freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:


John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:


freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:


John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 6:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:



freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:


John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 8:44pm:

and
John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:



freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 24^th, 2017 at 9:32pm:


freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:10pm:

cause that's what they're in effect doing with their actions



as you can see FD, every question, with the exception of the last one which is a new one, was answered, in most cases multiple times.

Now can you show me where this contradiction is? I'm still waiting and bobby is about to explode in anticipation of you showing me how i contradicted myself.

So you think it should be illegal to make fun of religious people, because they are "in effect" promoting hatred?

Quote:


In what case? Blair Cottrel's?

Quote:


You answered it once, and you quoted two different questions. Thanks for giving a straight answer. It only took three pages. I think that's a record for you.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:23pm:


that was what you were asking about at the time.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:28pm:


ohh for fkks sake. WHy don't you read all of what I said, not pick out two words and running with it. It's getting tiring having to repeat myself 100 times.



John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:28pm:


now we're moving onto making fun off ehh.

No, I don't think any subject is out of bounds as far as humour goes.

let me guess, this is where you're going to pretend cottrel was joking?

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:28pm:


you shouldn't comment on stupidity with your track record tonight. If I'm stupid, just howdo you think you look that you have to misrepresent what I say to try and win? surely a genius like you would be able to win one without having to lie about what i said??

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:37pm:


yep .... pretty much. I'm pretty sure that courts look at intent in these matters. If they start charging comedians I might review my decision, but until then, I stand by my decision.

John Smith wrote on Jul 25^th, 2017 at 8:39pm:


Duh. Here, I will highlight it for you:

A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, knowingly engage in conduct with the intention of inciting serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

So, your position is that you think it should not be illegal to make fund of religious people, but you absolutely support this law, because the courts will take into consideration whether the perpetrator intended to incite severe ridicule of religious people?

Quote:


And you support this law regardless of who it is applied to, because you will change your mind if it is applied to people who you don't want it applied to?

All this because you support the law, not based on what it for forbids people from actually doing, but on what you think it forbids them from "effectively doing"?

Do you see the self contradictions yet John?

Do you really think it is a good idea to have a law that says one thing but is applied on a completely different basis?

Would you actually support someone being put in jail for encouraging hatred of Nazis, or would common sense kick in? No wonder you are so eager to defend Muslims.