I almost wish Hitchens had stood up, stepped over to Tharoor, back-handed him hard across the face and said "what you just said offended me".
To say that the whole discussion should be about whether the speaker should have been more careful not to provoke violence, is to say that that we should all tiptoe around bullies, all the time.
Id like to correct the woman when she says ''many people died because of cartoons''
No. They died because the people who killed them were brought up to justify their haneous act with the words of religion spewing from their mouth. If it was not for this excuse it would not have happened, this attack was entirely religiously motivated.
@panniize my apologies for screwing up your handle. See former comment. Tharoor comes from a still iron age thinking society and he and most of his country need to evolve in their thinking before being granted respect in any forum or discourse.
@pannize The only potential dumbass in this conversation would be an individual who gives anyone at the UN a shred of respect. The UN is an inneffectual and mentally handicapped organization. Tharoor is way over his head attempting to debate Hitchens who is widely considered one of our times greatest public intellectuals. You my good sir flaunt your dumbassity with your every comment :).
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
if you shout fire in a crowded theater and some one freaks out because they did NOT bother to look around quickly and make sure the warning was real IS NOT YOUR FAULT!
its the fault of the person that did not bother to check the facts. a quick look around will tell you that if you dodnt smell smoke or see fire that that person is probably out of there minds and can be ignored.
take resposability for your actions/reactions and dont blame others!
Hitchens shows the idioticity when he shouts FIRE. Tharoor should have not even given him the credibility by sitting with him. Tharoor a potential secretary General UN to sit with this person.
@MrJazzy1983 "Hitchens shows the idiocity when he shouts fire." You must be joking. Firstly, you're (I think) accusing Christopher Hitchens of all people of stupidity. This is laughable on its face. But the real delicious bit is that in calling Hitchens stupid, you fail to form a cogent sentence with correct English words or grammar. I award you no points sir, and may God have mercy on your soul.
This position of Indian people and Indian laws on free speech is required to keep violence at minimum but it fails almost all the time. On positive note I see Indians moving towards liberal and secular values gradually and steadily. I hope to see Indian laws and people accommodating all sorts of free speech in my life time.
Guys please show some mecy to Tharoor. He is debating Hitchens on free speech and that means he is bound to lose. Tharoor, like me, is raised in India. Here we have laws that clearly restrict our free speech. The Indian soiecty is still 90% or more conservative, too much religious and too much emotional. Here we are indirectly expected to be tolerent towards mob violence, violence by state machinery and violence in the name of blasphemy, religion and moral or cultural protection.
The very first 40 seconds had me disgusted. So someone rights a fictional story & people riot because of their own stupidity. The newspaper APOLOGIZES & the writer never works there again? WTF?. Sashi & the mediator seem to completely miss what is egregious about that. It's not the editing. It's the point that some assholes bullied a news paper into submission over a damn story. Good grief, these people would need the jaws of life used as a quasi speculum to pull their heads out of their asses..
When we cannot tolerate white fascism, then we shall never tolerate Brown Fascism at any case. Brown Fascism does exist at its best, in the Arab Muslim World, it systematically persecutes ethnic and Religious minorities in Pakistan and Egypt. When it comes to free speech, the Arab Muslim world has never hear or practices such a thing, therefore they arent aware of what it really means to get offended. Tbey are only taught in Madarasas to offend and ridicule other beliefs!!!
When we cannot tolerate white fascism, then we shall never tolerate Brown Fascism at any case. Brown Fascism does exist at its best, in the Arab Muslim World, it systematically persecutes ethnic and Religious minorities in Pakistan and Egypt. When it comes to free speech, the Arab Muslim world has never hear or practices such a thing, therefore they arent aware of what it really means to get offended. Tbey are only taught in Madarasas to offend and ridicule other beliefs!!!
Look, I am an Indian and I agree with what Hitch is saying, but you cannot implement his kind of freedom of speech in India. Cal us unenlightened or whatever, the society is just not ready for it. Those American individualists who are condemning Tharoor have no idea how diverse and the Indian society is. It has followed the principle of non-offense unless absolutely necessary. It might be debated whether a particular religion is now begging to be offended, though.
@soham087 Any line of thought which convinces you that ANY society is not ready for freedom of speech is a line of thought that you should question with every fiber of your being, friend. You are conceding that someone else should be allowed to tell you what you can and can't say, and that is not a concession that any human being should make.
@soham087 Of course it won't happen overnight. It requires a great deal of work to convince those in power that their "subjects" should be free to non-violently express themselves in whatever way they see fit. Luckily, in America, most of that work was done before I was born. We still have a ways to go to get past the private censorship of the MPAA and the FCC (the people who legislate what gets into our theaters/on our airwaves), but it's a fight I'm going to dedicate most of my life to.
@iamnothowardhues Humility and apathy against deliberately offensive behavior is intrinsically more present in the Eastern philosophies. The equation messes up with Islam thrown into the context. Eastern religions are not intrusive, they don't proselytize or claim any exclusivity to God, so there is less need for someone else to offend them anyway. Free speech exactly like those in the USA, although I support it, may some time to be implemented in India.
@HarrysSecret .hardly.buddhists rioted in nepal,sikhs rioted,christians i africa are insane,muslims obv,hindus get upset over anything,etc.all religions get offended quickly na dover react,but i guess it depends where you are.
@laudrup90 A number of christians in other countries are apeshit crazy too. Bombing clinics, disregard of the environment, anti-science educational policies, & and operating pedophile protection programs (even non catholics).
The thing with freedom of speech and freedom from violence is that the harm of all violence is universal. On the other hand, different words and phrases offend different people in different ways, to different extents. And if someone is going to be incited to become violent from another's speech then they're not mature enough to live in a civilised society and should frankly be imprisoned as far as I'm concerned
The dangerous speech, the speech that could be concidered inflamatory and potentially illegal, is the speech that incites the people to riot and kill the cartoonists and those that look like him, not the cartoonist.
5:20 wow, let me get this straight lady, drawing a cartoon does not logically follow murder !! WTF! neither cartoonist nor the press is at any responsability on the assasination of those people, what a dumb piece of argument, is like saying "let's outlaw kitchen knifes b/c someone might get offended and killed".. that's called scapegoating..just like the supposed jesus sacrifice.. suprise, surprise!
It would seem to me (why not everyone else) that if a person is in a right relationship with their god or the truth this god represents to them, they AND their god would be above ANYTHING that could be offensive - untouchable !
But as it is , the nature of taking offense is a direct indictment of the frivolity of both their beliefs AND their god !
OK. I begin to see your point. The human ego is a fragile thing, and no one likes criticism, including me, but I learn from criticism, and the outside evaluation is the most honest, usually. The thing is, the muslim community is SO INSECURE, that they are literally turning everything into an insult, and we all need to say : "Get over it" , and if you don't like it, go home..
Besides, the community of ideas is just that - a cauldron of ideas , good and bad. The good ones float to the top.
All these arguments about "responsibility" in free speech, are really just PC speech about one thing: Don't offend the muslims. It is the argument of the Dhimmie.
@foamulator No they aren't, it's just that muslims happen to be the most touchy.
The thing that people get wrong is the idea that something can be unacceptable in a social context without it being appropriate to legislate against. You can't make it a law for someone to not be an asshole (we don't have enough prison space!)
