You tell 'em, Pat! I couldn't agree more. Political correctness has run amok here in the US. We're so hamstrung by it that we cannot look the bald faced evil that is Islam in the eye and call it so.
We need to hear more from this man. I understand his background is in stand up comedy. He speaks with clarity, says all those things the rest of us are afraid to say and then backs it up with fact and reason. Why isn't Pat Condell a politician? That way we could all vote for him and start to erase the pooh stain that is religious poison.
the trial mr condell mentions is based on a clause in the austrian penal code - roughly translated it penalises vilification or debasing of religious teachings with an imprisonment sentence of up to 6 months or (much more likely) a fine.
while this law and its contexts are quite questionable (as austrian humanists have pointed out time and again) one also has to put the defendant in context. she ist part of a far right network, and I have no doubt that she and her fellow activists would be busy to cancel all free speech rights for everyone but themselves at once if they ever came into political power.
besindes they action not for a complete derogation of these ridiculous laws and for complete freedom from religion but for privileging christian religious teachings and virtues as basis of european politics. which is not something a humanist can go for (remebmer the debates about god in the preamble of the european constitution).
brits are quite lucky, as I may perhaps point out. they never had a extreme right dictatorship to cope with in their political history. we did. and we have extreme right activists who propagate political insurrection and return to a nazi dictatorship (with all trimmings).
that's why humanists over here speak out for free speech but not for sabadich-wolff.
The problem with Condell is that however I might agree with his views on free speech, his visceral hatred of Islam (not of religion, but of A very specific religion) clouds his arguments. He decries the Islamists calls for the elimination of Western culture by calling for the elimination of Islamic culture, in often the same violent, eliminationist tone.
I detest religion. I think religion, in all its forms whether theist or non-theist (such as Communism or Free-Marketism) is the root of most of the trouble with the world. But I don't believe calling for the elimination of all Muslims from Europe (Condell's dream) can help the cause of Reason. Calling for ALL people, including Muslims, to take a step back and examine their beliefs in the light of Reason is something I could get behind.
Condell seems to think that Islamism is the greatest threat ever posed to mankind. I agree that it is a threat, but to call it the greatest one is to be utterly blind. The Free-Marketers are far more dangerous; they have caused the deaths of far more people than any Islamic terrorist have, and their insistence on rejecting reality by calling Global Warming a hoax is far too likely to lead to the end of the Western Civilization Mr Condell cherishes so much.
So Mr Condell: take a step back, and examine your own beliefs, especially about the so-called special existential threat posed by Islam. Maybe once you're able to think rationally about that, you might be able to add something useful to the discussion.
Monsieur Mabus: Je te connais, mon grand imbécile. N'oublie pas que ta binnette a été placardée sur tous les sites athéistes du monde. Il est grand temps que tu fiche le camp. On en a assez de tes conneries.
Why all this effort to prosecute "hate" speech when there is so much lying out there? Does this mean society values being insulted more negatively than being defrauded?
I guess that would explain a lot of insane politics...
"the trial mr condell mentions is based on a clause in the austrian penal code - roughly translated it penalises vilification or debasing of religious teachings with an imprisonment sentence of up to 6 months or (much more likely) a fine."
And this is supposed to assuage my contempt for such a repugnant law, how exactly?
"while this law and its contexts are quite questionable (as austrian humanists have pointed out time and again) one also has to put the defendant in context."
Mmmmmnope, not really. Someone either has a right to freedom of speech or they don't. I don't need you to contextualize their political views for me, thanks. If I wanted to I could do that myself, even though it's irrelevant.
"she ist part of a far right network, and I have no doubt that she and her fellow activists would be busy to cancel all free speech rights for everyone but themselves at once if they ever came into political power."
Argument from consequences fail.
"besindes they action not for a complete derogation of these ridiculous laws and for complete freedom from religion but for privileging christian religious teachings and virtues as basis of european politics."
Argument for censorship based on content of speech FAILLLLL. And would you like to support your seemingly baseless accusations of her being a far right Christianist who would be equally willing to quash freedom of speech for her own purposes, or would you rather simply tar her with more baseless and unsupported accusations? Because from the interviews I've read and watched of her's, she's nothing of the sort and describes herself as a feminist who says things like: "I am a mother and a feminist, I want my daughter and my niece to grow up in freedom and dignity. I want the same for all Austrian citizens, and that includes Austrian Muslims.”. Wow, yeah! What a radical nutter she is!
