taking money away from the very causes he espouses.
Ann Coulter jumped the shark with the 911 widows thing, and is now a has-been that nobody outside of the EXTREME right listens to. Rush may have just done the same thing. The hardcore GOP base will still listen to him, but the middle won't...And as Palin found out, you don't win elections or affect national policy by appealing only to your base.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 03:51:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 08, 2012, 03:43:19 PM
It might be nice to tighten up the libel and slander laws for public speakers, though. Imagine if pundits, politicians, and the media were actually held accountable to the truth?
Pundits are by definition op-ed. If we decide that opinion is no longer tolerable in the press (etc), then we may as well just shitcan two clauses in the 1st amendment.
Freedom was never meant to be safe or pretty. The right wing has a problem with the first part of that, and the left tends to have a problem with the second part.
If an asshole can't say something unpopular, then why bother with the 1st amendment? Popular speech doesn't need protecting...at least from the government. Rush is already paying a penalty. Several penalties.
1. He has lost 30 sponsors, 15 of which are heavy-hitters, money-wise.
2. Rush & Peter Gabriel have forced him to stop using their music (which he was using without paying), eliminating his signature "Sledgehammer" seque, among other things.
3. 3 Superpacs are funnelling him money to keep him on the air, thus taking money away from the very causes he espouses.
Ann Coulter jumped the shark with the 911 widows thing, and is now a has-been that nobody outside of the EXTREME right listens to. Rush may have just done the same thing. The hardcore GOP base will still listen to him, but the middle won't...And as Palin found out, you don't win elections or affect national policy by appealing only to your base.
I don't disagree with you. I'm still in favor of Free Speech... but I do find the concept of respect and truth in Free Speech compelling. Opinion is awesome... but that slut comment wasn't opinion, it was intentionally inflammatory, disrespectful and designed to incite hate. It may not be 'fire' in a crowded theater... but then again, it just might not be all that different.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 03:55:12 PM
I don't disagree with you. I'm still in favor of Free Speech... but I do find the concept of respect and truth in Free Speech compelling. Opinion is awesome... but that slut comment wasn't opinion, it was intentionally inflammatory, disrespectful and designed to incite hate. It may not be 'fire' in a crowded theater... but then again, it just might not be all that different.
The slut comment was opinion. And I remember a place that had a "respect" rule.
And to compare someone calling someone a filthy name with an act that could cause immediate death to people around them is basically saying that statements of fact are okay, but free speech isn't.
Inciting hate isn't a crime, at least in the United States. Inciting a riot IS. What Rush did fell into the first catagory.
Either you're for the protection of unpopular speech, or you're not for free speech. If you're not, that's fine...Plenty of cultures get along just fine without it. But you can't have it both ways.
I get what you're saying about opinions, but what about verifiable facts? People get all up in arms about rude opinions, but I feel that polite distortions of the truth are much, much worse in the long run.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 08, 2012, 04:09:27 PM
I get what you're saying about opinions, but what about verifiable facts? People get all up in arms about rude opinions, but I feel that polite distortions of the truth are much, much worse in the long run.
An outright lie is grounds for a libel or slander lawsuit. We already have a system in place for that.
Hell, Bill Clinton could have sued Rush Limbaugh back in the 90s, for calling Chelsea Clinton "the family dog".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:00:12 PM
Inciting hate isn't a crime, at least in the United States. Inciting a riot IS. What Rush did fell into the first catagory.
We can fix that.
jay kay, folks, jay kay.
Or am I?
I am.
The fact that the ignore feature isn't available to admins sometimes makes me hate America.
If Rush can't say idiotic fucked-up things in public, then what safeties would exist to prevent someone small and without power or vast money reserves from telling the truth about corporate corruption in public?
Please tell me you see that flaw in limiting freedom of expression.
Calling someone a 'slut' based on the information available was an opinion? Did Rush have any idea how many sexual partners she had,or how many times she had sex? For all we know, she may only have been with one guy, ever.
If he said she was immoral (sex before marriage) or a fornicator, OK... valid opinions... but a slut? I understand the philosophy of free speech, I defend it often... but I find this quandary interesting.
I have begun to question my long held belief (damn beliefs!) that all speech must be protected for free speech to be protected. Here in Turkey, though, it seems like they have proven my belief may not be 100% True. There's a lot of freedom of speech. You can protest the president, but you can't say he's a secret Christian bent on destroying the Turkish way of life. It forces the protest/disagreement/Op-ed whatever to deal with substance, rather than relying on baseless rhetoric.
Of course, maybe it wouldn't work in the US. Overall, most Turks I've met tend to be respectful in daily life. Of course, their culture is a lot older, so maybe its the difference between the middle aged society and the teenage society that still thinks spitballs are cool.
Either way, I'm sure its just a mental exercise... Americans will fight to the death to defend their freedom of verbal abuse and AK-47's :lulz:
As for the 'fire' comment... I think it depends on how you see psychological abuse. If physical abuse of your wife and psychological abuse of your wife are both domestic abuse. Is physically risking harm to the public all that different that psychologically risking harm to the public?
If bullying in schools includes verbal/psychological bullying... was what Rush did all that different?
If this girl already had some psychological condition and thinking that millions of people believed she was a slut sent her over the edge... would her suicide change Free Speech into 'Fire'?
I don't know the answers.
Nigel, I do understand the flaw... but honestly, an individual telling the truth about corporate corruption doesn't need to call the CEO a slut, or claim that they might secretly be an illegal alien. Wikileaks, for example, didn't resort to baseless lies and psychological bullying... they just told the facts. Yet, this unfettered free speech doesn't seem to be protecting them as much as its protecting Rush.
I see the flaws, but I'm suddenly seeing flaws on the other side as well, thats all.
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
What I find more interesting in freedom of speech is where it should apply, rather than what it should apply to.
By that I mean geographical space. Should protesters be allowed to shove dead fetus pictures in the faces of women on the way to the abortion clinic? Should people be able to campaign against gay marriage outside churches that allow it? Is that any different to 'Occupy'?
I accept people should be able to say whatever they want when you have to choose to listen to them, I find it a lot more difficult to accept that all viewpoints need to be capable of being inflicted on people all the time, which is another unspoken assumption in a lot of freedom of speech arguments I've had.
But that way lays Designated Free Speech Zones. It is still very tricky to navigate.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
What Rush did was wrong, and he deserves public censure and censure from his employer.
He deserves a libel lawsuit from the woman in question.
Those are the only safeguards that are needed, and they already exist.
Who do you think would benefit from restrictions on free speech? It sure as hell wouldn't be the little people with no money.
BSR isn't, from what I can see, advocating the end of free speech. He is just acknowledging that both systems are flawed, which some posters who are argueing have ALSO acknowledged.
Anyone who doesn't see how free speech can get messy might not be looking. It is still a right worth protecting, but bringing up the topic doesn't constitute a disagreement on if we should have free speech or not.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
:lulz:
I think I understand what Rat was trying to say, but the phrasing made it funny. "Do we have the freedom to speak about the freedom of speech?"
The problem with Limbaugh's statements isn't that he's legally allowed to say what he says, it's that political discourse in this country has sunk so low that people will listen to what he says. If Americans were actually concerned with political debate rather than left-right tribalism, Rush would be back on unemployment.
I want to talk about freedom of speech, but unfortunately I am being oppressed by not having a highly paid and high profile writing/television/radio gig, and so cannot talk about it.
Fight the power.
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
Calling someone a 'slut' based on the information available was an opinion? Did Rush have any idea how many sexual partners she had,or how many times she had sex? For all we know, she may only have been with one guy, ever.
Opinions are not based on fact, most times.
Rush said two things:
1. She's a slut. <--- opinion
2. She's a prostitute. <--- slander
The first is a matter of opinion. The second is a false statement of fact.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure we can discuss it freely. I also have the freedom to step out of the conversation.
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 04:59:31 PM
I want to talk about freedom of speech, but unfortunately I am being oppressed by not having a highly paid and high profile writing/television/radio gig, and so cannot talk about it.
Fight the power.
Hey, money is speech. You should become a corporation.
I'm working on becoming a hot dog stand.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
1. I distinctly separated you from the hyper right. I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning
as I understand it. You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.
2. I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures. I do not consider those cultures insane. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
Calling someone a 'slut' based on the information available was an opinion? Did Rush have any idea how many sexual partners she had,or how many times she had sex? For all we know, she may only have been with one guy, ever.
Opinions are not based on fact, most times.
Rush said two things:
1. She's a slut. <--- opinion
2. She's a prostitute. <--- slander
The first is a matter of opinion. The second is a false statement of fact.
There's also the matter of "she spoke to congress about her right to have birth control so she can screw around" rather than "she spoke to congress about women who need contraceptives due to dangerous medical conditions."
That's not an opinion, and it's not exactly slander... but it's a lie, nonetheless.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 08, 2012, 05:05:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:37:18 PM
Calling someone a 'slut' based on the information available was an opinion? Did Rush have any idea how many sexual partners she had,or how many times she had sex? For all we know, she may only have been with one guy, ever.
Opinions are not based on fact, most times.
Rush said two things:
1. She's a slut. <--- opinion
2. She's a prostitute. <--- slander
The first is a matter of opinion. The second is a false statement of fact.
There's also the matter of "she spoke to congress about her right to have birth control so she can screw around" rather than "she spoke to congress about women who need contraceptives due to dangerous medical conditions."
That's not an opinion, and it's not exactly slander... but it's a lie, nonetheless.
Sure.
Again, freedom of speech - or anything else - isn't always pretty or nice or even civil. But once you start deciding on limits, where does it end? And who gets to put their finger in the pie? Because, you know, I'm more than reasonably certain that Rick Warren and Pat Robertson would just
love to have a say in the whole thing.
As Nigel states, there is already a mechanism for dealing with this sort of thing.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide (http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-armenia.html)
Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 05:04:57 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
1. I distinctly separated you from the hyper right. I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning as I understand it. You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.
2. I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures. I do not consider those cultures insane. Please do not put words in my mouth.
I apologize Dok, I misinterpreted your statement.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide (http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-armenia.html)
Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.
Well Turkey is a democratic nation that overthrew the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was involved in the situation with the Armenians (kinda like blaming Americans for something King George did). I'm still confused about the Armenian situation myself (good thing we're not hosted in France or I couldn't say this, how's that for Irony!). Basically the Armenians were involved in a couple attempts at revolution, then backed the Greeks when the Greeks invaded. Yeah, thousands of them died in the fighting, but thousands of Ottomans also died in the fighting. Depending on which historians you read, you can get grossly conflicting details from the number of people that died, to how they died. As for the relocation issue, the conclusion of WW I left the Ottomans stuck in agreements to give up some areas, relocate native turks from those areas back into areas they still controlled etc.
I personally think it was a terrible situation, like all wars... but the evidence seems split on it being a particularly violent war or genocide. Unlike other genocides, there was never an official policy by the Ottomans, and it doesn't appear that they were trying to wipe out an entire group of people... by many accounts.
The law beng used in the article to prosecute the novelist is actually getting quite a lot of debate and currently his books are selling well here (they are in displays in almost every bookstore).
I don't think we should emulate Turkey, or change our laws, I was just impressed and surprised at the balance they seem to be maintaining currently.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.
All depending on how you interpret it. Many private groups have argued that the freedom of association means they can't be forced to associate with blacks etc. Is that what the authors had in mind?
I
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 05:04:57 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
1. I distinctly separated you from the hyper right. I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning as I understand it. You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.
2. I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures. I do not consider those cultures insane. Please do not put words in my mouth.
I apologize Dok, I misinterpreted your statement.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide (http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-armenia.html)
Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.