@TheOmegajuice I disagree. It is the muslims , and only the muslims and their apologist supporters on the left who are pushing for these "blasphemy" laws. They are trying to make it against the law to offend them. , Hell , they have already done it!
\There is no right to " not be offended" .. There is, or should be a right for free speech, no matter how offensive it may be to some. That is what the 1st amendment in the US was for. Speech that is offensive.
@foamulator There was a situation in Britain where a particular play was closed because of protests by the Sikh community. Most of these massively over the top reactions seem to be from Muslims however there are a score of different groups who want 'hate speech' and so on to be illegal.
I have heard it apply to racism, Scientology, Christianity, homosexuality etc. The most OTT reactions seem to be from the Muslim world but that's just the current incarnation of an old debate.
@SurlyCalifornia There's simply not much point arguing with people like you. The medium through which an attack occurs is irrelevant (when to the appropriate punishment, obviously). That doesn't mean that a verbal and physical attack are punishable in the same way, but that both are an attack and both can be dealt with legally in numerous countries. So, yes, you did misread, and these last posts demonstrate not only that you did, but that you really are here practicing your vocabulary.
@SurlyCalifornia, no, speech (not freedom) should never be "curtailed." If you make fun of people or lie about them in a newspaper, appropriate consequences may be complaints or being sued. Freedom of speech does not mean, say anything you want and never have consequences. FREEDOM means WITHOUT conditions, it does not mean without consequences. If you attack someone, the medium of that attack is irrelevant.
@SurlyCalifornia, my friend, you have got to learn to be critical when you read. One of the problems with being critical is being able to fully pay attention. You have obviously not done this. I'm not here for you to practice your vocabulary.
What you quoted says: IF we intentionally insult others, then THAT should be addressed AS SUCH, i.e. IF you insult (through expression) then the INSULT is the issue. It is a form of attack. It is wrong. NOT the medium through which the attack occurred.
If the truth causes unrest, then the problem is in those who are ignorant of the truth and are offended upon hearing it, not in the expression of the truth. While diplomacy is usually practiced to reconcile differences, truth nor its medium of expression should be muted or avoided for people's emotions. If people are intentionally insulting others, then that is different from speaking to express a truth, and should be addressed as such, whether racism or other.
However, the expression of hatred through speech is merely observed as the type of speech that it is. No one is saying that while you have the freedom to express, you then can, without punishment, harrass or out of fabrication accuse others of crimes that hurt their reputation. Freedom of speech is no different from any other freedom in that if you use it to hurt others, then it is the hurting for which you will be punished, not the freedom itself.
There are so many people in our country that do not really believe in freedom. Hitchens is a naturalized citizen and understands the 1st Amendment better than most Americans. The FCC in the US is completely unconstitutional.
@jrwilson98 When something belongs to the public--like the airways--like the highways--we cannot depend on the rotten apples not to spoil things; that's where government comes in--that's its purpose.
@lustre5 It is not the Governments purpose to stop people from exercising free speech. It is the job of the Government to ensure that each person's rights not trampled on by others.
@jrwilson98 You can stand on the street corner and say anything you want, but you can't say what you want everywhere and disturb the peace. Tell your boss to go to hell and then cry "free speech." If you want to watch filth, you can go and pay for it, but you just don't get it do you about something that is for the public benefit. Go read up on the FCC.
@lustre5 you DO have the right to tell your boss to go to hell, what makes you think you don't? If you are worried about disturbing the peace then blame those who disturb the peace, not those who exercise their freedom of expression and intellectual freedom
@ani470 There are circumstances when what you say has consequences--like after you tell your boss to go to Hell you will likely be fired. If you disturb the peace with your mouth, you will face the music.
@lustre5 My boss has the right to fire me if I tell him to go to hell. However, no one has the right to react violently when I use my intelligence to criticise an ideology like Islam. People need to grow a thick skin and understand that not everyone in the world is going to respect their views. As an Armenian, do you know how many people come up to me and tell me my family deserved the genocide? I have no right to react violently and harm those people but I do have the right to rebut them.
@lustre5 Maybe Muslims should learn to do the same instead of acting like retarded fuckwits everytime their peodophile prophet is insulted. There is something called self - control and human agency and there is no excuse for reacting the way Muslims have.
@lustre5 Both of you could have summed it up a lot better than this. But JrWilson is obviously right. The freedom part of the many different expressions in which it occurs means "without conditions," not "without consequences." The freedoms one exercises are never punishable but the crimes committed through them. If you told your boss to go to hell, the reason you would be punished would be because you attacked him not because you spoke. Though, inapprorpiate punishments are also crimes.
Islam teaches us how to conduct all affairs of our lives. No other religion on earth talks about Economics, Politics, War, Peace, Women's Rights, Rights of Parents, Punishment and Consequence, Reward and the Oneness of God in such detail. We are even taught which way to face while releiving oneself, and how to clean oneself after such has occurred. No religion to this day can equal the depth in which Islam has gone into and affected our lives.
@xukun0 You are correct. No religion has quite the depth of Islam. I'm not sure depth is the correct word, I would think crazy would be a more descriptive word of the religion and it's believers/proponents. You have a cobbled together book, of an already insane book, by a man who was seeing a mirage in the desert.
@xukun0 "We are even taught which way to face while releiving oneself". And this is a good thing? Do you really enjoy being that mindlessly controlled? my friend, first, it's not true that no other religion goes into such detail. I understand the Jewish religion is at least as detailed including rules on how to relieve yourself. Buddhism is far more profound in terms of the depth of THOUGHT as opposed to mindless rituals. Most important, Islam simply isn't TRUE nor are the others.
Have enjoyed some of Shashi's writings in the past. But his little apologistic recap of the newspaper office burning was fucking disgusting. Yes, let's give carte blanche to rampaging Islamic hordes to kill and take offense at whatever it is they like. Clearly they are very moderate.... and they'll kill you if you say they aren't. These murdering, raping scum offend ME and other civilized people. Long live Denmark.
Tharoor's point about the newspaper did nothing for his point, and in all reality helped Hitchens point about communal pressure being bullshit. We all need to grow up, and not give a fuck what someone else thinks about what we say. If you are able to get so offended by words, not actions mind you, then you are nothing more than a large child.
@sfmike20 I disagree. I think communal pressure is a very good thing. Not communal violence but I think people should exercise their freedom of speech and speak out against what offends them. The hope is that this exercise limits the need for violence. It, of course ,in no way means that those who are the target of communal pressure should cave into it. But this kind of 'debate,' I think, is healthy and should be encouraged.
@sfmike20 yes tell that to the 6 million jews who died because of Hitler's ability to say whatever he wanted. I don't agree with communal pressure being applied because that entrusts what I can say or you can say to a majority who may not be acting out of defending individual but their own prejudices. However when someone like Geert WIlders who seems to be embarking on the path of hitler and milosevic starts spouting nonsense and he is in office, there should be some consequences
@johndifull You make it sound like Tharoor was saying something insane. I'm a fan of Hitchens but demonising all his opponents in debate and calling them insane, is just not right.
if there were a god, i'd thank her for putting hitch in place to defend our united states constitution in debate against the fascists and theocrats who want to nullify it.