"that's why humanists over here speak out for free speech but not for sabadich-wolff."
No, Humanists over there speak out for free speech but not for Sabaditsch-Wolff's right to it because they are neutered hypocrites who DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
If your brand of spineless Humanism - which apparently muzzles itself at the slightest criticisms of Islam that amount to anything less than personally addressed Valentines to the local Imam's self-esteem - is in any way indicative of the general feelings of your liberal countrymen, well then maybe I have to reconsider the sometimes disconcertingly shrill rantings of old Condell here as potentially sage warnings; because Europe may really be as fucked as he suspects.
<span>"the trial mr condell mentions is based on a clause in the austrian penal code - roughly translated it penalises vilification or debasing of religious teachings with an imprisonment sentence of up to 6 months or (much more likely) a fine."
And this is supposed to assuage my contempt for such a repugnant law, how exactly?
"while this law and its contexts are quite questionable (as austrian humanists have pointed out time and again) one also has to put the defendant in context."
Mmmmmnope, not really. Someone either has a right to freedom of speech or they don't. I don't need you to contextualize their political views for me, thanks. If I wanted to I could do that myself, even though it's irrelevant.
"she ist part of a far right network, and I have no doubt that she and her fellow activists would be busy to cancel all free speech rights for everyone but themselves at once if they ever came into political power."
Argument from consequences fail.
"besindes they action not for a complete derogation of these ridiculous laws and for complete freedom from religion but for privileging christian religious teachings and virtues as basis of european politics."
Argument for censorship based on content of speech FAILLLLL. And would you like to support your seemingly baseless accusations of her being a far right Christianist who would be equally willing to quash freedom of speech for her own purposes, or would you rather simply tar her with more baseless and unsupported accusations? Because from the interviews I've read and watched of her's, she's nothing of the sort and describes herself as a feminist who says things like: "I am a mother and a feminist, I want my daughter and my niece to grow up in freedom and dignity. I want the same for all Austrian citizens, and that includes Austrian Muslims.”. Wow, yeah! What a radical nutter she is!
"that's why humanists over here speak out for free speech but not for sabadich-wolff."
No, Humanists over there speak out for free speech but not for Sabaditsch-Wolff's right to it because they are neutered hypocrites who DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
If your brand of spineless Humanism - which apparently muzzles itself at the slightest criticisms of Islam that amount to anything less than personally addressed Valentines to the local Imam's self-esteem - is in any way indicative of the general feelings of your liberal countrymen, well then maybe I have to reconsider the sometimes disconcertingly shrill rantings of old Condell here as potentially sage warnings; because Europe may really be as fucked as he suspects.</span>
first off: ad hominem fails on all counts - you might want to consider that.
secondly your position mirrors the american stance on free speech. due to completely different political und historic developments over here this has no importance whatsoever for our legal traditions and for our take on freedom of political and religious opinion.
over here it IS necessary to differentiate between silly laws and people who use free speech to undermine liberal democracies.
lastly the defendant is an reactionary christian supremacist. if you can make an argument that this is even slightly better than being any kind of muslim I definitely would like to see that.
"<span>first off: </span><span>ad hominem</span><span> fails on all counts - you might want to consider that"</span>
And you might want to consider the definition of <span>ad hominem, as you seem ill acquainted with it.</span>
"<span>secondly your position mirrors the american stance on free speech. due to completely different political und historic developments over here this has no importance whatsoever for our legal traditions and for our take on freedom of political and religious opinion."</span>
Oops, sorry, my mistake, as a Humanist I thought you would be able to recognize the self-evident universality of freedom of speech as a fundamental HUMAN right without regard to the ridiculous appeal to something as capricious as national origin. Silly me.
"<span>lastly the defendant is an reactionary christian supremacist."</span>
Again, a baseless claim with no supporting evidence. Claims that can be made without the requisite evidence are just as easily dismissed without it. Good day.
George Hay's 1799 essay Hortensius An Essay on the Liberty of the Press. He gives the meaning of freedom of the press and explains why using gov. power to ban falsehoods is wrong. "...the mischief if any, which might arise from this doctrine [his view of freedom of the press] could not be remedied or prevented, but by means of a power fatal to the liberty of the people." The opponents of rights typically point out the "mischief" and people get sucked into giving up their rights. If we lose freedom of speech in the U.S., this is how it will happen. What is fatal to freedom of speech is fatal to the truth.