Well Turkey is a democratic nation that overthrew the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was involved in the situation with the Armenians (kinda like blaming Americans for something King George did). I'm still confused about the Armenian situation myself (good thing we're not hosted in France or I couldn't say this, how's that for Irony!). Basically the Armenians were involved in a couple attempts at revolution, then backed the Greeks when the Greeks invaded. Yeah, thousands of them died in the fighting, but thousands of Ottomans also died in the fighting. Depending on which historians you read, you can get grossly conflicting details from the number of people that died, to how they died. As for the relocation issue, the conclusion of WW I left the Ottomans stuck in agreements to give up some areas, relocate native turks from those areas back into areas they still controlled etc.
I personally think it was a terrible situation, like all wars... but the evidence seems split on it being a particularly violent war or genocide. Unlike other genocides, there was never an official policy by the Ottomans, and it doesn't appear that they were trying to wipe out an entire group of people... by many accounts.
The law beng used in the article to prosecute the novelist is actually getting quite a lot of debate and currently his books are selling well here (they are in displays in almost every bookstore).
I don't think we should emulate Turkey, or change our laws, I was just impressed and surprised at the balance they seem to be maintaining currently.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.
All depending on how you interpret it. Many private groups have argued that the freedom of association means they can't be forced to associate with blacks etc. Is that what the authors had in mind?
I
You're right; the Armenian genocide is totally irrelevant to modern Turkey. Which is why they obsess about it so much and why Armenian racism is a hallmark of Turkish right wing and nationalist movements.
Obviously shutting down all discussion and locking people up for things like 'defaming the Turkish national character' are totally reasonable responses and we should all look to Turkey as an example for setting the tone of our public debates.
The authors of the Constitution probably would have had the right to not associate with blacks. They were, after all, legally defined as 3/5ths of a person.
But, sure, if you don't want to associate with a particular person, you don't have to regardless of the reason. And I'm fairly sure if I was black I would like to exercise my right to not associate with the Klan too.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 05:27:15 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 05:04:57 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
1. I distinctly separated you from the hyper right. I said that the hyper right were no longer the only people opposed to freedom of speech...Meaning as I understand it. You and I obviously have different ideas of what freedom of speech is, and how far it extends.
2. I have also stated that curtailed speech has worked fine in many cultures. I do not consider those cultures insane. Please do not put words in my mouth.
I apologize Dok, I misinterpreted your statement.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide (http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-armenia.html)
Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.
Well Turkey is a democratic nation that overthrew the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was involved in the situation with the Armenians (kinda like blaming Americans for something King George did). I'm still confused about the Armenian situation myself (good thing we're not hosted in France or I couldn't say this, how's that for Irony!). Basically the Armenians were involved in a couple attempts at revolution, then backed the Greeks when the Greeks invaded. Yeah, thousands of them died in the fighting, but thousands of Ottomans also died in the fighting. Depending on which historians you read, you can get grossly conflicting details from the number of people that died, to how they died. As for the relocation issue, the conclusion of WW I left the Ottomans stuck in agreements to give up some areas, relocate native turks from those areas back into areas they still controlled etc.
I personally think it was a terrible situation, like all wars... but the evidence seems split on it being a particularly violent war or genocide. Unlike other genocides, there was never an official policy by the Ottomans, and it doesn't appear that they were trying to wipe out an entire group of people... by many accounts.
The law beng used in the article to prosecute the novelist is actually getting quite a lot of debate and currently his books are selling well here (they are in displays in almost every bookstore).
I don't think we should emulate Turkey, or change our laws, I was just impressed and surprised at the balance they seem to be maintaining currently.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
The thing about the second amendment is that it doesn't say you have the right to own weapons outright. It mentions that well ordered militias are necessary for securing the people's freedom, and because of that the right to bear arms is not infringed. But there's that militia thing in there. The wording is weird because it doesn't say you have to be part of the militia, but it's implied. And this is also one of those tricky things where the Framers could not have foreseen the types of weaponry that we've invented. I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
As far as free association is concerned, of course hate groups have that right. It's when they start breaking the law or plotting to that you go in and haul them off.
All depending on how you interpret it. Many private groups have argued that the freedom of association means they can't be forced to associate with blacks etc. Is that what the authors had in mind?
I
You're right; the Armenian genocide is totally irrelevant to modern Turkey. Which is why they obsess about it so much and why Armenian racism is a hallmark of Turkish right wing and nationalist movements.
Obviously shutting down all discussion and locking people up for things like 'defaming the Turkish national character' are totally reasonable responses and we should all look to Turkey as an example for setting the tone of our public debates.
They obsess about it because the EU set 'admitting to it' as a requirement for them to join. And Armenian racism long predates this incident and has a lot to do with how the Ottoman empire was built, how western influence affected it and how the Armenian revolts (and their backing of the Greek invasion) was perceived.
Shutting down all discussion is obviously stupid... as I said, the author they went after is a hot seller here now... many Turks aren't proud of what happened there.
While no government is perfect, or without its horrible flaws (kinda like all of us) I think we can still learn from the good parts.
Is Turkey perfect? Hell no.
Is the US perfect? Hell no.
Is unfettered Free Speech perfect? Hell no.
Is any restraint on free Speech acceptable? I don't know.
I have to say though that as a country, these people seem a lot happier and less ready to rip each others throats out than the US.
Holy fuck, Rat, did you really just brush up against denying the Armenian genocide?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 05:54:28 PM
Holy fuck, Rat, did you really just brush up against denying the Armenian genocide?
No I've been reading as much history on the country I'm living in. The link posted above actually covers the issues I mentioned:
QuoteWhat happened to the Armenians was dreadful, but as Guenther Lewy documents in his new book The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, which will become the standard work on the subject, both premeditation and an intention to annihilate, two preconditions for genocide, were either absent or at least open to considerable dispute.
QuoteThe mass deportations were ordered during a big Russian army attack into eastern Anatolia in 1915 that was supported by Armenian uprisings behind the Turkish lines. Huge numbers of Armenians died in these forced marches, which crossed high mountains in winter, and the government in Istanbul did little to curb the murder of many deportees by their guards and hostile villagers in the areas they passed through. But Armenians living in areas served by the railway could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks on Armenians who reached Syria — and Armenians living in Istanbul and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.
Turks don't dispute the war, or the deaths... they only dispute the term genocide.
"Sure we murdered over a million Armenians, but we left a few thousand alive so what's the problem? Genocide? What? Nah, we can't be responsible for the actions of our army."
It's a pretty bullshit semantic distinction if you ask me.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Bah! Next you'll be telling us that people should be allowed to own sports cars.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:57:40 PM
Turks don't dispute the war, or the deaths... they only dispute the term genocide.
And what happens if you say it was a genocide?
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 06:10:28 PM
Bah! Next you'll be telling us that people should be allowed to own sports cars.
Personally, I think I should be able to carry an RPG7 around, if I so choose.
Or a sack of hand grenades.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:12:03 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 06:10:28 PM
Bah! Next you'll be telling us that people should be allowed to own sports cars.
Personally, I think I should be able to carry an RPG7 around, if I so choose.
Or a sack of hand grenades.
That would make the morning commute more interesting.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
I believe it. I'm not really sure where I fall on the gun control thing. But I figure if you want to shoot the heavy duty stuff you can use the ones that they have at the gun range.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:12:03 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 06:10:28 PM
Bah! Next you'll be telling us that people should be allowed to own sports cars.
Personally, I think I should be able to carry an RPG7 around, if I so choose.
Or a sack of hand grenades.
That would make the morning commute more interesting.
And more polite.
Arizona has many, many flaws, but people here are almost always polite to each other, as you have no way of knowing who is armed.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:14:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
I believe it. I'm not really sure where I fall on the gun control thing. But I figure if you want to shoot the heavy duty stuff you can use the ones that they have at the gun range.
I figure that in a case of civil liberty, I always err on the side of the individual.
Also, according to Jefferson and Madison, the primary goal of "the militia" was as a threat to the state, should the state become tyranny. Now, I'm not about to argue that the average American has the stones to actually DO anything, but limiting The People to revolvers or lever-action rifles kinda makes the whole thing useless.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:14:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
I believe it. I'm not really sure where I fall on the gun control thing. But I figure if you want to shoot the heavy duty stuff you can use the ones that they have at the gun range.
Until the gun range has a BAR and some old vehicles I can shoot to pieces with it, fuck that shit. I want to shoot MY guns at MY targets on MY land.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:16:50 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:12:03 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 06:10:28 PM
Bah! Next you'll be telling us that people should be allowed to own sports cars.
Personally, I think I should be able to carry an RPG7 around, if I so choose.
Or a sack of hand grenades.
That would make the morning commute more interesting.
And more polite.
Arizona has many, many flaws, but people here are almost always polite to each other, as you have no way of knowing who is armed.
Actually, I saw that once. I was driving with someone and we noticed that a collision had taken place between a car from Texas and a car from New Hampshire. The other person commented on how they were being very calm about it in comparison to how a Masshole would handle it. I pointed out that they both probably have guns.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:19:15 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:14:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
I believe it. I'm not really sure where I fall on the gun control thing. But I figure if you want to shoot the heavy duty stuff you can use the ones that they have at the gun range.
I figure that in a case of civil liberty, I always err on the side of the individual.
Also, according to Jefferson and Madison, the primary goal of "the militia" was as a threat to the state, should the state become tyranny. Now, I'm not about to argue that the average American has the stones to actually DO anything, but limiting The People to revolvers or lever-action rifles kinda makes the whole thing useless.
Fair point.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 06:19:42 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:14:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
I believe it. I'm not really sure where I fall on the gun control thing. But I figure if you want to shoot the heavy duty stuff you can use the ones that they have at the gun range.
Until the gun range has a BAR and some old vehicles I can shoot to pieces with it, fuck that shit. I want to shoot MY guns at MY targets on MY land.
Also, it's the principle of the thing. I demand the right to own firearms, to speak my mind, to write what I please, to associate with whom I please, and a bunch of other shit, too. If that sort of thing scares some people, they should probably wear a hat.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 06:08:38 PM
"Sure we murdered over a million Armenians, but we left a few thousand alive so what's the problem? Genocide? What? Nah, we can't be responsible for the actions of our army."
It's a pretty bullshit semantic distinction if you ask me.
Well, they're saying "The Ottomans killed many Armenians involved in an uprising during a conflict with another country. However, it was limited to the areas involved in the uprising, it was not an intentional attempt to annihilate a race and it wasn't premeditated. Also it was done by the folks we kicked out power."
As for the word, I dunno... the Turks feel that if they call it genocide, then they'll be equated with Nazis. The Armenians feel that nothing short of saying 'genocide' will do.
I sure as hell don't know the facts, I only know the views of the people I've read which tend to disagree a lot often citing the same sources. I am not trying to claim that there was no genocide, or that there was a genocide... based on what I've read, I think its fair to say that the issue is unclear and probably it was unfair of the RU to make it a part of the Turkish entry into the group (though most turks are now very happy they aren't in the EU).
The situation in 2005, the original point, is also pretty interesting. The military had taken control and they were the ones enforcing the laws. Since then the President has removed their control and that's one reason Pamuks books are back on the shelves. It's a great example of abusing limits to free speech, but we can point to some equally damaging abuses of unlimited speech.
As for the heavy duty guns... I dunno. I am all for personal protection, I dunno if a Uzi is necessary though (Well maybe in LA :lulz: )
I don't think I'll ever come to believe that limited free speech is better... but I did think it was worth discussing.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution.
Amendment IX.
Also covers the right to sing the blues.
Funny how everyone else at the time seemed to consider it "a plan to exterminate a whole people" in the memorable phrase of a New York Times journalist.
I suppose those Armenians were just force-marched into the middle of the Syrian desert with no supplies because the Ottoman authorities wanted to get them out of the fighting ASAP, and the desert is a pretty safe place, since no-one lives there.
And those camps on the Syrian-Iraqi border...just because they're filled with mass graves of people who died from bullet wounds doesn't necessarily mean they were extermination camps.
And just because at least 50% of the entire population of Armenians ended up being killed within a four year period doesn't necessarily mean that there was a stated policy of targeting the Armenian population at all. They could have just been very unlucky. Even though the Armenian population was fairly evenly distributed throughout the Ottoman Empire.