What a foolish statement. "The editor ought to have known better." That is as good as saying the people had the right to run riot. Rubbish. That's not freedom of speech if you can only say things that don't anger others.
this is geniune intellectual debate. for once, an opposition of hitchens actually refutes reasonably. such a pleasure to be listening to this music of wisdom.
Exactly, I mean there is no reason FOR such a law or amendment if the only thing that can be said is that which everyone agrees. We have a law or an amendment FOR the KKK, for Westboro Baptist, for the Nation of Islam, and for you and me.
It is their's and our rights to say as we wish. If you don't like it, stay indoors, close your blinds, and don't watch the TV/Radio/internet. Problem solved.
Iam from india..and I would like to add that india has second largest muslim population and the reason for India to be soft on muslim fanatics is to keep pakistanis in check..ISI has always used Indian muslims for terrorism in india.
Hitchens' 'speech' at the end of this is inspiring. How anyone could take the Muslim's side over the Danes' side is beyond me.
On top of that, think of the supposed context! To express outrage against a cartoon depicting Mohammed because your religion contains an admonition against sculptures of Mohammed "to prevent idolatry" is beyond retarded. Doesn't Islam forbid depiction of any living thing? Doesn't that mean Muslims should be destroying millions of plastic dogs and dolls and shit? Stupid.
@EsotericDesi That is true today, but the incitement to violence exists in all three of monotheisms holy books, so its always latent waiting for someone to act on.
If there was a political movement like modern jihdadism in one of the mainstream Christian sects I imagine a similar problem.
Sahih Muslim 19:4345: When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In my opinion freedom of speech should be limited to not allow hate speech, incitement to violence etc and also people should think before they write. Like the newspaper example that was mentioned. The writer/editor shouldn't act irresponsibly.
I can shout anti-semitic slogans on the roof and try to incite people to violence, resulting in anti-Jewish pogroms by bigoted Christians, but the real problem is not that I have too much time on my hands, but that bigots are allows to commit violent acts with impunity.
Exactly. How ironic it is that Tharoor's line about the right to shake your fist ending at my face is applicable not to Hitchens, but to the Muslim protestors and terrorists who attack civilians in the name of "offense". Imagine what a different world we would be living in if the 9/11 bombers believed that their right to be offended stopped at shaking their fists at the World Trade Center. Of course, we'd have to get Republicans to stop invading other countries, too, but one conundrum at a time.
If I own a shop. I should be allowed to ban blacks, jews, and gays. I payed for it and I run it and I should decide who can walk into it. I will lose their money.
If those people don't like it, then don't come into my shop. I can say anything I want about them. But I can't harm them.
Now I would never do this but it should be my right.
Making people keep their mouth shut when they have biggoted thoughts will not stop those thoughts from happening.
i was extrapolating from your shop and applied it to a country
should a country ban bigots who hate islam into the country? like the retarded geert wilders? should a country ban bigots who promote islam into the country? like the retarded zakir naik?
you may have that right in your own shop but who holds that right and dictates them in a secular country?
I'm not positive (I wrote that some time ago) but it seems like we're arguing 2 different points.
I was simply talking about private ownership. I might have been replying to someone elses comment because I watched the video and it doesn't seem like my comment has much to do with it.
No I don't think a country should ban biggots, racists, etc. or religious people.
jessewb if people arnt allowed to say things that are false you will need a politician to regulate what you should be allowed to say. who will determine what can and cant be said. who is good enough to deserve that responsibility.
did not know the backstory to the Holmes decision. While I hate socialists and opponents of WW1 (except Hitchens, hope he isn't an opponent) it is important to uphold first amendment rights for everyone
I agree with Hitchens on all points except that Denmark has done it's best to host Muslim immigrants. Right now in Denmark the nationalist party has a big influence and it is actually illegal for a danish woman, over 18, to marry an immigrant until she is 25, which is quite racist I'm afraid.
Freedom of speech is design to protect what people dont wan to hear, what makes them angry, what hurts them. which is why it has to be protected. If no one would disagree with you, if no one would try to silence you because of what you say, then (I'm referring to the US) the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have included that first amendment in it. In fact, the fact that it is the first amendment, and not the second or the third, is because from this freedom all other freedoms are born.
I'm never been from the desert so I can't go back to the desert.
Muslims !=(different) desert people.
Get used to it?
Freedom of speech should no exist. Freedom of speech is only your ancestors rebellion against the church. Muslims never had this issue. Because you people aren't realistic. Freedom of speech was for improvement of society. Swearing and mocking is degeneration of society.
Get used to rational though or GET BACK TO YOUR 8th century huts of hay...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Think however you want to.
You are obvious oblivious to what I meant.
I meant freedom of speech with NO BOUNDARIES, like in today's society should not exist. Does it cost you too much to not speak filthy, offensively or defame IN PUBLIC and ultimately waist people's time with ignorant babble. DO as you please on your own.
Like this fire, fire, fire guy above. Did he really say anything worth saying? He just offended people. THAT IS WHAT SHOULD NOT EXIST.
Jesse, have you seen some of the new billboard signs in the U.S. that read "Don't believe in God? you're not alone" put out by freethought organizations?
Some Christians out there have complained that they find THAT 'offensive'!
Why should such disingenuous 'sensitivity' be enough to 'make' people shut up?
It's very simple: the risk of 'being offended' is the price you pay for living in a diverse society. If one can't accept that, perhaps one should live in a theocracy.
One thing is expressing yourself with a reason. Atm you are being honest. This is what I call constructive talk.
If you don't want to believe in God. Fine by me. I have no issues with that. That's your problem.
What people should do is back their talk up. Argumentation. You want to criticise. Do it constructively. If you do so. You are not in the wrong, but within boundaries of "free speech".
And as I said Purposeful insult was bad.
A HELPFUL message is ok, even if someone claims offence.
"Freedom of Speech, is not there to protect popular speech, popular speech requires not protection. It is unpopular speech that needs to be protected"
Unless, your speech puts peoples lives directly into harms way, there is no limit on the freedom
@LordVigeous666999 in the United States. The problem is that other people have not voted this frame of rights into their legal strictures. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are US documents. Perhaps this is stating the obvious..but those rights don't even exist in the UK.
No, the revolutionary idea of the United states, is that rights do not come from a legal structure, they do not come from a government, they are human in nature
What is one of the best tests? If you were the only person on the planet, would you still have the right to...?
Rights are an inherent quality of being a human, and must actively be denied by other humans. You have the right to speak, until I actively put a gun in your face, and tell you to stop, etc etc etc
Legal structures are what are used to establish and defend those rights. Those structures don't exist in many places - or if we simply restrict the conversation to the UK and the US without all the other messiness - You simply do not have and therefore cannot exercise the same rights in the UK that you enjoy in the US. Christopher Hitchens recently became an American. If I can introduce you to family members busy introducing these structures both in Russia and Afghanistan.
Not completely true.. common law actually works in a way - it's just the law is not legislated by a government body, but rather accumulated over years by the courts of justice (a justice-based, precedent-based system).
Common law actually is written down - but it's a whole string of court rulings.
I tihnk the main reason the Brits aren't in a hurry to do the constitution/bill of rights thing, is because the US did that.. =)
Plus the UK has signed the universal declaration of human rights...
@8DX It's been a while since I read it ...what does it say about ubiquitous surveillance of NON -criminal citizens... That's becoming a very serious issue here and there...