Absolutely marvellous. The man is talking about Europe, and, for the US, just insert the Christian right instead of Islam - I mean the snake-bothering, kill fags shouting, doctor-shooting type of Christian.
We are talking about terrorism, and the 'moderate' peaceful believers of any religion are being carried along for the ride - if they don't, every book of spells says they can be killed. It is truly 'The Life of Brian', only not funny and in bad taste.
This guy is very like the superb Clive James. He is also right. I'm am so proud of having such an articulate feminist in our corner, where all the bigots have tried to keep us, whether they make us cover our faces or not.
I'm going right onto Richard Dawkins to tell everyone to watch this. Thank you for it. All the best! (Scottish!)
in my book calling people names without objective grounds qualifies for the ad hominem tag, but please yourself.
obviously you don't read or speak german. otherwise you could have found the "supporting evidence" and perhaps even processed it.
and nothing a self absorbed jerk like you could write or say will convince me of the legitimacy of american attempts to colonialise european legal discourse.
And yet again we see you providing zero citations for your claims and indulging in baseless ad hominem attacks yourself (WHERE in any of my comments do I say anything at all about myself, thus demonstrating "self absorption"?). Anyway, your last sentence demonstrates your closemindedness better than I ever could - ou're exactly like one of those dumb theists who sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "Nothing you could ever say would be able to convince me god doesn't exist!!!!), it's quite laughable, as are you. You've obviously closed your mind to evidence and reason long ago, and I as I don't waste my time trying to reason with the irrational, this will be my final response to your blather. HAND. <span> </span>
Bravo!
ReplyDeleteYou tell 'em, Pat! I couldn't agree more. Political correctness has run amok here in the US. We're so hamstrung by it that we cannot look the bald faced evil that is Islam in the eye and call it so.
ReplyDeleteWe need to hear more from this man. I understand his background is in stand up comedy. He speaks with clarity, says all those things the rest of us are afraid to say and then backs it up with fact and reason. Why isn't Pat Condell a politician? That way we could all vote for him and start to erase the pooh stain that is religious poison.
ReplyDeletegreetings from austria!
ReplyDeletethe trial mr condell mentions is based on a clause in the austrian penal code - roughly translated it penalises vilification or debasing of religious teachings with an imprisonment sentence of up to 6 months or (much more likely) a fine.
while this law and its contexts are quite questionable (as austrian humanists have pointed out time and again) one also has to put the defendant in context. she ist part of a far right network, and I have no doubt that she and her fellow activists would be busy to cancel all free speech rights for everyone but themselves at once if they ever came into political power.
besindes they action not for a complete derogation of these ridiculous laws and for complete freedom from religion but for privileging christian religious teachings and virtues as basis of european politics. which is not something a humanist can go for (remebmer the debates about god in the preamble of the european constitution).
brits are quite lucky, as I may perhaps point out. they never had a extreme right dictatorship to cope with in their political history. we did. and we have extreme right activists who propagate political insurrection and return to a nazi dictatorship (with all trimmings).
that's why humanists over here speak out for free speech but not for sabadich-wolff.
peace!
fuck off!
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Condell is that however I might agree with his views on free speech, his visceral hatred of Islam (not of religion, but of A very specific religion) clouds his arguments. He decries the Islamists calls for the elimination of Western culture by calling for the elimination of Islamic culture, in often the same violent, eliminationist tone.
ReplyDeleteI detest religion. I think religion, in all its forms whether theist or non-theist (such as Communism or Free-Marketism) is the root of most of the trouble with the world. But I don't believe calling for the elimination of all Muslims from Europe (Condell's dream) can help the cause of Reason. Calling for ALL people, including Muslims, to take a step back and examine their beliefs in the light of Reason is something I could get behind.
Condell seems to think that Islamism is the greatest threat ever posed to mankind. I agree that it is a threat, but to call it the greatest one is to be utterly blind. The Free-Marketers are far more dangerous; they have caused the deaths of far more people than any Islamic terrorist have, and their insistence on rejecting reality by calling Global Warming a hoax is far too likely to lead to the end of the Western Civilization Mr Condell cherishes so much.
