don't exterminate all the jews in the world.

[tulc]

It's part of the O.P, aren't we still discussing the statement about exterminating the Jews? The one you said was okay, so long as people say they support Israel?

No I was saying you can't block one if you aren't also willing to block the other. But it's nice to see you are at least consistent in being unable to even explain what the discussion is about.

Has nothing to do with what you like.

Never said it did...Ahhh! I see another problem you have: you're also a little unclear on what "" quotation marks mean. When I posted the "" marks I was showing how in the previous post you asked the question:

Might as well stop talking about this, aye?

to which I replied:

Up to you.

you then posted some more stuff that was about the problem you were upset about. To which I posted the "" marks containing the phrase:

no, we're not going to discuss the OP, we need to instead only deal with my not liking of what someone else posted!!

showing you were still unwilling to address the OP and were only interested in trying to get me to admit to something that only existed in your head. So the "my not liking" in that quote would actually be you, not me.

It has to do with your blatant denial that you were bringing up "apples and oranges", which by the way means comparing two totally different things.

So, you still want this thread to be about me, not the OP?

blessedj(just want to make myself sound as ricidulous as you)

well...you got the parentheses in the right place but you need some work on speaking in the third person. Try it like this:
Blessedj01(is trying to sound as ridiculous as tulc)
see the difference?
tulc(is still not sure which one is the apple and which is the orange, but is still having a great day!)

 

[Blessedj01]

That only would have worked if you addressed yourself in the third person.

Oh yeah, sorry. I mean blessed (is sorry) lol.

 

[Blessedj01]

No I was saying you can't block one if you aren't also willing to block the other. But it's nice to see you are at least consistent in being unable to even explain what the discussion is about. Never said it did...Ahhh! I see another problem you have: you're also a little unclear on what "" quotation marks mean. When I posted the "" marks I was showing how in the previous post you asked the question: to which I replied: you then posted some more stuff that was about the problem you were upset about. To which I posted the "" marks containing the phrase: showing you were still unwilling to address the OP and were only interested in trying to get me to admit to something that only existed in your head. So the "my not liking" in that quote would actually be you, not me. So, you still want this thread to be about me, not the OP? well...you got the parentheses in the right place but you need some work on speaking in the third person. Try it like this: Blessedj01(is trying to sound as ridiculous as tulc) see the difference? tulc(is still not sure which one is the apple and which is the orange, but is still having a great day!)

Block what? You were saying you don't mind hearing one if you hear the other. Just stop defending it, you can't compare exterminating a race with supporting a country.

And I'm responding to you now because you chose to respond to my reply to someone else.

 

[tulc]

Block what? You were saying you don't mind hearing one if you hear the other. Just stop defending it, you can't compare exterminating a race with supporting a country.

What I'm saying is free speech isn't free unless the people you dislike the most are free to say things you hate to have said.

And I'm responding to you now because you chose to respond to my reply to someone else.

As you will.
tulc(with have to live never knowing which was the apple and which was the orange)

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Block what? You were saying you don't mind hearing one if you hear the other. Just stop defending it, you can't compare exterminating a race with supporting a country.

And I'm responding to you now because you chose to respond to my reply to someone else.

The thread is about having the right to say offensive things like, "Exterminate all the Jews!" on social media such as Facebook.

No one here is actually defending someone's right to exterminate anybody.

But some of us (like myself) believe in freedom of speech. That an individual does have the right to voice their opinion, even if it is offensive.

We may disagree with what they have to say, but we must all agree they have the right to say it.

 

[Blessedj01]

I'd be all for banning "exterminate all the jews in the world now." if they also banned "support Israel now!" or "Israel has a right to exist now!". tulc(likes to keep things fair if possible)

It's not about freedom of speech. The o.p was about social media (where freedom of speech doesn't apply btw) and what "shouldn't be allowed to happen." I never took it to be a literal legal appeal.

I was talking about your unfair and frankly hateful comparison. You said they should "ban" such benign and normal statements as "I support Israel" and "Israel has the right to exist" if they are going to "ban", "exterminate all the Jews in the world right NOW."

One is a harmless call to support a country that could be taken in any context, another is an ordinary call to the right of existence that you seem to be implying isn't a given...despite that fact that it is.