And that high ranking Turkish politicans frequently made comments which almost outrighted admitted culpability in a policy of mass killings of Armenians to the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire...well, perhaps they were just bragging?
And that killings of Armenians by Turkish authorities actually continued well after the war ended...well, you know those Japanese soldiers who kept on fighting in the jungle for decades, even after WWII was over? Just like that.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
Ever listen to Nickleback?
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:14:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
I believe it. I'm not really sure where I fall on the gun control thing. But I figure if you want to shoot the heavy duty stuff you can use the ones that they have at the gun range.
what dok said about a restricted right not being a right at all.
or something.
this sounds similar to the 'free speech zones' thing in some sense.
incidentally, my company owns an Uzi as a sales sample for demoing to LEOs.
if you wanted one legally as a private citizen, it has to be one manufactured before 1986, and they go for around 7 grand. hell, the cheapest papered full autos, like the Ingram M11 are around 3 grand these days...
although i think that is crap, and they should be able to manufacture for sale to the public, the fact is, they are prohibitively expensive to legally own by the majority of the population.
I assume there is a second amendment thread around here to prattle on about this, right?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 06:29:11 PM
I assume there is a second amendment thread around here to prattle on about this, right?
Does it matter? All rights are equal in importance.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
More guns would mean less shootings. Maybe. Besides most shootings are done with illegal weapons. Yes?
Fair points all. I will consider.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
I couldn't live under that system. For example, I think America is populated by a bunch of stupid fat nosy bastards who couldn't find their own state on a map if you circled it in red. I enjoy saying things like that to other Americans, because I rather enjoy upsetting them.
Under the Turkish system, I would be forced to give up one of the great joys in my life, or go to jail, or both.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:34:15 PM
Fair points all. I will consider.
I can't say this for certain, but I am reasonably sure that Cartel members don't stop to think about the legality of their weapons before they shoot the fuck out of people in El Paso.
Just saying.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
More guns would mean less shootings. Maybe. Besides most shootings are done with illegal weapons. Yes?
although i would love to support it, the first claim is a 'maybe' at best. too many factors involved to put much value on it.
as to the second claim, how do you mean 'illegal weapon' and what are you basing this on?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
Article 301 of the Turkish legal code makes "denigrating Turkishness" illegal, and is the primary legal weapon used against people who claim what happend to the Armenians was a genocide.
QuoteO DENIGRATE TURKISHNESS, REPUBLIC, AND INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANS OF THE STATE ARTICLE 301:
"1 - A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2 - A person who publicly denigrates Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3 - In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
Of course, nowadays, the preferred method is to send around far-right paramilitaries to murder someone, as in the case of Hrant Dink.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
More guns would mean less shootings. Maybe. Besides most shootings are done with illegal weapons. Yes?
although i would love to support it, the first claim is a 'maybe' at best. too many factors involved to put much value on it.
as to the second claim, how do you mean 'illegal weapon' and what are you basing this on?
If you ask the NRA, nobody has ever killed anyone else with a legally-owned weapon, ever.
If you ask the gun-grabbers, anyone who buys a pistol immediately kills everyone in their neighborhood without even loading it.
If you ask a cop, it's about 25% legally-owned firearms, and 75% illegally owned firearms, but they aren't authorities on the subject, either.
In any case, shootings are irrelevant when discussing firearm rights.
In boston its probably more likely to be an illegal weapon. Though iirc shootings are down but stabbings are up. In western mass i would imagine shootings are done with legally owned guns. Bostonians dont have a lot of game to hunt on the common.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
More guns would mean less shootings. Maybe. Besides most shootings are done with illegal weapons. Yes?
although i would love to support it, the first claim is a 'maybe' at best. too many factors involved to put much value on it.
as to the second claim, how do you mean 'illegal weapon' and what are you basing this on?
My point is most gang related shootings are done with illegally acquired fully automatic weapons. It's that trite saying, "Out law guns and only outlaws have guns." And aren't most shootings gang related?
And like Dok said, freedom isn't safe, wear a hat.
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
Article 301 of the Turkish legal code makes "denigrating Turkishness" illegal, and is the primary legal weapon used against people who claim what happend to the Armenians was a genocide.
QuoteO DENIGRATE TURKISHNESS, REPUBLIC, AND INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANS OF THE STATE ARTICLE 301:
"1 - A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2 - A person who publicly denigrates Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3 - In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
Of course, nowadays, the preferred method is to send around far-right paramilitaries to murder someone, as in the case of Hrant Dink.
Wow.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
Article 301 of the Turkish legal code makes "denigrating Turkishness" illegal, and is the primary legal weapon used against people who claim what happend to the Armenians was a genocide.
QuoteO DENIGRATE TURKISHNESS, REPUBLIC, AND INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANS OF THE STATE ARTICLE 301:
"1 - A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2 - A person who publicly denigrates Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3 - In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
Of course, nowadays, the preferred method is to send around far-right paramilitaries to murder someone, as in the case of Hrant Dink.
Wow.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat Turkey sounds full of crazy like the US. Only instead of drones it's a personal touch.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:48:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
Article 301 of the Turkish legal code makes "denigrating Turkishness" illegal, and is the primary legal weapon used against people who claim what happend to the Armenians was a genocide.
QuoteO DENIGRATE TURKISHNESS, REPUBLIC, AND INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANS OF THE STATE ARTICLE 301:
"1 - A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2 - A person who publicly denigrates Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3 - In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
Of course, nowadays, the preferred method is to send around far-right paramilitaries to murder someone, as in the case of Hrant Dink.
Wow.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat Turkey sounds full of crazy like the US. Only instead of drones it's a personal touch.
Leaving out the paramilitary bit, the fact is that a Turk does not have the right to speak the truth as he or she sees it, on at least one subject, unless his belief is in line with the Turkish government.
Therefore, there is no freedom of speech in Turkey.
Turkish history has included more than a few years of military rule, often backed up by neofascist elements.
Remember the assassination attempt on the last Pope, where he was shot pretty badly? That was the fascist Grey Wolves, a paramilitary organization linked to the MHP political party.
Fascists were also organized by the military into paramilitary groups to aid in their war against Communists (a "stay-behind" army to "prevent internal subversion", which invariably meant assassinating prominent trade unionists, socialists etc) and later against the Kurdish rebels.
Opinion is divided as to whether the Turkish "deep state" still exerts an influence on a national level, but it certainly did as recently as 1996. What generally unified Turkish fascist is nationalist mysticism and extreme antipathy towards Communists, Greeks, Kurds and Armenians in particular.
Come to think of it, Canada and the UK have a similar problem, with "hate speech" laws.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:48:11 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:45:48 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 06:40:07 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
Article 301 of the Turkish legal code makes "denigrating Turkishness" illegal, and is the primary legal weapon used against people who claim what happend to the Armenians was a genocide.
QuoteO DENIGRATE TURKISHNESS, REPUBLIC, AND INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANS OF THE STATE ARTICLE 301:
"1 - A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2 - A person who publicly denigrates Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security organizations shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3 - In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
Of course, nowadays, the preferred method is to send around far-right paramilitaries to murder someone, as in the case of Hrant Dink.
Wow.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat Turkey sounds full of crazy like the US. Only instead of drones it's a personal touch.
Leaving out the paramilitary bit, the fact is that a Turk does not have the right to speak the truth as he or she sees it, on at least one subject, unless his belief is in line with the Turkish government.
Therefore, there is no freedom of speech in Turkey.
Its any subject which is seen to bring Turkey into disrepute.
Turkey has conscription and does not accept conscientious objection. Turkey also has awful anti-terrorism laws (like many western nations) but has actually used them to curb the rights of the press. (http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/13/turkey-draft-reform-law-falls-short)
Quote from: Human Rights WatchAnother amendment extends the use of bail or probation rather than detention for defendants facing trial for crimes with a five-year maximum prison sentence. This should cut down the widespread use of pretrial detention in Turkey, particularly for those charged with more minor terrorism offenses, Human Rights Watch said. The measure would not, however address the situation of hundreds of people facing sentences of five to ten years, such as journalists, charged with membership of an armed organization (article 314/2 of the Turkish Penal Code), a charge frequently leveled despite the absence of any evidence of their involvement in violence or in plotting violent activities.
I'm really glad Rat is having a good time out in Turkey. I'm sure lots of people are genuinely happy. I would not describe Turkish society as 'free' as we would understand the term to have any meaning, though. From what I've heard about the shifting priorities of those in government at the moment, 'democratic' might be a problematic term to apply to the country, too, soon enough.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
Its any subject which is seen to bring Turkey into disrepute.
The subject in question isn't relevant. Either you can speak your mind, or you can't.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
Turkey has conscription and does not accept conscientious objection.
Conscription or lack thereof isn't a hallmark of freedom or the lack thereof.
Most countries have conscription, or at least - as in the US - a conscription plan in place, for which all eligible people must register. In our case, this is written into our constitution as a power of government, and no provision is made for conscientious objection. That is a matter of federal law, and carries with it a large burden of proof to be supplied by the objector to prove that he is in fact an objector.
But the government can eliminate provisions for conscientious objection with no constitutional issues.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:43:29 PM
My point is most gang related shootings are done with illegally acquired fully automatic weapons. It's that trite saying, "Out law guns and only outlaws have guns." And aren't most shootings gang related?
And like Dok said, freedom isn't safe, wear a hat.
I certainly agree with the truism given.
i would believe that most gang related shootings are done with illegally acquired weapons. (stolen) but, fully automatic? i'm a bit skeptical of that. and as to whether most shootings in the US are gang related, i have no idea.
i am an avid gun rights supporter, but i try to avoid arguments that are (or, sometimes, would even seem to be) unsteady, because the bottom line argument, as said by Dok, that the right should be preserved in order to pose threat to an overbearing state should be paramount IMO, and the others often serve as distraction from that.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
I'm really glad Rat is having a good time out in Turkey. I'm sure lots of people are genuinely happy. I would not describe Turkish society as 'free' as we would understand the term to have any meaning, though. From what I've heard about the shifting priorities of those in government at the moment, 'democratic' might be a problematic term to apply to the country, too, soon enough.
Democracy and rights are not necessarily connected, as the ancient Athenians could tell you.
Wasnt another snag in turkey joining the eu that they still have capital punishment on the books?
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 07:02:51 PM
i am an avid gun rights supporter, but i try to avoid arguments that are (or, sometimes, would even seem to be) unsteady, because the bottom line argument, as said by Dok, that the right should be preserved in order to pose threat to an overbearing state should be paramount IMO, and the others often serve as distraction from that.
The real fact is, no argument is necessary. James Madison did that shit for us.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 07:02:37 PM
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
Its any subject which is seen to bring Turkey into disrepute.
The subject in question isn't relevant. Either you can speak your mind, or you can't.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 06:58:07 PM
Turkey has conscription and does not accept conscientious objection.
Conscription or lack thereof isn't a hallmark of freedom or the lack thereof.
Most countries have conscription, or at least - as in the US - a conscription plan in place, for which all eligible people must register. In our case, this is written into our constitution as a power of government, and no provision is made for conscientious objection. That is a matter of federal law, and carries with it a large burden of proof to be supplied by the objector to prove that he is in fact an objector.
But the government can eliminate provisions for conscientious objection with no constitutional issues.
I'm not sure how this works in the US, but in Europe, Turkey is one of only three nations which does not recognize the right of an individual to refuse to assist in taking the lives of other individuals on religious or ethical grounds.
Not to get too bogged down in this, but it certainly is considered another 'black mark' against their human rights record on this side of the pond.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 07:04:19 PM
Wasnt another snag in turkey joining the eu that they still have capital punishment on the books?
Turkey does not have capital punishment any more.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 07:04:19 PM
Wasnt another snag in turkey joining the eu that they still have capital punishment on the books?
How is that relevant to freedom?