So Mr Condell: take a step back, and examine your own beliefs, especially about the so-called special existential threat posed by Islam. Maybe once you're able to think rationally about that, you might be able to add something useful to the discussion.
Monsieur Mabus: Je te connais, mon grand imbécile. N'oublie pas que ta binnette a été placardée sur tous les sites athéistes du monde. Il est grand temps que tu fiche le camp. On en a assez de tes conneries.
ReplyDeleteWhy all this effort to prosecute "hate" speech when there is so much lying out there? Does this mean society values being insulted more negatively than being defrauded?
ReplyDeleteI guess that would explain a lot of insane politics...
"the trial mr condell mentions is based on a clause in the austrian penal code - roughly translated it penalises vilification or debasing of religious teachings with an imprisonment sentence of up to 6 months or (much more likely) a fine."
ReplyDeleteAnd this is supposed to assuage my contempt for such a repugnant law, how exactly?
"while this law and its contexts are quite questionable (as austrian humanists have pointed out time and again) one also has to put the defendant in context."
Mmmmmnope, not really. Someone either has a right to freedom of speech or they don't. I don't need you to contextualize their political views for me, thanks. If I wanted to I could do that myself, even though it's irrelevant.
"she ist part of a far right network, and I have no doubt that she and her fellow activists would be busy to cancel all free speech rights for everyone but themselves at once if they ever came into political power."
Argument from consequences fail.
"besindes they action not for a complete derogation of these ridiculous laws and for complete freedom from religion but for privileging christian religious teachings and virtues as basis of european politics."
Argument for censorship based on content of speech FAILLLLL. And would you like to support your seemingly baseless accusations of her being a far right Christianist who would be equally willing to quash freedom of speech for her own purposes, or would you rather simply tar her with more baseless and unsupported accusations? Because from the interviews I've read and watched of her's, she's nothing of the sort and describes herself as a feminist who says things like: "I am a mother and a feminist, I want my daughter and my niece to grow up in freedom and dignity. I want the same for all Austrian citizens, and that includes Austrian Muslims.”. Wow, yeah! What a radical nutter she is!
"that's why humanists over here speak out for free speech but not for sabadich-wolff."
No, Humanists over there speak out for free speech but not for Sabaditsch-Wolff's right to it because they are neutered hypocrites who DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
If your brand of spineless Humanism - which apparently muzzles itself at the slightest criticisms of Islam that amount to anything less than personally addressed Valentines to the local Imam's self-esteem - is in any way indicative of the general feelings of your liberal countrymen, well then maybe I have to reconsider the sometimes disconcertingly shrill rantings of old Condell here as potentially sage warnings; because Europe may really be as fucked as he suspects.
Greetings from New York!
ReplyDelete<span>"the trial mr condell mentions is based on a clause in the austrian penal code - roughly translated it penalises vilification or debasing of religious teachings with an imprisonment sentence of up to 6 months or (much more likely) a fine."
And this is supposed to assuage my contempt for such a repugnant law, how exactly?
"while this law and its contexts are quite questionable (as austrian humanists have pointed out time and again) one also has to put the defendant in context."
Mmmmmnope, not really. Someone either has a right to freedom of speech or they don't. I don't need you to contextualize their political views for me, thanks. If I wanted to I could do that myself, even though it's irrelevant.
"she ist part of a far right network, and I have no doubt that she and her fellow activists would be busy to cancel all free speech rights for everyone but themselves at once if they ever came into political power."
Argument from consequences fail.
"besindes they action not for a complete derogation of these ridiculous laws and for complete freedom from religion but for privileging christian religious teachings and virtues as basis of european politics."
Argument for censorship based on content of speech FAILLLLL. And would you like to support your seemingly baseless accusations of her being a far right Christianist who would be equally willing to quash freedom of speech for her own purposes, or would you rather simply tar her with more baseless and unsupported accusations? Because from the interviews I've read and watched of her's, she's nothing of the sort and describes herself as a feminist who says things like: "I am a mother and a feminist, I want my daughter and my niece to grow up in freedom and dignity. I want the same for all Austrian citizens, and that includes Austrian Muslims.”. Wow, yeah! What a radical nutter she is!
"that's why humanists over here speak out for free speech but not for sabadich-wolff."