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
@ABHINAVNR don't worry, islamics will b doing this 2 u, wait & c. that is what worries me deeply. the plan is to cover the earth w/islam, they r using freedom of speech 2 advance their cause. it is not hate speech 2 speak up its true fear/way of life preservation. Religion is just a topping
I almost wish Hitchens had stood up, stepped over to Tharoor, back-handed him hard across the face and said "what you just said offended me".
To say that the whole discussion should be about whether the speaker should have been more careful not to provoke violence, is to say that that we should all tiptoe around bullies, all the time.
VidkunQL 2 weeks ago
Watching this makes me feel anew the lack of Mr. Hitchens in the world now. It is palpable. Who will become our new poster child for ratiocination?
mrgabest 3 weeks ago
Id like to correct the woman when she says ''many people died because of cartoons''
No. They died because the people who killed them were brought up to justify their haneous act with the words of religion spewing from their mouth. If it was not for this excuse it would not have happened, this attack was entirely religiously motivated.
roadkill1001 1 month ago 6
1 dislike is a non-smoker
zidex 4 months ago
@panniize my apologies for screwing up your handle. See former comment. Tharoor comes from a still iron age thinking society and he and most of his country need to evolve in their thinking before being granted respect in any forum or discourse.
Rationalreason777 4 months ago
@pannize The only potential dumbass in this conversation would be an individual who gives anyone at the UN a shred of respect. The UN is an inneffectual and mentally handicapped organization. Tharoor is way over his head attempting to debate Hitchens who is widely considered one of our times greatest public intellectuals. You my good sir flaunt your dumbassity with your every comment :).
Rationalreason777 4 months ago
who is this silly paki who finds it difficult to make a point.
orbital92hotmail 5 months ago
@orbital92hotmail Only the former Under Secretary of the UN. Dumbass.
panniize 4 months ago
@panniize I know who it is fuck tard, its a saying.
orbital92hotmail 4 months ago
Hitchens should have been a politician, but perhaps he will do more good this way being able to travel and debate all over the world
mckorff 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
if you shout fire in a crowded theater and some one freaks out because they did NOT bother to look around quickly and make sure the warning was real IS NOT YOUR FAULT!
its the fault of the person that did not bother to check the facts. a quick look around will tell you that if you dodnt smell smoke or see fire that that person is probably out of there minds and can be ignored.
take resposability for your actions/reactions and dont blame others!
so...sorry Tharoor, you are wrong , wrong, wrong!
zencat999 5 months ago
2 men with great voices. Tharoor would be just as pleasing to listen to as Hitchens if his arguments weren't so disagreeable.
Delision 6 months ago
@Delision exactly
panniize 4 months ago
Hitchens shows the idioticity when he shouts FIRE. Tharoor should have not even given him the credibility by sitting with him. Tharoor a potential secretary General UN to sit with this person.
MrJazzy1983 6 months ago
@MrJazzy1983 "Hitchens shows the idiocity when he shouts fire." You must be joking. Firstly, you're (I think) accusing Christopher Hitchens of all people of stupidity. This is laughable on its face. But the real delicious bit is that in calling Hitchens stupid, you fail to form a cogent sentence with correct English words or grammar. I award you no points sir, and may God have mercy on your soul.
amatuerarabist 6 months ago
@MrJazzy1983 he was making a joke, quit being a douchebag.
MrNicMachiavelli 3 months ago
This position of Indian people and Indian laws on free speech is required to keep violence at minimum but it fails almost all the time. On positive note I see Indians moving towards liberal and secular values gradually and steadily. I hope to see Indian laws and people accommodating all sorts of free speech in my life time.
MrIndianAtheist 7 months ago
Guys please show some mecy to Tharoor. He is debating Hitchens on free speech and that means he is bound to lose. Tharoor, like me, is raised in India. Here we have laws that clearly restrict our free speech. The Indian soiecty is still 90% or more conservative, too much religious and too much emotional. Here we are indirectly expected to be tolerent towards mob violence, violence by state machinery and violence in the name of blasphemy, religion and moral or cultural protection.
MrIndianAtheist 7 months ago
Uhh...fire....fire....
Ahahahaha!!!
youztuber5000 7 months ago
FIRE!!! brilliant! Tharoor is a nice chap, but he's no intellectual match for the Hitch.
marcohorowitz8 7 months ago
Maybe this has been said maybe not. But did you notice Hitchens wearing all white and Tharoor all black. Good vs Evil.
NeuroVeg 7 months ago
The very first 40 seconds had me disgusted. So someone rights a fictional story & people riot because of their own stupidity. The newspaper APOLOGIZES & the writer never works there again? WTF?. Sashi & the mediator seem to completely miss what is egregious about that. It's not the editing. It's the point that some assholes bullied a news paper into submission over a damn story. Good grief, these people would need the jaws of life used as a quasi speculum to pull their heads out of their asses..
mistereveready 7 months ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
When we cannot tolerate white fascism, then we shall never tolerate Brown Fascism at any case. Brown Fascism does exist at its best, in the Arab Muslim World, it systematically persecutes ethnic and Religious minorities in Pakistan and Egypt. When it comes to free speech, the Arab Muslim world has never hear or practices such a thing, therefore they arent aware of what it really means to get offended. Tbey are only taught in Madarasas to offend and ridicule other beliefs!!!
Salimlahore 7 months ago
When we cannot tolerate white fascism, then we shall never tolerate Brown Fascism at any case. Brown Fascism does exist at its best, in the Arab Muslim World, it systematically persecutes ethnic and Religious minorities in Pakistan and Egypt. When it comes to free speech, the Arab Muslim world has never hear or practices such a thing, therefore they arent aware of what it really means to get offended. Tbey are only taught in Madarasas to offend and ridicule other beliefs!!!
Salimlahore 7 months ago
is it me, or the volume is seriously low?
napornik 8 months ago
@napornik The volume is very low. Don't worry you aren't going deaf =)
preemptivestrike20 8 months ago
Fire?! Oh shit!
Monumentum616 8 months ago
Look, I am an Indian and I agree with what Hitch is saying, but you cannot implement his kind of freedom of speech in India. Cal us unenlightened or whatever, the society is just not ready for it. Those American individualists who are condemning Tharoor have no idea how diverse and the Indian society is. It has followed the principle of non-offense unless absolutely necessary. It might be debated whether a particular religion is now begging to be offended, though.
soham087 9 months ago
@soham087 Any line of thought which convinces you that ANY society is not ready for freedom of speech is a line of thought that you should question with every fiber of your being, friend. You are conceding that someone else should be allowed to tell you what you can and can't say, and that is not a concession that any human being should make.
iamnothowardhues 9 months ago
@iamnothowardhues Its all fine to listen to,and I don't object to it, but won't happen overnight.
soham087 9 months ago
@soham087 Of course it won't happen overnight. It requires a great deal of work to convince those in power that their "subjects" should be free to non-violently express themselves in whatever way they see fit. Luckily, in America, most of that work was done before I was born. We still have a ways to go to get past the private censorship of the MPAA and the FCC (the people who legislate what gets into our theaters/on our airwaves), but it's a fight I'm going to dedicate most of my life to.
iamnothowardhues 9 months ago
@iamnothowardhues Humility and apathy against deliberately offensive behavior is intrinsically more present in the Eastern philosophies. The equation messes up with Islam thrown into the context. Eastern religions are not intrusive, they don't proselytize or claim any exclusivity to God, so there is less need for someone else to offend them anyway. Free speech exactly like those in the USA, although I support it, may some time to be implemented in India.
soham087 9 months ago
Comment removed
soham087 9 months ago
Only Islam over-reacts.