In defence of the UK laws, I will point out that they have to be considered threatening statements, and that in particular exemptions are made for expressions of opinion and mockery.
Perhaps it has nothing to do with freedom- it was an observation that popped into my head which is no longer relevant as pointed out.
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
Why?
No, seriously. Are the shooting victims people you care about? Do you feel there are not enough people in the world? Do you think that if guns magically ceased to exist those same people wouldn't kill each other with knives or sticks or their bare hands?
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 07:05:16 PM
Not to get too bogged down in this, but it certainly is considered another 'black mark' against their human rights record on this side of the pond.
That's where I have to disagree with your side of the pond. All societies have some requirements of their citizens. Here, there are only three:
1. Sit on a jury when required.
2. Answer the draft, if called.
3. Pay taxes as levied.
I do not find these particularly onerous. They are all necessities, IMO, even if not always in use.
However, I will say that being a good citizen only pays off if you live in a good society. Mohammed Ali told the draft board to piss up a rope, and was right to do so, at that time and in that place. Despite my arguments above, I consider him a hero for making a correct moral judgement, showing up, and telling them where they could stick it.
I do not have the same respect for people that ran to Canada. I don't hate them or despise them, but they lack the moral authority gained by standing up and spitting in the man's eye in a case like Vietnam.
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
In defence of the UK laws, I will point out that they have to be considered threatening statements, and that in particular exemptions are made for expressions of opinion and mockery.
I was unaware of that. I was under the impression that they were similar in nature to Canada, in which the speech itself can be criminal, even without implied threat.
This is, however, allowed by Canada's charter of rights. It's how they run their country...And until the country I consider home gets its shit in one bag, I'm not about to call my relatives in Canada and tell them they're all fucked up.
Its has nothing to do whether or not there are too many people in the world. I do not believe people have the right to deprive another of their life unless it is to preserve their own. But youre right making guns go away wont prevent people from killing others. But i dont see how overpopulation should make me ok with murder. And yes i care if someone dies even if i dont know them.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
More guns would mean less shootings. Maybe. Besides most shootings are done with illegal weapons. Yes?
although i would love to support it, the first claim is a 'maybe' at best. too many factors involved to put much value on it.
as to the second claim, how do you mean 'illegal weapon' and what are you basing this on?
My point is most gang related shootings are done with illegally acquired fully automatic weapons. It's that trite saying, "Out law guns and only outlaws have guns." And aren't most shootings gang related?
And like Dok said, freedom isn't safe, wear a hat.
No they aren't. Most gangsters can't afford full-auto stuff. Most gang-related shootings are done with semi-auto handguns.
And no, most shootings aren't gang-related either. You guys watch too many movies.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 07:15:23 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
More guns would mean less shootings. Maybe. Besides most shootings are done with illegal weapons. Yes?
although i would love to support it, the first claim is a 'maybe' at best. too many factors involved to put much value on it.
as to the second claim, how do you mean 'illegal weapon' and what are you basing this on?
My point is most gang related shootings are done with illegally acquired fully automatic weapons. It's that trite saying, "Out law guns and only outlaws have guns." And aren't most shootings gang related?
And like Dok said, freedom isn't safe, wear a hat.
No they aren't. Most gangsters can't afford full-auto stuff. Most gang-related shootings are done with semi-auto handguns.
And no, most shootings aren't gang-related either. You guys watch too many movies.
The gangs in Tucson are too business-oriented for that. Shootings here tend to fall under "I wasn't wearing a hat at noon and so Jesus told me to kill that guy", or "You dented my bumper, you fucking son of a bitch", but MOSTLY "Oops. I should have demanded your wallet BEFORE shooting".
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 07:14:56 PM
Its has nothing to do whether or not there are too many people in the world. I do not believe people have the right to deprive another of their life unless it is to preserve their own. But youre right making guns go away wont prevent people from killing others. But i dont see how overpopulation should make me ok with murder. And yes i care if someone dies even if i dont know them.
1) So don't murder anyone.
2) For fuck's sake, WHY? People die
every day.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 07:13:30 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
In defence of the UK laws, I will point out that they have to be considered threatening statements, and that in particular exemptions are made for expressions of opinion and mockery.
I was unaware of that. I was under the impression that they were similar in nature to Canada, in which the speech itself can be criminal, even without implied threat.
This is, however, allowed by Canada's charter of rights. It's how they run their country...And until the country I consider home gets its shit in one bag, I'm not about to call my relatives in Canada and tell them they're all fucked up.
It's not that widely known over here either, to be honest.
But the EDL can still march up and down a street, calling Islam a "religion of evil" if they wish, for example. Hell, they did it less than a month ago.
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 07:20:52 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 07:13:30 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
In defence of the UK laws, I will point out that they have to be considered threatening statements, and that in particular exemptions are made for expressions of opinion and mockery.
I was unaware of that. I was under the impression that they were similar in nature to Canada, in which the speech itself can be criminal, even without implied threat.
This is, however, allowed by Canada's charter of rights. It's how they run their country...And until the country I consider home gets its shit in one bag, I'm not about to call my relatives in Canada and tell them they're all fucked up.
It's not that widely known over here either, to be honest.
But the EDL can still march up and down a street, calling Islam a "religion of evil" if they wish, for example. Hell, they did it less than a month ago.
Canada is a little torn on that. I was just doing some reading, and the cases tried in the past have either been appealed or are in appeal, based on the rather loose writing of the Charter of Rights.
So their status in this respect is up in the air until their courts sort it out.
I have an overactive nice guy gland at times.
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
Why?
No, seriously. Are the shooting victims people you care about? Do you feel there are not enough people in the world? Do you think that if guns magically ceased to exist those same people wouldn't kill each other with knives or sticks or their bare hands?
actually, it could see it being the case. shooting someone is relatively clean and easy in a sense. stabbing someone seems like it would take more fortitude and certain intent. i don't really have anything to base this on, but it wouldn't seem entirely implausible to me... how often does a criminal unintentionally shoot a victim due to nervousness, as opposed to accidentally stabbing them, incident for incident? who knows...
of course, it's a moot point, as it would require some serious magic for guns to up and disappear. failing that, i want to have whatever those antagonistic to me might have, or better.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 07:24:44 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 05:15:14 PM
I'm ok with people owning weapons, but I don't really see any purpose to owning an Uzi.
They're fun.
Firing fully automatic weapons is a fucking blast. The bigger it is, more fucking awesome it is.
Also, food for thought: Twid, why own a guitar?
Apples and oranges. I don't have the soloing skills to kill a man where he stands with one yet. :)
Not the point. You are not a full time musician. Your livelihood does not rely on an instrument. It is an extraneous frippery. You own it because you like making music. Or because it is fun. Yes?
Which is my point. You don't need to prove a reason why you should have a guitar, despite it not being guaranteed in our Constitution. Why then should we have to provide a reason to own a weapon, especially considering such a right IS guaranteed by the Constitution.
Well, it kinda is the point. Guns are lethal weapons. I'd like to see less shootings in the paper.
Why?
No, seriously. Are the shooting victims people you care about? Do you feel there are not enough people in the world? Do you think that if guns magically ceased to exist those same people wouldn't kill each other with knives or sticks or their bare hands?
actually, it could see it being the case. shooting someone is relatively clean and easy in a sense. stabbing someone seems like it would take more fortitude and certain intent.
In my rather limited experience, most people mad enough to shoot are mad enough to kill someone with a tire iron...And those sociopathic enough to do it in cold blood aren't too concerned about the methods, either.
oh, yea. the impassioned killer, i can see that.
i was just thinking about the mugger. i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion. as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me. (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)
Thanks ECH.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 07:31:12 PM
oh, yea. the impassioned killer, i can see that.
i was just thinking about the mugger. i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion. as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me. (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)
Or the drunk killer.
Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck. Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute. Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted. And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew. Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.
Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.
i concur. magical disappearance of all guns would certainly not make killing go away. (we are, after all, apes)
but, when some anti gunners makes the claim that getting rid of all guns would make killing go down, i hear rights advocates start saying that killers would simply use courser methods of killing. i think this argument is the primrose path because it's not practical to think we could get rid of all guns. but dabbling down that path just a bit, i could see how it could reduce some homicide for the reasons i mentioned. so the discussion is a quagmire that should be avoided. (i'm doing a bangup job of that, eh? )
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:50:36 PMTherefore, there is no freedom of speech in Turkey.
I thought that was the assumption this thread started out with, anyway?
The question was whether it's a good idea to limit freedom of speech under certain circumstances. And indeed limited freedom of speech is of course not freedom of speech.
BTW in the Netherlands, we're not allowed to publically deny the Holocaust happened.
Also, on hate speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Netherlands
QuoteArticle 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[29]
Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[30]
Apparently we're allowed to incite hatred against furries, though.
(until the new DSM classifies it as a mental disability, at least)
Quote from: Cain on March 08, 2012, 07:06:16 PM
In defence of the UK laws, I will point out that they have to be considered threatening statements, and that in particular exemptions are made for expressions of opinion and mockery.
I believe that we have some of those exemptions as well, but I'm not exactly sure or clear on what they are.
Good thing the British protect Freedom of Mockery and Biting Wit :)
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
That is an argument that has more meat to it, but it seems that it is more an accusation of negligence on the part of a firearm owner rather than the inherent danger of firearm ownership.
Accidents happen in many ways with many items, yet firearms seem to get a disproportionate amount of impassioned ire. It seems to me that this hoplophobia can result in people believing irrational notions such as significant reduction in homicide if only we were able to remove guns from the world. (I've heard the claim not infrequently, myself)
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
I'm one of those wacky Socialists who thinks that if we solved the social problems that cause most blue-collar crime, the licensing of guns would be largely a non-issue.
Anyway, on what are you basing your assertion that it "works so well" there? Have you researched it? Because if you're basing it on "well I haven't seen any problems"... you might just not be seeing the problems. Because of censorship.
http://crowdvoice.org/freedom-of-speech-in-turkey
http://www.wittyworld.com/countries/turkey.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jody-sabral/turkeys-censorship-puzzle_b_1232562.html
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/01/turkey-press-freedom-ece-temelkuran/
Huh. Those appear to be some problems.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 08, 2012, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 04:50:25 PM
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 08, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 04:45:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 04:39:35 PM
So now it's not just the hyper-right that can't abide freedom of speech in all its messy glory.
I'm walking away from this discussion, for a short period of mourning.
Will return later.
Is Freedom of Speech a topic we can't discuss freely? I'm not against, I just find this different view very interesting. It seems less black and white to me than it used to.
Sure it is. Dok also has the freedom to step out of the conversation if he chooses.
NO HE HAS TO STAY
OTHERWISE HE'S INFRINGING ON MY FREE SPEECH
SOMEHOW
Being lumped in with the hyper right for bringing up the discussion seemed, to me, to say "This isn't something that any sane person should discuss".
That's all.
And Oysters there seems to have the point... I'm not saying we should limit freedom of speech, I am simply surprised that it seems to work so well here and though it might be nice to discuss the advantages and risks associated with both systems.
As far as I can tell, even the poor people enjoy freedom of speech here... as long as they don't use inflammatory speech to incite hate, or make up baseless lies.
I agree that the sponsors pulling out and a potential libel suit are good ways to deal with Rush... it was the Palin comment that got me thinking about this viewpoint.
If limited Freedom is no freedom, then should access to arms be unlimited? Should the freedom to associate extend to racists and misogynists denying minorities or women? The arguments seem very similar.
Or want to discuss the Armenian Genocide (http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-armenia.html)
Turkey is not a country whose human rights record you want to emulate. Seriously.
Really, really seriously.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 08, 2012, 08:57:55 PM
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: Fuck You One-Eye on March 08, 2012, 05:54:28 PM
Holy fuck, Rat, did you really just brush up against denying the Armenian genocide?
No I've been reading as much history on the country I'm living in. The link posted above actually covers the issues I mentioned:
QuoteWhat happened to the Armenians was dreadful, but as Guenther Lewy documents in his new book The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, which will become the standard work on the subject, both premeditation and an intention to annihilate, two preconditions for genocide, were either absent or at least open to considerable dispute.