No, Humanists over there speak out for free speech but not for Sabaditsch-Wolff's right to it because they are neutered hypocrites who DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
If your brand of spineless Humanism - which apparently muzzles itself at the slightest criticisms of Islam that amount to anything less than personally addressed Valentines to the local Imam's self-esteem - is in any way indicative of the general feelings of your liberal countrymen, well then maybe I have to reconsider the sometimes disconcertingly shrill rantings of old Condell here as potentially sage warnings; because Europe may really be as fucked as he suspects.</span>
first off: ad hominem fails on all counts - you might want to consider that.
ReplyDeletesecondly your position mirrors the american stance on free speech. due to completely different political und historic developments over here this has no importance whatsoever for our legal traditions and for our take on freedom of political and religious opinion.
over here it IS necessary to differentiate between silly laws and people who use free speech to undermine liberal democracies.
lastly the defendant is an reactionary christian supremacist. if you can make an argument that this is even slightly better than being any kind of muslim I definitely would like to see that.
"<span>first off: </span><span>ad hominem</span><span> fails on all counts - you might want to consider that"</span>
ReplyDeleteAnd you might want to consider the definition of <span>ad hominem, as you seem ill acquainted with it.</span>
"<span>secondly your position mirrors the american stance on free speech. due to completely different political und historic developments over here this has no importance whatsoever for our legal traditions and for our take on freedom of political and religious opinion."</span>
Oops, sorry, my mistake, as a Humanist I thought you would be able to recognize the self-evident universality of freedom of speech as a fundamental HUMAN right without regard to the ridiculous appeal to something as capricious as national origin. Silly me.
"<span>lastly the defendant is an reactionary christian supremacist."</span>
Again, a baseless claim with no supporting evidence. Claims that can be made without the requisite evidence are just as easily dismissed without it. Good day.
George Hay's 1799 essay Hortensius An Essay on the Liberty of the Press. He gives the meaning of freedom of the press and explains why using gov. power to ban falsehoods is wrong. "...the mischief if any, which might arise from this doctrine [his view of freedom of the press] could not be remedied or prevented, but by means of a power fatal to the liberty of the people." The opponents of rights typically point out the "mischief" and people get sucked into giving up their rights. If we lose freedom of speech in the U.S., this is how it will happen. What is fatal to freedom of speech is fatal to the truth.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely marvellous. The man is talking about Europe, and, for the US, just insert the Christian right instead of Islam - I mean the snake-bothering, kill fags shouting, doctor-shooting type of Christian.
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about terrorism, and the 'moderate' peaceful believers of any religion are being carried along for the ride - if they don't, every book of spells says they can be killed. It is truly 'The Life of Brian', only not funny and in bad taste.
This guy is very like the superb Clive James. He is also right. I'm am so proud of having such an articulate feminist in our corner, where all the bigots have tried to keep us, whether they make us cover our faces or not.
I'm going right onto Richard Dawkins to tell everyone to watch this. Thank you for it. All the best! (Scottish!)
in my book calling people names without objective grounds qualifies for the ad hominem tag, but please yourself.
ReplyDeleteobviously you don't read or speak german. otherwise you could have found the "supporting evidence" and perhaps even processed it.
and nothing a self absorbed jerk like you could write or say will convince me of the legitimacy of american attempts to colonialise european legal discourse.
And yet again we see you providing zero citations for your claims and indulging in baseless ad hominem attacks yourself (WHERE in any of my comments do I say anything at all about myself, thus demonstrating "self absorption"?). Anyway, your last sentence demonstrates your closemindedness better than I ever could - ou're exactly like one of those dumb theists who sticks their fingers in their ears and screams "Nothing you could ever say would be able to convince me god doesn't exist!!!!), it's quite laughable, as are you. You've obviously closed your mind to evidence and reason long ago, and I as I don't waste my time trying to reason with the irrational, this will be my final response to your blather. HAND. <span>
ReplyDelete</span>
<p><span>. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-`". . . . . . . . . .``~.,
ReplyDelete. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ":,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:". . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . ."~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . "~,_. . . .."~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . ."=,_. . . ."-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~"; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . ."=-._. . .";,,./`. . /" . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . .."~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-"
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--</span></p>
Well said Pat! The sooner the better.
ReplyDelete