...the other is an enticement to violence, hatred, murder and genocide. It is a call for the immediate killing of a family of people. As such you should be utterly ashamed of defending its use and you should hang your head very low in the corner of your little box where you look at yourself in the third person.

Welcome to ignore.

 

[Freodin]

I'd say that tulc(who is awesome for his consistent posting style) made a small mistake in his approach. He chose as examples of free speech some expressions that are, on a literal and direct emotional level not quite comparable.

And you got hooked on that comparison and cannot seem to let go.

Tulc might have gotten a better response - even from you, I hope - had he made the comparison between calling for extermination of all Jews and calling for extermination of all Arabs.

But he is still correct in the point he tried to make: free speech is free speech. If you allow one, you have to allow the other.

Let's try a different example: what about the completely neutral, factual and normal statement of "there is no school today in Gaza... there are no children left".

Should such a benign and normal statement be banned or not?

 

[He is Risen 72]

It's not about freedom of speech. The o.p was about social media (where freedom of speech doesn't apply btw) and what "shouldn't be allowed to happen." I never took it to be a literal legal appeal.

I was talking about your unfair and frankly hateful comparison. You said they should "ban" such benign and normal statements as "I support Israel" and "Israel has the right to exist" if they are going to "ban", "exterminate all the Jews in the world right NOW."

One is a harmless call to support a country that could be taken in any context, another is an ordinary call to the right of existence that you seem to be implying isn't a given...despite that fact that it is.

...the other is an enticement to violence, hatred, murder and genocide. It is a call for the immediate killing of a family of people. As such you should be utterly ashamed of defending its use and you should hang your head very low in the corner of your little box where you look at yourself in the third person.

Welcome to ignore.

If you can’t handle free speech and the real world, perhaps you should put everyone on ignore.

That particular country and the harmless call to support it is currently wagering a one sided war against Hamas in general and civilians are the majority of victims.

Hamas is a hornet that has stung Israel, Israel is responding with shotguns. Will a shot gun kill a hornet? Yes, but it is not the best way to do so.

 

[Vylo]

I've notice the OP never follows any of these threads with anything meaningful...

Don't exterminate all the Jews, most of them are innocent.

 

[tulc]

It's not about freedom of speech. The o.p was about social media (where freedom of speech doesn't apply btw) and what "shouldn't be allowed to happen." I never took it to be a literal legal appeal.

Actually it is about freedom of speech. And as much as you'd like to make it about something else that's what it's about.

I was talking about your unfair and frankly hateful comparison. You said they should "ban" such benign and normal statements as "I support Israel" and "Israel has the right to exist" if they are going to "ban", "exterminate all the Jews in the world right NOW."

One is a harmless call to support a country that could be taken in any context, another is an ordinary call to the right of existence that you seem to be implying isn't a given...despite that fact that it is.

...the other is an enticement to violence, hatred, murder and genocide. It is a call for the immediate killing of a family of people.

Like I said, you want to make this thread about something else. You didn't like the comparison (and you have the right to do so) but you seem to feel that because you don't like it that means you can now make this thread about what you like or don't like.

As such you should be utterly ashamed of defending its use

I don't know, the freedom I have to tell people things I believe and feel strongly about is only as strong as other people having the same rights. I don't like calls for violence but I like being forced to be silent about things I disagree with even more. It's a balancing act. that's what freedoms tend to be.

and you should hang your head very low in the corner of your little box where you look at yourself in the third person.

Wait...I have a box? When did that happen?
And if I own an entire box why would I only hang out in a corner of it?

Welcome to ignore.

Ahhh! "ignore"! Ignore and I are old friends, people who can't refute an argument tend to slip into the ignore box so they don't have to be reminded that other people have different points of view.
tulc(is now drinking an EXCELLENT cup of coffee made by the one and only Mrs.tulc!)

 

[tulc]

I'd say that tulc(who is awesome for his consistent posting style) made a small mistake in his approach. He chose as examples of free speech some expressions that are, on a literal and direct emotional level not quite comparable.

And you got hooked on that comparison and cannot seem to let go.

Tulc might have gotten a better response - even from you, I hope - had he made the comparison between calling for extermination of all Jews and calling for extermination of all Arabs.