QuoteThe mass deportations were ordered during a big Russian army attack into eastern Anatolia in 1915 that was supported by Armenian uprisings behind the Turkish lines. Huge numbers of Armenians died in these forced marches, which crossed high mountains in winter, and the government in Istanbul did little to curb the murder of many deportees by their guards and hostile villagers in the areas they passed through. But Armenians living in areas served by the railway could buy tickets and travel safely, there were no further attacks on Armenians who reached Syria — and Armenians living in Istanbul and other Turkish cities far from the war zone were left undisturbed.
Turks don't dispute the war, or the deaths... they only dispute the term genocide.
Uh, this shit is getting crazy in here. Wow.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 08, 2012, 08:57:55 PM
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
Wow. You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 08, 2012, 08:57:55 PM
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
Wow. You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?
If I did it was unintentional.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 08, 2012, 08:57:55 PM
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
Wow. You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?
If I did it was unintentional.
I'd have just stuck with "small children drink bleach more often than they kill themselves with firearms."
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 07:36:40 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 07:31:12 PM
oh, yea. the impassioned killer, i can see that.
i was just thinking about the mugger. i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion. as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me. (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)
Or the drunk killer.
Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck. Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute. Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted. And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew. Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.
Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.
I wonder what percentage of shootings are done by the police?
It's surprisingly hard to find statistics on police shootings.
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 10:43:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 07:36:40 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 07:31:12 PM
oh, yea. the impassioned killer, i can see that.
i was just thinking about the mugger. i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion. as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me. (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)
Or the drunk killer.
Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck. Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute. Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted. And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew. Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.
Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.
I wonder what percentage of shootings are done by the police?
It's surprisingly hard to find statistics on police shootings.
But if you ask loud enough, you can
become a statistic. :lulz:
Good Lord, I've become a cynical bastard.
But maybe not cynical
enough.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:45:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 10:43:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 07:36:40 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 07:31:12 PM
oh, yea. the impassioned killer, i can see that.
i was just thinking about the mugger. i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion. as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me. (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)
Or the drunk killer.
Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck. Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute. Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted. And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew. Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.
Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.
I wonder what percentage of shootings are done by the police?
It's surprisingly hard to find statistics on police shootings.
But if you ask loud enough, you can become a statistic. :lulz:
Good Lord, I've become a cynical bastard.
But maybe not cynical enough.
I'ma vote "not cynical enough".
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 10:47:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:45:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 10:43:49 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 07:36:40 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 08, 2012, 07:31:12 PM
oh, yea. the impassioned killer, i can see that.
i was just thinking about the mugger. i would guess they probably aren't motivated by passion. as i said, i don't really have any evidence, but i've heard the argument dismissed before, and it doesn't seem entirely implausible to me. (but the prerequisite does, so it doesn't really matter)
Or the drunk killer.
Or the mugger who just doesn't give a fuck. Or the pimp who needs to make an object lesson of a low-earning prostitute. Or the mafia/mob/etc guy who thinks someone's going to squeal if they think they're going to be convicted. And the mafia is the perfect example of the banality of evil, the best evidence I can offer of which is Roy DeMeo and his crew. Google it sometime, if you start feeling too happy about humanity.
Thrill killers are - despite Hollywood - incredibly rare...But people who simply don't care about killing are a little more common than people think, and are just as monstrous.
I wonder what percentage of shootings are done by the police?
It's surprisingly hard to find statistics on police shootings.
But if you ask loud enough, you can become a statistic. :lulz:
Good Lord, I've become a cynical bastard.
But maybe not cynical enough.
I'ma vote "not cynical enough".
In my experience most actual criminals are pretty dumb. Likewise, most cops are either dumb, or they learn to act like they are.
My mind is still boggling from the "It's not genocide because it wasn't premeditated" angle.
So it was a genocide of passion?
Dude, no, we didn't mean to... we just had too much to drink, everything went dark, and when we woke up we had a dry mouth, a raging headache, and half the Armenians were gone. It wasn't something we planned.
Quote from: Nigel on March 08, 2012, 10:55:39 PM
My mind is still boggling from the "It's not genocide because it wasn't premeditated" angle.
Pretty certain it was deliberate, planned, and executed as ruthlessly as possible.
Revisionist history is revisionist.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:31:28 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 08, 2012, 08:57:55 PM
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
Wow. You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?
If I did it was unintentional.
I'd have just stuck with "small children drink bleach more often than they kill themselves with firearms."
My choice of example just retarded?
But yea, kids are more likely to drink household cleaners or drown than get shot. Just like people are more likely to die from the flu than from a shooting.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:31:28 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:21:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 10:20:18 PM
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 08, 2012, 08:57:55 PM
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
Wow. You didn't really just quote Hannity, did you?
If I did it was unintentional.
I'd have just stuck with "small children drink bleach more often than they kill themselves with firearms."
Dihydrogen monoxide is more commonly known as water. As for the Hannity thing, well, just because he was the one who said it doesn't make it wrong. Stopped clocks and all that.
Oh, and there's no such thing as a cynic anymore. :lulz:
Dihydrogen monoxide is more commonly known as water
[/quote]
That's either a really good joke or Science has changed since my day.
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 09, 2012, 12:38:35 AM
Dihydrogen monoxide is more commonly known as water
That's either a really good joke or Science has changed since my day.
[/quote]
How so? It's accurate. Two hydrogens, one oxygen.
It appears Science has not changed, but I have had a stunning display of a lack of mental faculties.
I'd delete the post but it will serve as a lesson to google before showing yourself to be retarded.
Commence the mockery, for surely it is deserved.
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 09, 2012, 12:52:01 AM
It appears Science has not changed, but I have had a stunning display of a lack of mental faculties.
I'd delete the post but it will serve as a lesson to google before showing yourself to be retarded.
Commence the mockery, for surely it is deserved.
Nah, it's a simple oversight. It's designed to do that.
i recall getting chain emails about the dihydrogen monoxide joke many moons ago. I don't think Hannity gets credit for that one.
but for a more realistic comparison, i don't see similar impassioned pleas for strict regulation regarding automobiles when, iirc, about 35,000 people die a year from their misuse.
Quote from: Guru Coyote on March 08, 2012, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on March 08, 2012, 08:57:55 PM
One of the primary arguments from the anti-gun camp is the reduction of accidental deaths from people playing with guns who shouldn't, like children. It could also be argued that better gun control could reduce the risk of school shooting incidents. That wouldn't remove the problem of "crazy person wants to kill some dudes at random" but would reduce the kill-count at the end of the day.
I don't think anyone seriously believes removing guns would make a significant dent in homicide in general, it would just raise the barrier for entry a smidge.
You ever heard of dihydrogen monoxide? Every day, about ten people die from dihydrogen monoxide inhalation. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. dihydrogen monoxide inhalation is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
:lulz: You're a dick. :lulz:
Quote from: Junkenstein on March 09, 2012, 12:52:01 AM
It appears Science has not changed, but I have had a stunning display of a lack of mental faculties.
I'd delete the post but it will serve as a lesson to google before showing yourself to be retarded.
Commence the mockery, for surely it is deserved.
:spag2:
:pwned:
:drama1:
:dok:
:owned4:
:piss:
Ooookay! I think Ive got the most relevant ones in there. No one else will be able to give you shit now for fear of re-posting. You're all set.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:34:24 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 08, 2012, 06:31:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:28:56 PM
I still want to know what happens if you call it "genocide" in public in Turkey.
Currently, nothing.... unless you say "Turks are a bunch of motherfucking sluts and committed genocide."
I couldn't live under that system. For example, I think America is populated by a bunch of stupid fat nosy bastards who couldn't find their own state on a map if you circled it in red. I enjoy saying things like that to other Americans, because I rather enjoy upsetting them.
Under the Turkish system, I would be forced to give up one of the great joys in my life, or go to jail, or both.
Oh you could totally say that to people... just not as part of public discourse. They basically see the freedom of speech to be important for whistleblowing, political disagreements etc... but demand that its done respectfully.
That being said, there are definitely some controls on Free Speech here that I find 'too far'. for example, if you stood on a street corner and preached that Attaturk was a *(&%$^)*^ and a *^$@$*) who )(%$*( every chance he got.... you would go to jail. Even if you said "Attaturk was a tool of a secret Illuminati conspiracy" you would probably go to jail.
Then again, from what I've seen, you might not go to jail as you might be in a hospital or hanging from a tree if Turks heard you insult Attaturk.
In the end, I think its a question of what the society expects of itself. Here, respect is expected... respect for elders, respect for public servants, respect for your fellow countrymen, etc. The language is loaded with respectful terms and even body language is seen as respectful or disrespectful in the culture (like if you're sitting with an older person and you cross your legs... many older turks would be offended, because its considered disrespectful).
In the States, as you point out, such is not the case.
So perhaps the interpretation of Free Speech is tied to the existing psychology of the society. For me, I had considered the US version the CORRECT version with no variation. Having seen the way it works here... I was surprised.
On the topic of the Armenians, based on what I've read, it appears that the Ottoman government was guilty of extreme incompetence and definately soldiers were guilty of war crimes. However, the state was in an absurd position of disarray following WW I. The Sultan and the Young Turks were split over almost everything and neither had a good handle on what was happening throughout their country.
On the East the Greeks had invaded from Izmir as part of a deal between the allied powers to divide and take over the Ottoman empire. As they were fighting back the Greeks, the Armenians in that region were helping the Greeks. The eventual burning of Izmir is still hotly debated, the Greeks believe it was attempted genocide, the Turks claim it was the Greeks that started the fire after they lost the city.
In the south, they were losing control of all of the arabic areas that they once held. In the north Russia invaded and the Armenians were, again, helping the invaders.
The chain of command was a pile of spaghetti. Half the army hated the empire. Attaturk was already convinced that he was going to overthrow the government and implement a western style government...
In short this place was chaos. Since there has never been evidence that genocide was an official policy or an attempt to kill all Armenians... and considering that the Armenians had several times in the past decades, revolted against the empire... and at the time were actively backing the invaders... 'genocide' seems like an incorrect word.
To wrap this back around to the actual point of the post, Pamuk (the guy who wrote the book about the Armenians and got kicked out of the country) didn't call it genocide either. The military (who had taken control of the government at the time) prosecuted him in an attempt to fuck over the chances of getting into the EU (at least thats what most Turks seem to believe). It was absolutely wrong and an abuse of their laws. Today, his books are being sold here again because the government realized that it was wrong.
All in all, I love freedom of speech... but seeing different implementations has exposed me to some other ideas of how freedom of speech can be implemented.
Today at the pazar I ran into a lawyer acquaintance of mine. I mentioned this discussion and he said that my information was outdated... so I have to correct myself.
In Turkey today, Rush would not be prosecuted. His radio station would be fined and taken off of the air for 24 hours or so and he would be open to civil suits from the woman he called a slut. Also, Rush would not be allowed to have a radio show anymore... not due to anything political... but rather due to using profanity on the public airwaves. This is much like the old rules the FCC had for radio in the US.
He said that after the military was removed from power, the free speech laws underwent several changes. Currently only Attaturk is protected when it comes to speech. He pointed out that the reason that things remain so civil is simply because the people won't tolerate such absurd behavior. A guy like Rush would be derided from all political directions, his employers would be horrified and embarrassed and his listeners would lose all respect for him. He also said, that while its a bit embarrassing to admit, the biggest threat to Rush would be the girls father and brothers who might well kill the guy, or beat the shit out of him for being so rude to their daughter/sister.
He said the incident with Pamuk was embarrassing to many in the legal profession and once the military was out of power, they tried to repair the laws so that such abuses couldn't be done again. Though, his personal view was that Pamuk was an asshole and wrote the book knowing what the outcome would be and used it to boost his PR in Europe and win the Nobel prize. However, he was glad that Pamuk's books are on the market today.