Isn't it time for the world to sit them down and explain how the adult world works?
HarrysSecret 9 months ago
@HarrysSecret .hardly.buddhists rioted in nepal,sikhs rioted,christians i africa are insane,muslims obv,hindus get upset over anything,etc.all religions get offended quickly na dover react,but i guess it depends where you are.
laudrup90 7 months ago
@laudrup90 Actually, while I agree with your point in general, only Islam is used to justify world-wide terrorist attacks.
HarrysSecret 7 months ago
@laudrup90 A number of christians in other countries are apeshit crazy too. Bombing clinics, disregard of the environment, anti-science educational policies, & and operating pedophile protection programs (even non catholics).
mistereveready 7 months ago
The thing with freedom of speech and freedom from violence is that the harm of all violence is universal. On the other hand, different words and phrases offend different people in different ways, to different extents. And if someone is going to be incited to become violent from another's speech then they're not mature enough to live in a civilised society and should frankly be imprisoned as far as I'm concerned
acphenom 9 months ago
The dangerous speech, the speech that could be concidered inflamatory and potentially illegal, is the speech that incites the people to riot and kill the cartoonists and those that look like him, not the cartoonist.
16randomcharacters 9 months ago
The sane cannont be held captive by the actions of the insane
phookadude 9 months ago
5:20 wow, let me get this straight lady, drawing a cartoon does not logically follow murder !! WTF! neither cartoonist nor the press is at any responsability on the assasination of those people, what a dumb piece of argument, is like saying "let's outlaw kitchen knifes b/c someone might get offended and killed".. that's called scapegoating..just like the supposed jesus sacrifice.. suprise, surprise!
elvigia666 9 months ago
Religion is complete BS
bhriguaneja 9 months ago
It would seem to me (why not everyone else) that if a person is in a right relationship with their god or the truth this god represents to them, they AND their god would be above ANYTHING that could be offensive - untouchable !
But as it is , the nature of taking offense is a direct indictment of the frivolity of both their beliefs AND their god !
rolynstone48 10 months ago
@TheAwokenMind
LOL
Funny joke. Not very sophisticated, but funny.
mdiem 10 months ago
CH is a fuckin G!! the way he's sippin the water whilst drinking.. pro lol
duppymaker 10 months ago
Freedom of speech is a human right and human rights are absolute, apply at all times and there are no exceptions.
Experiment47 11 months ago
OK. I begin to see your point. The human ego is a fragile thing, and no one likes criticism, including me, but I learn from criticism, and the outside evaluation is the most honest, usually. The thing is, the muslim community is SO INSECURE, that they are literally turning everything into an insult, and we all need to say : "Get over it" , and if you don't like it, go home..
Besides, the community of ideas is just that - a cauldron of ideas , good and bad. The good ones float to the top.
foamulator 11 months ago 2
All these arguments about "responsibility" in free speech, are really just PC speech about one thing: Don't offend the muslims. It is the argument of the Dhimmie.
foamulator 11 months ago
@foamulator No they aren't, it's just that muslims happen to be the most touchy.
The thing that people get wrong is the idea that something can be unacceptable in a social context without it being appropriate to legislate against. You can't make it a law for someone to not be an asshole (we don't have enough prison space!)
TheOmegajuice 11 months ago
@TheOmegajuice I disagree. It is the muslims , and only the muslims and their apologist supporters on the left who are pushing for these "blasphemy" laws. They are trying to make it against the law to offend them. , Hell , they have already done it!
\There is no right to " not be offended" .. There is, or should be a right for free speech, no matter how offensive it may be to some. That is what the 1st amendment in the US was for. Speech that is offensive.
foamulator 11 months ago
@foamulator There was a situation in Britain where a particular play was closed because of protests by the Sikh community. Most of these massively over the top reactions seem to be from Muslims however there are a score of different groups who want 'hate speech' and so on to be illegal.
I have heard it apply to racism, Scientology, Christianity, homosexuality etc. The most OTT reactions seem to be from the Muslim world but that's just the current incarnation of an old debate.
TheOmegajuice 11 months ago
Epic ownage by C-Hitch
ghettowizard 11 months ago
@SurlyCalifornia Here Here.
helm8969 11 months ago
@SurlyCalifornia There's simply not much point arguing with people like you. The medium through which an attack occurs is irrelevant (when to the appropriate punishment, obviously). That doesn't mean that a verbal and physical attack are punishable in the same way, but that both are an attack and both can be dealt with legally in numerous countries. So, yes, you did misread, and these last posts demonstrate not only that you did, but that you really are here practicing your vocabulary.
semasiologistics 1 year ago
@SurlyCalifornia, no, speech (not freedom) should never be "curtailed." If you make fun of people or lie about them in a newspaper, appropriate consequences may be complaints or being sued. Freedom of speech does not mean, say anything you want and never have consequences. FREEDOM means WITHOUT conditions, it does not mean without consequences. If you attack someone, the medium of that attack is irrelevant.
semasiologistics 1 year ago
@SurlyCalifornia, my friend, you have got to learn to be critical when you read. One of the problems with being critical is being able to fully pay attention. You have obviously not done this. I'm not here for you to practice your vocabulary.
What you quoted says: IF we intentionally insult others, then THAT should be addressed AS SUCH, i.e. IF you insult (through expression) then the INSULT is the issue. It is a form of attack. It is wrong. NOT the medium through which the attack occurred.
semasiologistics 1 year ago
If the truth causes unrest, then the problem is in those who are ignorant of the truth and are offended upon hearing it, not in the expression of the truth. While diplomacy is usually practiced to reconcile differences, truth nor its medium of expression should be muted or avoided for people's emotions. If people are intentionally insulting others, then that is different from speaking to express a truth, and should be addressed as such, whether racism or other.
semasiologistics 1 year ago
However, the expression of hatred through speech is merely observed as the type of speech that it is. No one is saying that while you have the freedom to express, you then can, without punishment, harrass or out of fabrication accuse others of crimes that hurt their reputation. Freedom of speech is no different from any other freedom in that if you use it to hurt others, then it is the hurting for which you will be punished, not the freedom itself.
semasiologistics 1 year ago
Comment removed
semasiologistics 1 year ago
Mohammed the idiot!
nickashine1 1 year ago
Does anyone know when this programme was filmed?
chubby987 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All religions loool! there is only one true way of life and thats islam!!! There is no god but Allah!!! Allahu akbar!!!
xukun0 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
martybow1: fuck off and go to hell MooMoo
xukun0 1 year ago
love u hitchen
engineervikas 1 year ago
There are so many people in our country that do not really believe in freedom. Hitchens is a naturalized citizen and understands the 1st Amendment better than most Americans. The FCC in the US is completely unconstitutional.
jrwilson98 1 year ago 2
@jrwilson98 When something belongs to the public--like the airways--like the highways--we cannot depend on the rotten apples not to spoil things; that's where government comes in--that's its purpose.
