are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or is it a genetic disorder?
No. I have no idea what you are saying other than it appears that you are saying it is wrong for these people to protest the play that is being presented.
Perhaps someone else here that easier less obtuse than me or more lucid than you can explain how you are doing/saying anything other than the fact that you don't like very much the fact that a bunch of "fundies" are exercising their rights (I am assuming that the UK has similar consitutional rights as here in the U.S.) to voice their displeasure with this play...but that the play is okay to present because it is "freedom of expression".
I mean are you this dense that you don't see your own illogical (at least hypocritical) position?
you know, the fact that I have previously typed "PROTESTING IS OK!", might mean something, and therefore your reading comprehension is somewhat duff (again)
you know, the fact that I have previously typed "PROTESTING IS OK!", might mean something, and therefore your reading comprehension is somewhat duff (again)
Yes. I read that. But then you went on to say:
"what needs to be adressed is why they feel the need to protest in order to censor"
You are assuming this is what is happening. You appear to be equating protesting to censorship...which is plainly wrong.
There is nothing controversial about belonging to a specific ethnic grouping.
These things become controversial when faced with bigotry if - and only if - that bigotry is given equal weight (which of course is what the bigots always lobby for, consciously or unconsciously).
I agree, race shouldn't be. But the problem arises not from fact but from subjectivity. Bigotry should not be tolerated in any form. Unfortunately, despite best efforts in education even in industrialized nations it is a fact of life.
I once saw Cornell West speak. In his speech, his summation was that life will always be turbulent and unfair, but what really matters is that we truly struggle against injustices. It's not the winning that really matters, it is the fighting for what is right that matters.
BTW West is one of the best speakers I've ever seen, warm and intelligent. Read his books and see him speak if you ever have the chance.
People don't go protesting so they can wave to their mums on TV.
Ah, so now you are the "thought police" and know WHY they are protesting and what their motives are, etc.
What would you suggest that they do instead of protesting (which in one post you say is okay...but then go on to say it is NOT okay because they are obviously censoring)?
What would you suggest that they do instead of protesting ?
I would suggest to them, that instead of exercising the right to protest in order to bully the BBC into cancelling the show, or future shows that have the same undertones, I would suggest that they have a long think about what freedom of speech and artistic expression means when applied equally and fairly to everybody.
I would suggest to them, that instead of exercising the right to protest in order to bully the BBC into cancelling the show, or future shows that have the same undertones, I would suggest that they have a long think about what freedom of speech and artistic expression means when applied equally and fairly to everybody.
So, more succintly:
Instead of actually exercising their rights to free speech and assembly, they should just think about their rights to free speech and assembly.
I am not questioning their right to protest or their right to free spech or artistic expression.
I AM questioning the hypocrisy of using these rights to curtail the same rights of another group.
How are they curtailing anyone else's rights by protesting?
And what about your hypocrisy (in this forum) of using your right to curtial their rights to protest?
Look...the bottom line is that freedom of speach/assembly brings with it people saying things you don't like very much...to which you can assemble and say..."I don't like that very much." Not really so hard to understand.
Comments
Originally posted by MarcUK
what needs to be adressed is why they feel the need to protest in order to censor
Who says they are?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Who says they are?
why do you think they are there then smart-ass?
Originally posted by MarcUK
why do you think they are there then smart-ass?
Um...to voice their disapproval? Duh? Hello?
Oh...maybe you thought that "criticism" and "complaint" are synonymous with "censor".
Originally posted by MarcUK
cute.
What's so "cute"? No one is allowed to criticize, complain, protest anything that you think is okay?
Originally posted by MarcUK
are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or is it a genetic disorder?
No. I have no idea what you are saying other than it appears that you are saying it is wrong for these people to protest the play that is being presented.
Originally posted by MarcUK
figures
Perhaps someone else here that easier less obtuse than me or more lucid than you can explain how you are doing/saying anything other than the fact that you don't like very much the fact that a bunch of "fundies" are exercising their rights (I am assuming that the UK has similar consitutional rights as here in the U.S.) to voice their displeasure with this play...but that the play is okay to present because it is "freedom of expression".
I mean are you this dense that you don't see your own illogical (at least hypocritical) position?
Originally posted by MarcUK
you know, the fact that I have previously typed "PROTESTING IS OK!", might mean something, and therefore your reading comprehension is somewhat duff (again)
Yes. I read that. But then you went on to say:
"what needs to be adressed is why they feel the need to protest in order to censor"
You are assuming this is what is happening. You appear to be equating protesting to censorship...which is plainly wrong.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes. I read that. But then you went on to say:
"what needs to be adressed is why they feel the need to protest in order to censor"
You are assuming this is what is happening. You appear to be equating protesting to censorship...which is plainly wrong.
People don't go protesting so they can wave to their mums on TV.
BBC senior officials confirm they have received threats of violence from the Christian community.
originally quoted by segovious
There is nothing controversial about belonging to a specific ethnic grouping.
These things become controversial when faced with bigotry if - and only if - that bigotry is given equal weight (which of course is what the bigots always lobby for, consciously or unconsciously).
I agree, race shouldn't be. But the problem arises not from fact but from subjectivity. Bigotry should not be tolerated in any form. Unfortunately, despite best efforts in education even in industrialized nations it is a fact of life.
I once saw Cornell West speak. In his speech, his summation was that life will always be turbulent and unfair, but what really matters is that we truly struggle against injustices. It's not the winning that really matters, it is the fighting for what is right that matters.
BTW West is one of the best speakers I've ever seen, warm and intelligent. Read his books and see him speak if you ever have the chance.
Originally posted by MarcUK
People don't go protesting so they can wave to their mums on TV.
Ah, so now you are the "thought police" and know WHY they are protesting and what their motives are, etc.
What would you suggest that they do instead of protesting (which in one post you say is okay...but then go on to say it is NOT okay because they are obviously censoring)?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What would you suggest that they do instead of protesting ?
I would suggest to them, that instead of exercising the right to protest in order to bully the BBC into cancelling the show, or future shows that have the same undertones, I would suggest that they have a long think about what freedom of speech and artistic expression means when applied equally and fairly to everybody.
Originally posted by MarcUK
I would suggest to them, that instead of exercising the right to protest in order to bully the BBC into cancelling the show, or future shows that have the same undertones, I would suggest that they have a long think about what freedom of speech and artistic expression means when applied equally and fairly to everybody.
So, more succintly:
Instead of actually exercising their rights to free speech and assembly, they should just think about their rights to free speech and assembly.
Got it.
I am not questioning their right to protest or their right to free spech or artistic expression.
I AM questioning the hypocrisy of using these rights to curtail the same rights of another group.
Originally posted by MarcUK
NO you DO NOT get it.
I am not questioning their right to protest or their right to free spech or artistic expression.
I AM questioning the hypocrisy of using these rights to curtail the same rights of another group.
How are they curtailing anyone else's rights by protesting?
And what about your hypocrisy (in this forum) of using your right to curtial their rights to protest?
Look...the bottom line is that freedom of speach/assembly brings with it people saying things you don't like very much...to which you can assemble and say..."I don't like that very much." Not really so hard to understand.
You can 'win' this argument by the age-old tactic of infuryating the opponent so he just walks away. So I'm walking.
BYE.