'Babes' of the BNP

Not quite true.

i was meaning from a philosophical point of view.

i.e. J.S. Mill thinks that people should be allowed to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm other. RE: on liberty.

"paging Ramon. Dr.Ramon to Miscellaneous & Meaningless"?

too soon?

what do you mean exactly? i disagree with what they say but don't want them to be prevented from saying or thinking it...

Just winding you up ! :)

I agree with your stance 100%

governments seem increasingly intent on controlling what people think, it only seems a matter of time before thoughtcrime is actually real crime.

Again agreed, recent legislation (both thankfully defeated or watered down) here in the UK and in Europe is treading dangerously close to allowing prosecution for what would be effectively thoughtcrime.

I agree that it may be a matter of time, I might be wrong, but it looks to be going in one direction and at a healthy speed.

I think you all seems to missing the point.

Non of them are actually babes.

Surely those "interviews" aren't real?

i was meaning from a philosophical point of view.

i.e. J.S. Mill thinks that people should be allowed to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm other. RE: on liberty.

But British law does not allow you to say whatever you want, we are limited by various constraints, slander, libel (appreciated that I am broadening the word 'say'), incitement to religious hatred, incitement to acts of terror, perjury (of course) . . . . and so on.

"paging Ramon. Dr.Ramon to Miscellaneous & Meaningless"?

too soon?

Shut up Mr Confirmation Bias.

:P

Or I might test you again.

But British law does not allow you to say whatever you want, we are limited by various constraints, slander, libel (appreciated that I am broadening the word 'say'), incitement to religious hatred, incitement to acts of terror, perjury (of course) . . . . and so on.

i didn't say that it did, i was refering to being racist, the second part dealt with above.

I thought Tynan was the thought police?

I'm JOKING.

i didn't say that it did, i was refering to being racist, the second part dealt with above.

True, but there is nothing like blurring the edges of a conversation to start a bun fight.

:P

"i was refering to being racist"

How long have you been racist ?

How long have you been racist ?

how long is your dick?

not long at all, so small it doesn't exist.

how long is your dick?

not long at all, so small it doesn't exist.

Good work. I especially like the bit at the end where you embarrass me by revealing to everyone that I have a small cock, I feel totally 'owned'.

Governments seem increasingly intent on controlling what people think, it only seems a matter of time before thoughtcrime is actually real crime.

The Irish passed the Defamation Bill today (blasphemy law) !

In theory insulting a religion in Ireland from today is a criminal offence and carries a €25,000 fine.

Fucking medieval legislation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws

Some religious prick only needs show he or she has been outraged by what you have said/written/posted/drawn (or any other manner of expression) for them to be able to bring a prosecution.

These are the foothills of thoughtcrime.

Good work. I especially like the bit at the end where you embarrass me by revealing to everyone that I have a small cock, I feel totally 'owned'.

it was a disappointing evening for me indeed. and you should actually feel pwned.

it was a disappointing evening for me indeed. and you should actually feel pwned.

I feel like I am the filling in a pwned sandwich.

:(

I am definitely getting that cock extension now.

I feel like I am the filling in a pwned sandwich.

:(

I am definitely getting that cock extension now.

I can give you some pointers if you like.

I feel like I am the filling in a pwned sandwich.

:(

I am definitely getting that cock extension now.

interesting article btw.

The Irish passed the Defamation Bill today (blasphemy law) !

In theory insulting a religion in Ireland from today is a criminal offence and carries a €25,000 fine.

Fucking medieval legislation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/ireland-blasphemy-laws

Some religious prick only needs show he or she has been outraged by what you have said/written/posted/drawn (or any other manner of expression) for them to be able to bring a prosecution.

These are the foothills of thoughtcrime.

religion
n.

• Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

• A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

• The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

• A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

• A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Under this definition (point 4) what is to stop someone setting a "religion" where the cause is the search for truth and understanding through evidence, unbiased, logical argument?

Given such a religion was created then the teachings of the Bible, Koran, Torah, bla bla bla, would be outrageous to a follower of this region. Hence could a case be sort against all the god bothers and pixie molesters?

I can give you some pointers if you like.

Have you already had one? Does it; you know ... work?

I can give you some pointers if you like.

You keep out of it, this is man's talk.

There are, of course, no laws against being racist.

Erm...?

How comes we have laws/rules against racism and yet we have the BNP party?

Because the BNP aren't racist.

religion
n.

[*]

[] Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
[] A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

[] The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
[] A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
[*] A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Under this definition (point 4) what is to stop someone setting a "religion" where the cause is the search for truth and understanding through evidence, unbiased, logical argument?

Point 4 is 'religion' (the word) used as common parlance, it is not a literal meaning. "He was fucking religious about time keeping, if you were 30 seconds late he would shout at you"

For instance, we may find 'fire' listed in a dictionary - and below all the definitions that deal with combustion and so on - there might be one that adds - 'passion' (or something similar) - as in "his heart was filled with fire".

In this respect, I would guess the legislative use of 'religion' would have a fairly tight definition (to be honest I have not read the actual bill) - to mean established and recognised religious organizations. - I doubt I could claim a zealous pursuit of - for instance - environmentalism as a religion in this sense.

Given such a religion was created then the teachings of the Bible, Koran, Torah, bla bla bla, would be outrageous to a follower of this region. Hence could a case be sort against all the god bothers and pixie molesters?

Well, like I say, I imagine the definition is fairly narrow, but your point still stands in the respect that the views of one religion will almost certainly outrage and offend another, so we are looking at a situation where even expression of religious belief is in danger of being subject of prosecution.

This is a fucking stupid bill.

Erm...?

There are no laws against being racist.

Have you already had one? Does it; you know ... work?

No... I don't, and have no idea if it works. Last time I checked, I am a female.

You keep out of it, this is man's talk.

Of course, sir.

So there was this farmer and he wanted to buy a new rooster

...actually, forget it.

I don't think vice could have picked easier targets if they'd tried.

I still hate them.