On the question of political debate, he said that the legal system strongly supports civil lawsuits. Discussing the Obama birthers for example, in Turkey, Obama would have been expected to sue the accusers once the truth was known.
In the end though, he says that the laws aren't nearly as important as the culture.... since the culture demands respect, the people are respectful, and since the US culture revels in disrespect, the politicians and pundits reflect the culture.
I think that makes me feel much better about my view of Free Speech... and a little worse about the culture of my homeland. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 09, 2012, 09:47:35 AM
Oh you could totally say that to people... just not as part of public discourse.
Then it's not free speech.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 09, 2012, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 09, 2012, 09:47:35 AM
Oh you could totally say that to people... just not as part of public discourse.
Then it's not free speech.
See my update.
To clarify, you can't curse at people on air. If you got up on a podium and said that someone was a raving slut who spent 60 hours a week on her back.... the government wouldn't do anything to you. The people around you might lynch you or toss you into the sea, but the government wouldn't stop you.
If you made that comment on air, you would likely lose your job and the station would be shut down for a day as penalty.
In either situation, the individual could sue you.
Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.
Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws... maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".
Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 03:40:33 PM
Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.
Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws... maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".
Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.
But Nigel, they all seem so HAPPY!
If people are smiling and cheerful all the time, then everything is great, right? It isn't like there could be anything underneath those smiles! Nope! Just keep smiling! :) :) :)
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 09, 2012, 04:00:24 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 03:40:33 PM
Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.
Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws... maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".
Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.
But Nigel, they all seem so HAPPY!
If people are smiling and cheerful all the time, then everything is great, right? It isn't like there could be anything underneath those smiles! Nope! Just keep smiling! :) :) :)
SHINE!
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 03:40:33 PM
Wait wait wait wow... so, I think we need to start a list of issues you have been ignoring in this thread despite the fact that they've been repeatedly brought up.
Let's start with the ~100 journalists that are imprisoned because of Turkey's censorship laws...
Thats something I have to research, its news to me.
ETA: Oh correction I had heard about this. The people imprisoned were not simply anti-President or anti-political party X. They were writing in journals that are considered Terrorist journals (particularly the PKK). The turkish law used is one that makes it illegal to support illegal organizations.
In some cases, apparently (I haven't read all the articles, this is second hand) the articles were supporting acts of terror against the state. In others they were praising the PKK or the far left communist (also illegal) for their actions. On the other hand, some were stating support for their cause (an independent Kurdish state).
I would imagine if the US uncovered someone writing articles for a AlQeda website, they would get tossed in jail too.
Personally, I don't think that anyone should go to jail for what they might write. However, in Turkey the public broadly supports anything that is anti-terror (from the PKK, islamic extremists or the communists groups that engage in blowing things up).
The most recent is troubling. The guy in prison has generally been against the ultra-secular group, and he's being charged with being part of that group. He claims its because he was writing about a ultra conservative imam that he believes is working with the AK Party to drag Turkey into an islamo-capitalist society.
Scary shit.
Quote
maybe after that we can move on to discuss how a genocide could be "unpremeditated".
Genocide is the
deliberate and systematic destruction of a specific group. If
intent cannot be verified, it cannot be considered genocide (per the UN definition).
In the situation with the Ottoman empire, there is a lot of evidence that indicates incompetence and war crimes... but there is not evidence of intent (or at least most modern writers on the subject conclude that the evidence doesn't support intent).
ETA:
Also, after the incident, the sultan charged three generals with a number of things including war crimes related to the Armenians. All three were found guilty and sentenced to death. They had fled the country, eventually two were killed by Armenian assassins.
I'd forgotten about that.
Quote
Perhaps at some point we could come around to the fucked-up sexism implied in that fact that a woman's father and brothers might kill a man for calling her a slut.
Actually, thats one of the terrible things about Turkey. The rural conservatives were killing their wives and daughters over honor issues a few years ago, without much intervention from the government. With the new government they've cracked down heavily, but the statistics are horrifying. On top of the conservatives with their honor beliefs, there are a lot of village/redneck/blue collar men that think slapping their wife around is perfectly normal. If a girls was called a slut in public, they would likely get punched by her brother, her father or possibly any guy in the area that was friends with the girl. If it was in national media and based on the logic Rush used.... this lawyer guy was serious about his life being in danger.
The urban Turks are horribly embarrassed by the women's rights issues and at this point there are lots of commercials asking people to call in and report abuse cases. They are vehemently prosecuting murderers that are caught and the media uses the topic quite a bit in the weekly dramas.
I wasn't trying to say it like it was a good thing... I think its insane.
I posted a number of websites that detailed the charges against the journalists, and which claim that the charges of terrorism are spurious at best and that their real crime is being critical of the government.
I have no idea whether you have access to those sites, though, because you're in a country that censors the internet.
As for the genocide issue, I cannot believe that you're seriously taking the stance that since premeditation can't be proven, it's not technically genocide.
Rounding up and butchering over a million people based on their ethnicity is really hard to do without premeditation.
Lemkin (the dude who made up the word) said:
QuoteGenerally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.
The Armenian genocide is the basis on which Lemkin formed his concept of genocide as a crime, and also is the basis for the word itself. You are trying to say that the very historical events the word was coined to describe does not fit the definition. Do you understand what I am saying, Rat? Lemkin invented the word to describe what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.
You seem to be saying that it's unclear that the intention of the Ottomans was to eliminate Armenians from Turkey. If that is what you're saying, I really have no words. I recognize that you are probably still in the honeymoon phase with Turkey, but I'm asking you to pull your head out of your ass for this one because you're really shaming yourself.
Quote from: kingyak on March 08, 2012, 04:57:54 PM
The problem with Limbaugh's statements isn't that he's legally allowed to say what he says, it's that political discourse in this country has sunk so low that people will listen to what he says. If Americans were actually concerned with political debate rather than left-right tribalism, Rush would be back on unemployment.
I agree with the assessment of the lowly state of political discourse in this nation, but not necessarily that it's a new phenomenon. IIRC the accounts of Thomas Jefferson having sexual relations with his slaves was something that was brought up in political debate at the time it was going on, not just something that came out in the historical record.
Even though they're not usually mentioned in the same sentence, screaming slut in political debate is right up there with Mom, Apple Pie and the Fourth of July.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 08, 2012, 07:47:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 08, 2012, 06:50:36 PMTherefore, there is no freedom of speech in Turkey.
I thought that was the assumption this thread started out with, anyway?
The question was whether it's a good idea to limit freedom of speech under certain circumstances. And indeed limited freedom of speech is of course not freedom of speech.
BTW in the Netherlands, we're not allowed to publically deny the Holocaust happened.
Also, on hate speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Netherlands
QuoteArticle 137c: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, intentionally expresses himself insultingly regarding a group of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[29]
Article 137d: He who publicly, orally, in writing or graphically, incites hatred against, discrimination of or violent action against person or belongings of people because of their race, their religion or their life philosophy, their gender, their heterosexual or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental disability, shall be punished by imprisonment of no more than a year or a monetary penalty of the third category.[30]
Apparently we're allowed to incite hatred against furries, though.
(until the new DSM classifies it as a mental disability, at least)
I see what you mean about wording that looks like computer code.
Being a natural rights nut-job myself, can't say as I agree with laws such as this, but at least this one does limit it's scope to
public speech, etc. I would assume if someone overhears your dinner conversation about God smiting the homos, that's not something you can be prosecuted for? (want to know just in case I'm ever in a discussion that goes Godwin on the subject)
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on March 09, 2012, 11:03:08 PM
I see what you mean about wording that looks like computer code.
Hahaha, yeah. This is pretty much what all our legal code looks like. For everything. I'm mostly familiar myself with the ones concerning copyrights and intellectual properties, but they're all unambiguously defined like that.
You're supposed to take them literally like a pedant which is why I highlighted the bolded part, cause it made me wonder "what about bisexuals?" :)
Except it doesn't work like that in NL because there's also the "intent" of the law that a judge is allowed to call upon--may seem kind of paradoxical, but given all the laws are defined so strictly, the "intent" of the law cannot be ambiguous either (otherwise it needs to be amended).
Quote from: Nigel on March 09, 2012, 08:20:28 PM
I posted a number of websites that detailed the charges against the journalists, and which claim that the charges of terrorism are spurious at best and that their real crime is being critical of the government.
I have no idea whether you have access to those sites, though, because you're in a country that censors the internet.
Yes, I'm looking through those as I have time as well as other information sources. Internet censorship,right now seems only to apply to free porn. I haven't been blocked on anything else yet.
Quote
As for the genocide issue, I cannot believe that you're seriously taking the stance that since premeditation can't be proven, it's not technically genocide.
Rounding up and butchering over a million people based on their ethnicity is really hard to do without premeditation.
Lemkin (the dude who made up the word) said:
QuoteGenerally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aimed at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.
The Armenian genocide is the basis on which Lemkin formed his concept of genocide as a crime, and also is the basis for the word itself. You are trying to say that the very historical events the word was coined to describe does not fit the definition. Do you understand what I am saying, Rat? Lemkin invented the word to describe what the Ottomans did to the Armenians.
You seem to be saying that it's unclear that the intention of the Ottomans was to eliminate Armenians from Turkey. If that is what you're saying, I really have no words. I recognize that you are probably still in the honeymoon phase with Turkey, but I'm asking you to pull your head out of your ass for this one because you're really shaming yourself.
Here's the thing. The Ottoman empire recoginized that bad things happened and dealth with them. The Turks then overthrew the Ottomans (for other reasons). In the time since then, and since the word has been coined... the official definition used internationally includes premeditation.
QuoteArticle II - 1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm
Quote"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
This is the problem the Turks have with the claim. They claim that there is no evidence that the intent was to wipe out the Armenians, but rather to extract them from the province, where they were assisting the Russians in an invasion of the Ottoman territory. They do admit that bad things were done in that process and the three generals that were sentenced to death included criminal charges related to the event. These guys were members of the CUP a group in the military that had pulled off a successful coup and taken control of much of the military.
They also claim that the 5 acts were not involved, with the exception of the first one... which they claim was part of an active war, rather than an intent to wipe out a race of people.
In what I've read on the subject, many modern, respected scholars appear to agree with this position. Other respected historians claim that there is enough evidence for a 'broader' claim of genocide which doesn't fully meet the international definition.
Much of the damage done during that time was due to Kurdish-Armenian relations, after the Armenians had begun pushing anti-islamic rhetoric, the kurds responded with anti-christian rhetoric and a number of terrible events ensued with lots of casualties on both sides.
An eyewitness account from a prior of franciscan monks in the area claimed that the Turks had been attacked by the Armenians under the direction of Russia. Their record claims that Armenians mercilessly hacked down Turks destroyed Mosques, set the Turkish sections of cities on fire and actively attacked the supply lines to the front where the Ottoman and Russian forces were fighting.
Something I had not realized before reading more on the topic and time: The behaviors of the Ottoman's with the Armenians, was identical to acts in Russia against Turks, Turks against Bulgarians, Bulgarians against Turks, Bulgarian, Serbia and Greece against Turks and Albanians... it was common practice, at that time in that region by many countries.
Turks argue that if they are guilty of genocide then so are the Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks etc etc. in some cases there was obvious intent and the massacre of entire villages (as ordered by command). In the Turkish situation, there was rape and murder committed by soldiers (not ordered by command).
The reason the Turks are so sticky on this issue is because they believe that as the losers in WWI they were singled out with this claim... and their entrance into the EU had admission of guilt as a requirement for entry, while the same didn't apply to other nations, like Greece that were involved in the same kinds of actions.
I AM NOT trying to claim that nothing bad happened or that modern Turkey is perfect. Nor am I trying to say the Ottomans didn't do something horrible. I'm only presenting the argument that the Turks use about the term genocide... one that does seem to have some support in the facts.
I think that there is a confusion of issues involved here.
War at the turn of the century was really terrible.