lustre5 1 year ago
@lustre5 It is not the Governments purpose to stop people from exercising free speech. It is the job of the Government to ensure that each person's rights not trampled on by others.
jrwilson98 1 year ago
@jrwilson98 You can stand on the street corner and say anything you want, but you can't say what you want everywhere and disturb the peace. Tell your boss to go to hell and then cry "free speech." If you want to watch filth, you can go and pay for it, but you just don't get it do you about something that is for the public benefit. Go read up on the FCC.
lustre5 1 year ago
@lustre5 you DO have the right to tell your boss to go to hell, what makes you think you don't? If you are worried about disturbing the peace then blame those who disturb the peace, not those who exercise their freedom of expression and intellectual freedom
ani470 1 year ago
@ani470 There are circumstances when what you say has consequences--like after you tell your boss to go to Hell you will likely be fired. If you disturb the peace with your mouth, you will face the music.
lustre5 1 year ago
@lustre5 My boss has the right to fire me if I tell him to go to hell. However, no one has the right to react violently when I use my intelligence to criticise an ideology like Islam. People need to grow a thick skin and understand that not everyone in the world is going to respect their views. As an Armenian, do you know how many people come up to me and tell me my family deserved the genocide? I have no right to react violently and harm those people but I do have the right to rebut them.
ani470 1 year ago
@lustre5 Maybe Muslims should learn to do the same instead of acting like retarded fuckwits everytime their peodophile prophet is insulted. There is something called self - control and human agency and there is no excuse for reacting the way Muslims have.
ani470 1 year ago
@ani470 Did you say something about "self-control"? Yeah right. You will hear nothing more from me.
lustre5 1 year ago
@lustre5 Both of you could have summed it up a lot better than this. But JrWilson is obviously right. The freedom part of the many different expressions in which it occurs means "without conditions," not "without consequences." The freedoms one exercises are never punishable but the crimes committed through them. If you told your boss to go to hell, the reason you would be punished would be because you attacked him not because you spoke. Though, inapprorpiate punishments are also crimes.
semasiologistics 11 months ago
@lmihay: PEOPLE OF THE WORLD,DO YOU KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM?OR DO YOU THINK IT'S ABOUT BOMBING PLANES AND KILLING INNONCENT PEOPLE?
FORGET ABOUT THE LIES,I'M HERE TO TELL YOU HOW IT'S REALLY IS.
YOU DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS BEAUTIFUL WAY OF LIFE.
PEOPLE OF THE WORLD,ISLAM IS ALL ABOUT PEACE.TERRORISM IT DOESN'T TEACH.
IT'S ALL ABOUT LOVE AND FAMILY IN CHARITY AND PRAYING TO ONE GOD,THIS IS ISLAM. THE PURPOSE OF LIFE IS WORSHIP.
BRING SUPPLY WHEN YOU GO,BRING CHARITY WHEN YOU DIE.
xukun0 1 year ago
@xukun0 FUCK OFF, MooMoo.
martybow1 1 year ago
Islam teaches us how to conduct all affairs of our lives. No other religion on earth talks about Economics, Politics, War, Peace, Women's Rights, Rights of Parents, Punishment and Consequence, Reward and the Oneness of God in such detail. We are even taught which way to face while releiving oneself, and how to clean oneself after such has occurred. No religion to this day can equal the depth in which Islam has gone into and affected our lives.
xukun0 1 year ago
@xukun0 You are correct. No religion has quite the depth of Islam. I'm not sure depth is the correct word, I would think crazy would be a more descriptive word of the religion and it's believers/proponents. You have a cobbled together book, of an already insane book, by a man who was seeing a mirage in the desert.
lmihay 1 year ago
@xukun0 "We are even taught which way to face while releiving oneself". And this is a good thing? Do you really enjoy being that mindlessly controlled? my friend, first, it's not true that no other religion goes into such detail. I understand the Jewish religion is at least as detailed including rules on how to relieve yourself. Buddhism is far more profound in terms of the depth of THOUGHT as opposed to mindless rituals. Most important, Islam simply isn't TRUE nor are the others.
forestskog 1 year ago
Have enjoyed some of Shashi's writings in the past. But his little apologistic recap of the newspaper office burning was fucking disgusting. Yes, let's give carte blanche to rampaging Islamic hordes to kill and take offense at whatever it is they like. Clearly they are very moderate.... and they'll kill you if you say they aren't. These murdering, raping scum offend ME and other civilized people. Long live Denmark.
Nishap739 1 year ago
Punish the mob!
Punish the mob!
crasmane1 1 year ago
i wonder if Shashi had any idea what kind of an ass kicking he was going to be handed prior to the cameras switching on.
tehKap0w 1 year ago
Hitchens in top form! one just has to love this guy! :-)
DieGewerkschaft 1 year ago
Tharoor's point about the newspaper did nothing for his point, and in all reality helped Hitchens point about communal pressure being bullshit. We all need to grow up, and not give a fuck what someone else thinks about what we say. If you are able to get so offended by words, not actions mind you, then you are nothing more than a large child.
sfmike20 1 year ago 55
@sfmike20 he is an indian national congressman they are lame and dont do any good, they just continue bullshit in india
sushanalone 1 year ago
@sfmike20 I disagree. I think communal pressure is a very good thing. Not communal violence but I think people should exercise their freedom of speech and speak out against what offends them. The hope is that this exercise limits the need for violence. It, of course ,in no way means that those who are the target of communal pressure should cave into it. But this kind of 'debate,' I think, is healthy and should be encouraged.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@sfmike20 yes tell that to the 6 million jews who died because of Hitler's ability to say whatever he wanted. I don't agree with communal pressure being applied because that entrusts what I can say or you can say to a majority who may not be acting out of defending individual but their own prejudices. However when someone like Geert WIlders who seems to be embarking on the path of hitler and milosevic starts spouting nonsense and he is in office, there should be some consequences
nappyweed111 9 months ago
Thank god for hitchens. A lonely speaker for sanity.
johndifull 1 year ago 23
@johndifull You make it sound like Tharoor was saying something insane. I'm a fan of Hitchens but demonising all his opponents in debate and calling them insane, is just not right.
panniize 4 months ago
@johndifull try listening to jiddu krishnamurti. he's another.
dannylucilla 4 months ago
fuck islam and the dirty child molester mohamad
FUwogs 1 year ago 6
if there were a god, i'd thank her for putting hitch in place to defend our united states constitution in debate against the fascists and theocrats who want to nullify it.
fmandld 1 year ago
@3:06 "Alright, let me rephrase it: Your right to swing your fist..."
Jumped so quickly to the swinging of fists, have we? Utter incompetence, laid bare almost immediately.
Tharoor is an unmitigated fool, and he's already flailing wildly.
He's flailing amicably, but he's certainly flailing.
polymath7 1 year ago
Scarcely ten minutes in and Tharoor is already holding his severed head under his arm.
polymath7 1 year ago 3
What a foolish statement. "The editor ought to have known better." That is as good as saying the people had the right to run riot. Rubbish. That's not freedom of speech if you can only say things that don't anger others.
DavidPirtle 1 year ago
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart
myironlungca 1 year ago
this is geniune intellectual debate. for once, an opposition of hitchens actually refutes reasonably. such a pleasure to be listening to this music of wisdom.
Monosaccaride 1 year ago
I heard "Dalish Newspaper."