But he is still correct in the point he tried to make: free speech is free speech. If you allow one, you have to allow the other.

Let's try a different example: what about the completely neutral, factual and normal statement of "there is no school today in Gaza... there are no children left".

Should such a benign and normal statement be banned or not?

QFT!
tulc(well said!)

 

[Blessedj01]

I'll put anyone on ignore who defends statements about exterminating the adherents of a certain faith. And anyone who won't admit that comparing harmless statements to genocidal statements is wrong. And anyone who thinks social media (with privately owned servers) or anywhere is a platform for "freedom if speech" to be used as enticement to murder.

So that makes two of you.

Btw it's not a "posting style" when you don't know how to write and you refer to yourself in the third person to make cynical remarks or appeal to some imaginary third party observer.

 

[TerranceL]

I'll put anyone on ignore who defends statements about exterminating the adherents of a certain faith. And anyone who won't admit that comparing harmless statements to genocidal statements is wrong. And anyone who thinks social media (with privately owned servers) or anywhere is a platform for "freedom if speech" to be used as enticement to murder.

That's nice. You are more than welcome to choose to put whoever you wish on ignore. I think it's silly, but it's your thing. It's silly to think that it's enticement to murder, if all it takes for someone to go on a murder spree is something they saw on facebook then they probably were on the edge anyway and pretty batty.

So that makes two of you.

Btw it's not a "posting style" when you don't know how to write and you refer to yourself in the third person to make cynical remarks or appeal to some imaginary third party observer.

Making comments towards someone you've put on ignore knowing that you'll never see any response they make towards you? Brave.

 

[tulc]

I'll put anyone on ignore who defends statements about exterminating the adherents of a certain faith. And anyone who won't admit that comparing harmless statements to genocidal statements is wrong. And anyone who thinks social media (with privately owned servers) or anywhere is a platform for "freedom if speech" to be used as enticement to murder.

So that makes two of you.

Btw it's not a "posting style" when you don't know how to write and you refer to yourself in the third person to make cynical remarks or appeal to some imaginary third party observer.

I thought you were ignoring us?
tulc(suspects ignoring someone is only fun if the other person KNOWS they're being ignored!)

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

don't exterminate all the jews in the world now.

why are people on social media being allowed to say

"exterminate all the jews in the world now." ?

this shouldn't be allowed to happen because it just isn't right.

why are more and more people on social media saying

"exterminate all the jews in the world now." ?

because jews don't deserve to be exterminated.

This is the first I've heard about this. If you don't like something ignore or report it. I see all kinds of crazy things on the internet. I just ignore them for the most part.

 

[Blessedj01]

People are silly to overreact but it doesn't make posting that stuff okay.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

That's nice. You are more than welcome to choose to put whoever you wish on ignore. I think it's silly, but it's your thing. It's silly to think that it's enticement to murder, if all it takes for someone to go on a murder spree is something they saw on facebook then they probably were on the edge anyway and pretty batty.
Making comments towards someone you've put on ignore knowing that you'll never see any response they make towards you? Brave.

I agree.

 

[tulc]

People are silly to overreact but it doesn't make posting that stuff okay.

tulc(almost lost an eye that time!)

 

[Blessedj01]

Excuse me, I did not make comments toward you after I put you on ignore but I am now since someone has quoted you. Don't be so self important. I was talking to other people and addressing the situation.

If you can't man up and admit that it's wrong and possibly illegal to publicly call for the "extermination" of a group of innocent people then you're the one with the problem.

If you can't figure out that there's a complete difference and no comparison between asking for violence and asking for "support," them you're the one with the problem.

If you can't see that Facebook isn't covered by laws concerning freedom of speech in the first place and that it's a moderated environment like this forum, then you're the one with the problem.

Someone was arrested simply for saying Obama should "get a bullet" on Facebook. Think about that.

And to the person quoting you, so quick to agree... You AND them are the ones with a problem. It's so easy to make excuses.

Now leave me alone, don't try to address me now that you don't have to talk to me and don't in case you are tempted rely on anyone to quote you. Let it go, because it's your problem. Not mine. It's better for both of us that way.

God bless.

 

[TerranceL]

Um, ignore doesn't work if you don't, um, ignore them.