The Ottoman Empire was falling apart at the seams, a military coup had put the Young Turks (CUP) in power over the military as separate from the Sultan.
The Armenians had tried to revolt multiple times in the late 1800's early 1900's. They helped invading forces (Greece and Russia), they promoted a Christian vs Muslim war on the ground, attacked and wiped out sections of cities and villages where turks/kurds were.
Many of the acts against the Armenians that are considered part of the genocide, were done by Kurdish soldiers who had not been ordered to act.
What evidence there is of ANY plan, indicates that the CUP saw the Armenians as a threat to the front lines and believed they should move them so that their flanks weren't being attacked. It doesn't talk about wiping them out as a race.
During the early 21st century things get even more confusing as the military was secretly controlling the whole government. A number of shady actions by the government of that time were designed to refute the term genocide (including paying historians not to include it, or pressuring historians that they should change their wording). When the military conspiracy was uncovered, the current government removed many of the leaders from power and sentenced many to prison.
That have in the past few years opened the Turkish archives fully on the subject.
Further, some of the older publications that made a case for genocide are now considered suspect, not just by the Turks, but by western scholars as well. In some cases, secret testimony from anonymous sources were quoted, in others interpretations of statements made were taken (so the claim is) out of context or interpreted incorrectly.
At the very least, I think its clear that the issue is not as obvious or open and shut as the Holocaust (the Israeli state doesn't officially consider it genocide). I think that it was a terrible time in human history with millions of people from multiple countries dying in horrific ways (1 million turks died in the actions between Russian, Greek, Armenian and Balkan fighting, while about the same number of Armenians died and who knows how many Greeks, Russians, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Australians, British and New Zealanders). I am not defending ANY of those actions as just, right or acceptable. In fact, the Ottoman empire apparently felt the same, as the prosecuted the generals responsible for the area and the soldiers involved. They found individuals within the CUP guilty of planning to and actively trying to wipe out Armenians. One Pasha actually sent a communication to 'wipe' out all Armenians... However, this was his own statement and not a statement from the government, which is why he was convicted and sentenced to death.
I do think that the initial usage of genocide may well have been part of the western plan to destroy the Ottoman empire. Remember, this was just at the end of WWI, where the Allied powers had a well documented plan on how to slice up the empire and give full control to the Brits, Greeks and other nations. These actions led to an occupied empire (what was left of it) and created the environment that put Attaturk in a position to overthrow the Sultan, chase out the occupying nations and create modern Turkey.
I believe that the Turks honestly considered this argument as a continuation of the West's policy... and most still seem to see it that way today.
If we use a broad term for genocide (ie, killing a huge number of people of a ethnic group) then absolutely it was genocide. So was what all the other nations were involved in. If we use the technical UN definition accepted by the international community, the evidence is not so clear.
Were I in charge, I would just say "OK, sure, genocide... lets get over this embarrassing part of our history"... but I'm not a Turk and Turkish pride means you have to prove they're wrong before they admit it.
Back to the main point of this discussion which brought up this topic. I think its absurd that Pamuk was stripped of his citizenship and kicked out of the country for writing a book. It was an absolute restriction on free speech. However, it was done while the military conspiracy was controlling things... once they had been removed, his books went back into publication and you can buy them today (I almost picked up a copy last week in fact...).
ETA:
I will also agree that the Ottoman government was guilty of incompetence and failing to protect their citizens. In areas where the Armenians suffered the worst, the government protection was slim (two guards for thousands of Armenians). In those areas, local tribal groups attacked and killed many. These tribes are the ones who suffered high casualties from the Armenians when the Russian army had invaded all the way into the city of Van. The government should have realized that the locals would seize on an opportunity to exact revenge and sent more protection.
It's also obvious from the communications to the soldiers that they were to 'protect' the Armenians during the relocation. However, the details, necessary support and resources required weren't made available which led to most of the Armenians dying due to disease, starvation and exposure.
On the other hand, in the western areas that weren't a warzone, there is no debate over the treatment of the Armenians. They weren't attacked, rounded up and their churches remained open through the wars. If we compare this to Germany an indisputable genocide, Jews in any area under their control were rounded up, all synagogues were destroyed or defiled.
Also it is indisputable that in the Anatoila region around 50% of the Armenian population died. During this same conflict, around 60% of the Muslim population were killed. This included the muslims that were forcibly relocated from areas Russia controlled (forcibly relocated by Russians and Armenians). By the end of the conflict, almost all of the Muslim and Armenian population in Anatolia were refugees
-------------
I had, before my move to Turkey assumed the Armenian genocide was fact. After coming here and debating the issue I read a number of books on the subject as well as extensive Googling. In the end, I don't feel confident calling it a genocide, based on the arguments I've presented here. I cannot say that it wasn't genocide. There could have been secret orders that have never been made public (though the current government has opened all archives on the subject). However, for me, I think the evidence has provided a level of doubt. At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
Nigel, if you, or anyone else here has references that you used to form you opinion, I'd love to review those as well. I by no means think I know it all, there's tons of writings on this subject... a lot of which contradicts each other or relies on/doesn't rely on the broader circumstances of the event.
------------
Sidenote: Also, thanks to everyone on the original topic. After months in a country where 'some' speech was blocked, I'd come doubt my view that only completely free speech is acceptable. This discussion helped me reaffirm my view.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
2/3rds of them deserved it?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
2/3rds of them deserved it?
Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.
I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.
Fine, so it's
murderous ethnic cleansing, which fits the definition exactly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
QuoteAn earlier draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." (...) 'ethnic cleansing' has been carried out by means of murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property. Those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention".
Ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide. These terms are not synonymous, yet the academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' whereas genocide is the "intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group."[3] The idea in ethnic cleansing is "to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal."[4] Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing."[5] Thus, these concepts are different, but related, "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people."[6]
Murderous Ethnic Cleansing:Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of them in a certain area.Genocide:Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of the race or religion.They're both considered crimes against humanity.
The difference also seems somewhat academic to me. And many academics even argue that the difference is not even that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Study_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
So anyway, can you argue it's murderous ethnic cleansing, then? And I don't mean if you, Rat, agree with the term (because if you don't you might need to reboot your brainlogic circuits), but rather if it's allowed to argue this in Turkey?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
2/3rds of them deserved it?
Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.
I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.
Wow, all 1 million, including children, engaged in this? That's pretty impressive.
Seriously. Arguing semantics at this kind of level (which is exactly what 'but the definition says...') is in incredibly poor taste. It makes it difficult to take anything else you have to say regarding Turkey and free speech seriously, to say the least.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 10, 2012, 04:21:06 PM
Fine, so it's murderous ethnic cleansing, which fits the definition exactly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
QuoteAn earlier draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." (...) 'ethnic cleansing' has been carried out by means of murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property. Those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention".
Ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide. These terms are not synonymous, yet the academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' whereas genocide is the "intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group."[3] The idea in ethnic cleansing is "to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal."[4] Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing."[5] Thus, these concepts are different, but related, "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people."[6]
Murderous Ethnic Cleansing:
Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of them in a certain area.
Genocide:
Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of the race or religion.
They're both considered crimes against humanity.
The difference also seems somewhat academic to me. And many academics even argue that the difference is not even that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Study_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
So anyway, can you argue it's murderous ethnic cleansing, then? And I don't mean if you, Rat, agree with the term (because if you don't you might need to reboot your brainlogic circuits), but rather if it's allowed to argue this in Turkey?
You can debate both of those terms in Turkey currently. The current PM has practically copped to a lesser charge on the subject, but the Armenians insist on the term genocide.
ETA: The current government has, on multiple occasions called for an international team to investigate the issue claiming that if there is evidence of genocide they will accept it.
Of course, there is a lot of politicking about if they're serious or just trying to use it as a cover. However, the debate is tolerated here. (Ironically, its no longer tolerated in France.)
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 10, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
2/3rds of them deserved it?
Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.
I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.
Wow, all 1 million, including children, engaged in this? That's pretty impressive.
Seriously. Arguing semantics at this kind of level (which is exactly what 'but the definition says...') is in incredibly poor taste. It makes it difficult to take anything else you have to say regarding Turkey and free speech seriously, to say the least.
The issue here is what the EU and countries like France want Turkey to admit. They want, specifically, them to admit to the definition. Turkey refuses because the definition requires 'intent'. If instead the EU had required an admission of war crimes or ethnic cleansing, Turkey likely would have accepted the term.
Semantics are exactly what's being argued on all sides of the debate.
well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.
on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.
or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 10, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.
on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.
or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.
I think it boils down to reparations. :-/
Anyway I'm off for the night, talk to you all tomorrow.
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 10, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.
on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.
or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.
Voting in the EU is done by population.
Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.
France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 10, 2012, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 10, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.
on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.
or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.
Voting in the EU is done by population.
Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.
France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)
That could very well be another angle I hadn't considered.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 10, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
2/3rds of them deserved it?
Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.
I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.
Wow, all 1 million, including children, engaged in this? That's pretty impressive.
Seriously. Arguing semantics at this kind of level (which is exactly what 'but the definition says...') is in incredibly poor taste. It makes it difficult to take anything else you have to say regarding Turkey and free speech seriously, to say the least.
Likewise.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 10, 2012, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 10, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.
on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.
or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.
Voting in the EU is done by population.
Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.
France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)
Yeah, you make a really good point.
Quote from: Demolition_Squid on March 10, 2012, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 10, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.
on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.
or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.
Voting in the EU is done by population.
Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.
France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)
Given what i know of French politics, (which is very little, admittedly, and I know pretty much nothing about EU politics in general), this seems to be in line with what I would expect. However, i would like to ask someone with more knowledge on the matter if it's mostly France pulling the EU around by the nose, or if other countries are as involved in the issue?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
2/3rds of them deserved it?
Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.
I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.
What percentage of the dead Armenians were bearing arms, and are you
certain that all the affected areas were in rebellion?
There's also the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy (basically Turkey would bankrupt the program) and German fears over mass immigration into the country, as border controls would no longer apply to Turkish nationals.
However, the main objection is that Turkey doesn't seem very well subscribed to European political, social and ethical norms, even by the low standards at which current European major players understand them. It's a country which has a distressing history of military coups, state-sponsored terrorism, corruption, ethnic violence and as a transit route for drugs and guns. Letting Turkey into the EU would mean that those problems then become Europe's problems, and Europe isn't exactly good at dealing with a crisis, you might have noticed.
Oh, look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
QuoteHamidian Massacres, 1894–96Main article: Hamidian Massacres
Since 1876, the Ottoman state had been led by Sultan Abdul Hamid II. From the beginning of the reform period after the signing of the Berlin treaty, Hamid II attempted to stall their implementation and asserted that Armenians did not make up a majority in the provinces and that Armenian reports of abuses were largely exaggerated or false. In 1890, Hamid II created a paramilitary outfit known as the Hamidiye which was made up of Kurdish irregulars who were tasked to "deal with the Armenians as they wished."[32]:40 As Ottoman officials intentionally provoked rebellions (often as a result of over-taxation) in Armenian populated towns, such as in Sasun in 1894 and Zeitun in 1895–96, these regiments were increasingly used to deal with the Armenians by way of oppression and massacre. In some instances, Armenians successfully fought off the regiments and brought the excesses to the attention of the Great Powers in 1895 who subsequently condemned the Porte.[33]:40–2
And watch as the brave Turks defend themselves against women and children!
QuoteMass burningsEitan Belkind was a Nili member, who infiltrated the Ottoman army as an official. He was assigned to the headquarters of Kamal Pasha. He claims to have witnessed the burning of 5,000 Armenians.[46]:181,183
Lt. Hasan Maruf, of the Ottoman army, describes how a population of a village were taken all together, and then burned.[47] The Commander of the Third Army Vehib's 12-page affidavit, which was dated 5 December 1918, was presented in the Trabzon trial series (March 29, 1919) included in the Key Indictment,[48] reporting such a mass burning of the population of an entire village near Mush.[49] that in Bitlis, Mus and Sassoun, "The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in the various camps was to burn them." And also that "Turkish prisoners who had apparently witnessed some of these scenes were horrified and maddened at the remembering the sight. They told the Russians that the stench of the burning human flesh permeated the air for many days after."