Apparently muslims are offended by cartoon depictions of their prophet as drawn by Dragon-Age elves.
LordOmberus 1 year ago
the seed of his great "free speech" speech at toronto can be seen here.
hexag1 1 year ago
"The NON-Virgin Mary" LOL
8DX 1 year ago
If freedom of speech doesn't extend to even the most inflammatory of statements, it isn't worth a god damn thing.
twholland1 1 year ago 108
@twholland1 What about knowingly lying to children? Brainwashing can be protected by the same 'right'.
MindfulFuture 1 year ago
@twholland1 It seems the speech most likely to inflame is the speech that should be protected the most.
When you trade freedom for security, you lose both.
YourNameHere1212 1 year ago
@twholland1
Exactly, I mean there is no reason FOR such a law or amendment if the only thing that can be said is that which everyone agrees. We have a law or an amendment FOR the KKK, for Westboro Baptist, for the Nation of Islam, and for you and me.
It is their's and our rights to say as we wish. If you don't like it, stay indoors, close your blinds, and don't watch the TV/Radio/internet. Problem solved.
garveya1 1 year ago
@twholland1 this is the essence of freedom of speech. Having the right to say things that won't offend or be provocative, etc. is meaningless.
Cykarus 10 months ago
Amazing that a man of such intelligence as Hitchens smokes?? smoke, choke, croak!!
MrFlemball 1 year ago
@MrFlemball true. but he has since quit.
ihatebobsaget1989 1 year ago
Iam from india..and I would like to add that india has second largest muslim population and the reason for India to be soft on muslim fanatics is to keep pakistanis in check..ISI has always used Indian muslims for terrorism in india.
gpardhu 1 year ago 4
A sad truth indeed.
rusH1023 1 year ago
people in India must be afraid of the muslims, as proven by Tharoor's statements.
On the one hand, he wants the newpapers/media/art to be censored, so as not to offend muslims, yet
on the other, he does not want it censored, as in the case of a muslim painter, depicting hindu goddesses naked, and offending hindus!
Conclusion - it's ok to offend hindus but not the muslims. Guys are shit scared, no other words for it.
markwessex 2 years ago 7
Hitchens' 'speech' at the end of this is inspiring. How anyone could take the Muslim's side over the Danes' side is beyond me.
On top of that, think of the supposed context! To express outrage against a cartoon depicting Mohammed because your religion contains an admonition against sculptures of Mohammed "to prevent idolatry" is beyond retarded. Doesn't Islam forbid depiction of any living thing? Doesn't that mean Muslims should be destroying millions of plastic dogs and dolls and shit? Stupid.
johnclavis 2 years ago 2
Chris is right... 100% to the point... They'll find a way to be "offended" and cause real trouble against innocent, freedom loving people...
EsotericDesi 2 years ago
Tharoor is an idiot trying to justify Islamic violence against the newspaper saying "the newspaper should have known better" ....
Muslims are way too sensitive and on the edge. they are quick to anger and rampage.... and Tharoor is apologising for them...what an moron.
smodass 2 years ago 2
Muslims will always have trouble w/ whatever we nonmuslims do, no matter what...
EsotericDesi 2 years ago
I'm all for firing indiscriminately into angry mobs.
What kind of meek pathetic excuse for a government permits the flagrant defiance of law and order?
I'm all for peaceful protest, but when someone firebombs an embassy, (or abortion clinic) send in the tanks.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 2 years ago
I agree... but, mostly it's always 100% Muslims who're more likely to cause shit for little things like cartoons, books, headline titles...
EsotericDesi 2 years ago
@EsotericDesi That is true today, but the incitement to violence exists in all three of monotheisms holy books, so its always latent waiting for someone to act on.
If there was a political movement like modern jihdadism in one of the mainstream Christian sects I imagine a similar problem.
GaiusIuliusTaberna 2 years ago
Can you find me a verse
where incitement of violence
is mentioned in the Islamic
holy book? I'm just curious, and I'd
appreciate some examples.
ISMASHYOUBRO 1 year ago
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Qur'an (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
packeteer 1 year ago
Sahih Muslim 19:4345: When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl.
packeteer 1 year ago
holy shit i tought this was old. hitchens went through a benjamin buttons phase by quitting smoking.
LuminousTruth 2 years ago
he looks alot better since he stopped smoking
Mr100bills 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In my opinion freedom of speech should be limited to not allow hate speech, incitement to violence etc and also people should think before they write. Like the newspaper example that was mentioned. The writer/editor shouldn't act irresponsibly.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
I can shout anti-semitic slogans on the roof and try to incite people to violence, resulting in anti-Jewish pogroms by bigoted Christians, but the real problem is not that I have too much time on my hands, but that bigots are allows to commit violent acts with impunity.
lepolemicist 2 years ago
Exactly. How ironic it is that Tharoor's line about the right to shake your fist ending at my face is applicable not to Hitchens, but to the Muslim protestors and terrorists who attack civilians in the name of "offense". Imagine what a different world we would be living in if the 9/11 bombers believed that their right to be offended stopped at shaking their fists at the World Trade Center. Of course, we'd have to get Republicans to stop invading other countries, too, but one conundrum at a time.
johnclavis 2 years ago
"We do not Tollorate Intollerance."
If I own a shop. I should be allowed to ban blacks, jews, and gays. I payed for it and I run it and I should decide who can walk into it. I will lose their money.
If those people don't like it, then don't come into my shop. I can say anything I want about them. But I can't harm them.
Now I would never do this but it should be my right.
Making people keep their mouth shut when they have biggoted thoughts will not stop those thoughts from happening.
TheWhiteRabbit1990 2 years ago
@TheWhiteRabbit1990 what a dumb analogy, a country is never owned by one ideology
GBJ83 1 year ago
@GBJ83
..........wha?
TheWhiteRabbit1990 1 year ago
@TheWhiteRabbit1990
i was extrapolating from your shop and applied it to a country
should a country ban bigots who hate islam into the country? like the retarded geert wilders? should a country ban bigots who promote islam into the country? like the retarded zakir naik?
you may have that right in your own shop but who holds that right and dictates them in a secular country?
GBJ83 1 year ago
@GBJ83
I'm not positive (I wrote that some time ago) but it seems like we're arguing 2 different points.
I was simply talking about private ownership. I might have been replying to someone elses comment because I watched the video and it doesn't seem like my comment has much to do with it.
No I don't think a country should ban biggots, racists, etc. or religious people.
TheWhiteRabbit1990 1 year ago
jessewb if people arnt allowed to say things that are false you will need a politician to regulate what you should be allowed to say. who will determine what can and cant be said. who is good enough to deserve that responsibility.
discronificator 2 years ago
Truth is not bound, in any way, shape or form, by utility or usefulness.
lepolemicist 2 years ago
did not know the backstory to the Holmes decision. While I hate socialists and opponents of WW1 (except Hitchens, hope he isn't an opponent) it is important to uphold first amendment rights for everyone
aweiss 2 years ago
2:32 HOLY SHIT. He said WW1 was an imperialist mission? Wow, I think he wasnt thinking or was in his radical former state.
aweiss 2 years ago
he presents at first a bullying and violence in a light manner lol
aweiss 2 years ago
I agree with Hitchens on all points except that Denmark has done it's best to host Muslim immigrants. Right now in Denmark the nationalist party has a big influence and it is actually illegal for a danish woman, over 18, to marry an immigrant until she is 25, which is quite racist I'm afraid.
solitdude 2 years ago
is that so students dont marry fellow students who are visiting? not sure.
aweiss 2 years ago
It's to prevent Danes to marry foreigners so that they don't bring their families...
solitdude 2 years ago
Freedom of speech is design to protect what people dont wan to hear, what makes them angry, what hurts them. which is why it has to be protected. If no one would disagree with you, if no one would try to silence you because of what you say, then (I'm referring to the US) the framers of the Constitution wouldn't have included that first amendment in it. In fact, the fact that it is the first amendment, and not the second or the third, is because from this freedom all other freedoms are born.
milloselmejor 2 years ago 5
"Fire."