DrowningTrabzon was the main city in Trabzon province; Oscar S. Heizer, the American consul at Trabzon, reports: "This plan did not suit Nail Bey.... Many of the children were loaded into boats and taken out to sea and thrown overboard."[50] The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini, writes: "I saw thousands of innocent women and children placed on boats which were capsized in the Black Sea."[51] The Trabzon trials reported Armenians having been drowned in the Black Sea.[52]
Hoffman Philip, the American Charge at Constantinople chargé d'affaires, writes: "Boat loads sent from Zor down the river arrived at Ana, one thirty miles away, with three fifths of passengers missing."[53]
Use of poison and drug overdosesThe psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton writes in a parenthesis when introducing the crimes of Nazi doctors, "Perhaps Turkish doctors, in their participation in the genocide against the Armenians, come closest, as I shall later suggest."[54]
Morphine overdose: During the Trabzon trial series of the Martial court, from the sittings between March 26 and May 17, 1919, the Trabzons Health Services Inspector Dr. Ziya Fuad wrote in a report that Dr. Saib caused the death of children with the injection of morphine. The information was allegedly provided by two physicians (Drs. Ragib and Vehib), both Dr. Saib's colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital, where those atrocities were said to have been committed.[55][56]
Toxic gas: Dr. Ziya Fuad and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affidavits reporting cases in which two school buildings were used to organize children and send them to the mezzanine to kill them with toxic gas equipment.[57][58]
Typhoid inoculation: The Ottoman surgeon, Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote "on the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the Third Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzican were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients without rendering that blood 'inactive'."[59][60] Jeremy Hugh Baron writes: "Individual doctors were directly involved in the massacres, having poisoned infants, killed children and issued false certificates of death from natural causes. Nazim's brother-in-law Dr. Tevfik Rushdu, Inspector-General of Health Services, organized the disposal of Armenian corpses with thousands of kilos of lime over six months; he became foreign secretary from 1925 to 1938."[61
Oddly enough, I was unable to find any accounts of Armenians wiping out Muslim cities.
I did, however, find the account of Smyrna, in which the Turks burned a city full of Armenians.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 06:20:59 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 04:07:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 03:57:40 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on March 10, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.
2/3rds of them deserved it?
Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.
I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.
What percentage of the dead Armenians were bearing arms, and are you certain that all the affected areas were in rebellion?
Rata is also ignoring that the Armenian genocide wasn't exactly an isolated incident in Turkish history.
In 1895, a bunch of Armenian revolutionaries tried to stage a revolt, which of course failed. The Ottoman government of the time then responded with mass reprisals of what can only be described as collective punishment - with possibly 100,000 to 300,000 Armenians killed as a response. One of the very first massacres took place in Constantinople - very shortly after peaceful protests by the Armenian community there to stop the violence, on both sides.
The best part was, Armenian nationalism was being driven by attacks and raids by Kurdish bandits - bandits with semi-official sanction to attack Armenian and only Armenian communities. This was because the rulers of the Ottoman Empire were insanely paranoid that there was a Christian plot to undermine the country, and that Armenian protests and petitions for reform were the first step in that plot.
But I'm sure all 300,000 of those killed were members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. And that if they weren't, they were only killed because they got caught up in the violence. Despite most of the actual fighting taking place well before the massacres. And, of course, it wasn't really decided policy or anything, despite records showing it was government policy to "pursue a policy of severity and terror against the Armenians", and Kurdish proxies being given government assurances in order to carry out mass killings of any and all Christians they could find.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 06:29:23 PM
Oh, look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
QuoteHamidian Massacres, 1894–96Main article: Hamidian Massacres
Since 1876, the Ottoman state had been led by Sultan Abdul Hamid II. From the beginning of the reform period after the signing of the Berlin treaty, Hamid II attempted to stall their implementation and asserted that Armenians did not make up a majority in the provinces and that Armenian reports of abuses were largely exaggerated or false. In 1890, Hamid II created a paramilitary outfit known as the Hamidiye which was made up of Kurdish irregulars who were tasked to "deal with the Armenians as they wished."[32]:40 As Ottoman officials intentionally provoked rebellions (often as a result of over-taxation) in Armenian populated towns, such as in Sasun in 1894 and Zeitun in 1895–96, these regiments were increasingly used to deal with the Armenians by way of oppression and massacre. In some instances, Armenians successfully fought off the regiments and brought the excesses to the attention of the Great Powers in 1895 who subsequently condemned the Porte.[33]:40–2
Blah, I could have not written the whole previous post of mine :argh!:
Quote from: Cain on March 10, 2012, 06:24:29 PM
There's also the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy (basically Turkey would bankrupt the program) and German fears over mass immigration into the country, as border controls would no longer apply to Turkish nationals.
However, the main objection is that Turkey doesn't seem very well subscribed to European political, social and ethical norms, even by the low standards at which current European major players understand them. It's a country which has a distressing history of military coups, state-sponsored terrorism, corruption, ethnic violence and as a transit route for drugs and guns. Letting Turkey into the EU would mean that those problems then become Europe's problems, and Europe isn't exactly good at dealing with a crisis, you might have noticed.
Ah, thank you, Cain. I suspected there was a broader reason. Thanks for clarifying.
And here's the heart of the matter, with regard to the OP...And as previously mentioned by Cain:
QuoteEfforts by the Turkish government and its agents to quash mention of the genocide have resulted in numerous scholarly, diplomatic, political and legal controversies. Prosecutors acting on their own initiative have utilized Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code prohibiting "insulting Turkishness" to silence a number of prominent Turkish intellectuals who spoke of atrocities suffered by Armenians in the last days of the Ottoman Empire (as of yet, most of these cases have been dismissed).[153] These prosecutions have often been accompanied by hate campaigns and threats, as was the case for Hrant Dink, who was prosecuted three times for "denigrating Turkishness",[154] and murdered in 2007. Later, photographs of the assassin being honored as a hero while in police custody, posing in front of the Turkish flag with grinning policemen,[155] gave the academic community still more cause for pause with regard to engaging the Armenian issue.
Rat's entire argument seems to boil down to "Well TECHNICALLY it shouldn't be called genocide by the current legal definition because nobody can PROVE that it was premeditated".
:vom:
QuoteAside from the deaths, Armenians lost their wealth and property without compensation.[182] Businesses and farms were lost, and all schools, churches, hospitals, orphanages, monasteries, and graveyards became Turkish state property.[182] In January 1916, the Ottoman Minister of Commerce and Agriculture issued a decree ordering all financial institutions operating within the empire's borders to turn over Armenian assets to the government.[183] It is recorded that as much as 6 million Turkish gold pounds were seized along with real property, cash, bank deposits, and jewelry.[183] The assets were then funneled to European banks, including Deutsche and Dresdner banks.[183]
Goddamn, this sounds familiar.
It's funny how all that documentation makes it sound so... premeditated.
So I guess what I wonder is, if they didn't have anything to do with it and it was a deposed regime who was responsible, why is the current Turkish administration so very, very vehemently opposed to officially recognizing that it was genocide?
Has the US ever officially used the word "genocide" with regard to its treatment of the native americans?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 10, 2012, 08:33:22 PM
Has the US ever officially used the word "genocide" with regard to its treatment of the native americans?
I don't know. What I DO know that I can call it genocide (I do), and not go to prison or be killed for it.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 10, 2012, 08:33:22 PM
Has the US ever officially used the word "genocide" with regard to its treatment of the native americans?
No.
Even though it was, and continues to be, a policy of genocide.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 10, 2012, 08:33:22 PM
Has the US ever officially used the word "genocide" with regard to its treatment of the native americans?
Goddammit, there's STILL not a :requia: emoticon.
(http://i.imgur.com/eBQEL.jpg)
Quote from: Nigel on March 10, 2012, 09:20:38 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 10, 2012, 08:33:22 PM
Has the US ever officially used the word "genocide" with regard to its treatment of the native americans?
No.
Even though it was, and continues to be, a policy of genocide.
SE tribes had the Supreme Court, President had the military, history got a Trail of Tears...
...and fucking Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill to this day...
"We're so sorry one of our most revered leaders grudge fucked you against any sense of decency and the laws of his own nation...but here's some meth and a casino. All better?"
is something else I probably couldn't say in Turkey.
No EU membership for the USA then!
Quote from: Cain on March 11, 2012, 02:04:30 AM
No EU membership for the USA then!
Aww, dammit! What if we promise to be really, really good, and not, ya know, fuck with the Middle East anymore? :aww:
Quote from: Cain on March 11, 2012, 02:04:30 AM
No EU membership for the USA then!
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Wow, these are broad arguments that certainly undermine my position. I was caught up in the specific argument of the 1900's events and the technical definition and paid less attention to the previous atrocities.
The documents I had read particularly a translation of the French minister to Instabul (excerpt for "The Yellow Book") during the 1890's paints the situation as an Ottoman response to assassinations and attempted rebellions.
Again, thanks guys. This is me throwing in the towel on the topic.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 10, 2012, 06:37:01 PM
Oddly enough, I was unable to find any accounts of Armenians wiping out Muslim cities.
That was specifically in the provinces of Van and Bitlis according to Russian reports, British reports and the Franciscan monks from that area. The British specifically calls several of the events massacres. This from the 1890's through the first decade of the 20th century (throughout the Caucuses War).
The city of Van itself saw 60,000 Turks killed during the Armenian revolt (March 1915).
Quote
I did, however, find the account of Smyrna, in which the Turks burned a city full of Armenians.
Smyrna is Izmir, right near where I'm living. This was an interesting mess. The Greeks had invaded the city and eventually fought quite deeply into the country. As the Ottomans beat them back, the Greeks burned cities that they abandoned. Izmir was the last battle. The Turks won back the city and that night, the Greek and Armenian sections of the city were set ablaze. The Turk and Jewish areas were not.
According to the Armenians and Greeks, the Turkish soldiers set the fires. According to the Turks and the Jews the Greeks started the fires. The Turks argue that the Greeks had burned all the other cities (not really debated) and they had just won back their third largest city... so why would they set it on fire?
There is one eyewitness report from someone in the Jewish section who claimed The Turks had trapped some Greeks in a building and other Greek soldiers (or Armenian rebels) started a fire to distract the soldiers and get their friends to safety. An Armenian account says the same thing except that the Turks started the fire to force out the soldiers. Other witnesses claim they saw Turks setting fires and still others claim that they saw Greeks starting the fires.
The worst part of that event, though, in my mind, was the complete lack of humanity on the part of the Turks later that night. Many Greeks were crowded against the sea to avoid the fires. A panic started and a lot of people ended up in the freezing cold water. The Turkish warships that were there in the waters did nothing to help those people. I think only one ship, a Japanese Merchant ship, dumped its cargo and worked to save people.
Bump, to point out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2012/dec/11/journalist-safety-press-freedom
QuoteTurkey, the world's worst jailer of journalists
Turkey has 49 journalists behind bars, with dozens of Kurdish reporters and editors held on terror-related charges. A number of other journalists are detained on charges of involvement in anti-government plots.
In 2012, CPJ conducted an extensive review of imprisonments in Turkey and found that broadly worded anti-terror and penal code statutes have allowed the authorities to conflate the coverage of banned groups and the investigation of sensitive topics with outright terrorism or other anti-state activity.
These statutes "make no distinction between journalists exercising freedom of expression and [individuals] aiding terrorism," said Mehmet Ali Birand, an editor with the Istanbul-based station Kanal D. He calls the use of anti-state laws against journalists a "national disease."
Birand said "the government does not differentiate between these two major things: freedom of expression and terrorism."
Nope, no media censorship in Turkey! :lulz:
This is quite interesting.
I suppose that pretty much sums up the whole thread.