"Fire."
"Fire."
'nuff said. End of discussion. Get used to Muhammed being made fun of or GO THE FUCK BACK TO THE DESERT.
Eldeecue 2 years ago 5
Can I please educate you.
I'm never been from the desert so I can't go back to the desert.
Muslims !=(different) desert people.
Get used to it?
Freedom of speech should no exist. Freedom of speech is only your ancestors rebellion against the church. Muslims never had this issue. Because you people aren't realistic. Freedom of speech was for improvement of society. Swearing and mocking is degeneration of society.
Get used to rational though or GET BACK TO YOUR 8th century huts of hay...
Jessewb 2 years ago
"Freedom of speech should no exist."
thank you. Now I can safely dismiss anything else you have to say.
AxeGrrrl 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Think however you want to.
You are obvious oblivious to what I meant.
I meant freedom of speech with NO BOUNDARIES, like in today's society should not exist. Does it cost you too much to not speak filthy, offensively or defame IN PUBLIC and ultimately waist people's time with ignorant babble. DO as you please on your own.
Like this fire, fire, fire guy above. Did he really say anything worth saying? He just offended people. THAT IS WHAT SHOULD NOT EXIST.
Hope you actually understand now.
Jessewb 2 years ago
and who should get to decide what's "worth saying" and what's "ignorant babble"?
AxeGrrrl 2 years ago 3
Come onnn.. Do you really think that one is hard?
Let me give you an example and you decide.
A hypothetical topic being Astronomy.
The guy who wants to talk thinks:
- The Moon is a nice place to live, It's nice and warm, and you can jump high.
Is that something worth saying(Note: would be worth saying in stand up comedy, but this isn't the scenario).
It's starts within you. If honestly want to express your thoughts then ok. If you know you'll hurt someone or lie.
Just shhh. hard much? Honestly.
Jessewb 2 years ago
Jesse, have you seen some of the new billboard signs in the U.S. that read "Don't believe in God? you're not alone" put out by freethought organizations?
Some Christians out there have complained that they find THAT 'offensive'!
Why should such disingenuous 'sensitivity' be enough to 'make' people shut up?
It's very simple: the risk of 'being offended' is the price you pay for living in a diverse society. If one can't accept that, perhaps one should live in a theocracy.
AxeGrrrl 2 years ago 3
One thing is expressing yourself with a reason. Atm you are being honest. This is what I call constructive talk.
If you don't want to believe in God. Fine by me. I have no issues with that. That's your problem.
What people should do is back their talk up. Argumentation. You want to criticise. Do it constructively. If you do so. You are not in the wrong, but within boundaries of "free speech".
And as I said Purposeful insult was bad.
A HELPFUL message is ok, even if someone claims offence.
Jessewb 2 years ago
Me!!!! I accept this responsibility
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I forget who said it, but,
"Freedom of Speech, is not there to protect popular speech, popular speech requires not protection. It is unpopular speech that needs to be protected"
Unless, your speech puts peoples lives directly into harms way, there is no limit on the freedom
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago 4
@LordVigeous666999 in the United States. The problem is that other people have not voted this frame of rights into their legal strictures. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are US documents. Perhaps this is stating the obvious..but those rights don't even exist in the UK.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
No, the revolutionary idea of the United states, is that rights do not come from a legal structure, they do not come from a government, they are human in nature
What is one of the best tests? If you were the only person on the planet, would you still have the right to...?
Rights are an inherent quality of being a human, and must actively be denied by other humans. You have the right to speak, until I actively put a gun in your face, and tell you to stop, etc etc etc
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago 2
Legal structures are what are used to establish and defend those rights. Those structures don't exist in many places - or if we simply restrict the conversation to the UK and the US without all the other messiness - You simply do not have and therefore cannot exercise the same rights in the UK that you enjoy in the US. Christopher Hitchens recently became an American. If I can introduce you to family members busy introducing these structures both in Russia and Afghanistan.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
I'm not saying your right aren't violated in different countries, in different ways, to a different extent
I said that right are innate in being human. You still have the same rights I have. You just might get thrown in jail if you use them
So this a semantic thing, I don't argue semantics with people
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I understand you mean 'natural' or 'inaliable' rights... and we are not really arguing.
CityzenJane 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm pretty antagonistic on youtube, I've learned to.... whats the saying from that movie?
shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and then when everyones dead try and ask a question or two
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
I have been known to do the same thing... I mean reasoned genial intellectual discourse...where is the fun in that? ;D
CityzenJane 2 years ago
@CityzenJane they do exist, and we do have a constitution but its not written down
AppleMaster1 1 year ago
A constitution that is not written down is worth as much as the paper it's not written on... :D
Rule of law, requires actual laws...
CityzenJane 1 year ago 3
@CityzenJane I respectfully disagree. It does us just fine.
AppleMaster1 1 year ago
:D Now that's new! A respectful disagreement on YT! You should get a toaster for that or something! So where are you?
CityzenJane 1 year ago
@CityzenJane behind you..........
what do you mean - country? well if im talking about the unwritten english constitution doing us fine, then...
AppleMaster1 1 year ago
Not completely true.. common law actually works in a way - it's just the law is not legislated by a government body, but rather accumulated over years by the courts of justice (a justice-based, precedent-based system).
Common law actually is written down - but it's a whole string of court rulings.
I tihnk the main reason the Brits aren't in a hurry to do the constitution/bill of rights thing, is because the US did that.. =)
Plus the UK has signed the universal declaration of human rights...
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX It's been a while since I read it ...what does it say about ubiquitous surveillance of NON -criminal citizens... That's becoming a very serious issue here and there...
CityzenJane 1 year ago
The best rendition I've seen is on YT:
watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE
On privacy it says:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
8DX 1 year ago
Comment removed
Jessewb 2 years ago
What in the fuck are you talking about, that made absolutely no sense in any way shape or form. Get your facts straight.
robbaress 2 years ago
robaress? Are you replying to me or to the guy above?
Jessewb 2 years ago
hitchens' initial response is EXACTLY how i feel about this.
profaneLakeman 2 years ago
Fuck religion in all it's forms!!
ABHINAVNR 2 years ago 14
@ABHINAVNR don't worry, islamics will b doing this 2 u, wait & c. that is what worries me deeply. the plan is to cover the earth w/islam, they r using freedom of speech 2 advance their cause. it is not hate speech 2 speak up its true fear/way of life preservation. Religion is just a topping
hross233 1 year ago
This video cuts out after about 2 minutes
alid4 2 years ago