|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 24, 2009 0:19:13 GMT
^ Australia is generally independent. But from a representative point of view, you are all still obliged to, for example, ask the Queen to agree when you want to start a war. It's not like sh REALLY has a say of course...
...best times one can see that the Queen is still in da house, was last year when Rudd managed to finally apologize to the Lost Generation - you probably saw this in TV Handy, Princess Ann was there as the Queen's representative. They couldn't have done something like this without some kind of royal around...
I met a terribly smug ex-pat from Britain in Aussieland, he had no British Citizenship anymore, livedn in Oz for 20+ years and still talked about the 'uncivilized Australian convicts' - I was delighted when he looked at me in shock after I told him that Prince Charles wants to become a muslim (he was working in the Lutheran Charity I volunteered at) and will not be the next monarch X-D
I also met quite a few old Aussies liking the Queen, mostly because they have 'seen her once when they were young' or because their 'greatgrandparents were proud to be british'. But most Aussies either roll their eyes when they hear the name Elisabeth or react like you did (with an 'aha'-effect).
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 24, 2009 3:56:07 GMT
Freedom of Speech is a belief I firmly have. And I firmly believe people have the RIGHT to be racist. I am not saying it is SMART to be racist, on the contrary, it is counter productive, limiting, and overall cruel and unnessecary.
That being said however, people have rights to feel as they wish, and I personally believe Freedom of Speech should not be censored. I think as long as someone does not propose the direct, physical harm of a human being, freedom of speech should be universal. I'd even go as far as to say harm, but I know in reality that could never happen. Freedom of Speech does not mean everyone will agree with you. It means freedom of speech, the right to say what you wish.
Censorship inevitably becomes more and more controlling until nothing can be said at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 24, 2009 4:31:13 GMT
Yeah, freedom of speech always needs SOME limits. It's just a case of setting the right boundaries.
I think the biggest danger with too much censorship on what people are allowed to say is that it creates a simmering resentment that makes problems worse rather than better.
Censorship can be used to close down legitimate grievance and genuine debate, but also can force people who roundly loathe each other to be at least semi-civilised and help prevent them coming to blows. Like many other things, it can be both good and bad, depending on how it is applied.
As with all other forms of regulation, minimum is probably best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 24, 2009 8:38:30 GMT
^ Australia is generally independent. But from a representative point of view, you are all still obliged to, for example, ask the Queen to agree when you want to start a war. It's not like sh REALLY has a say of course... ...best times one can see that the Queen is still in da house, was last year when Rudd managed to finally apologize to the Lost Generation - you probably saw this in TV Handy, Princess Ann was there as the Queen's representative. They couldn't have done something like this without some kind of royal around... I met a terribly smug ex-pat from Britain in Aussieland, he had no British Citizenship anymore, livedn in Oz for 20+ years and still talked about the 'uncivilized Australian convicts' - I was delighted when he looked at me in shock after I told him that Prince Charles wants to become a muslim (he was working in the Lutheran Charity I volunteered at) and will not be the next monarch X-D I also met quite a few old Aussies liking the Queen, mostly because they have 'seen her once when they were young' or because their 'greatgrandparents were proud to be british'. But most Aussies either roll their eyes when they hear the name Elisabeth or react like you did (with an 'aha'-effect). I suspect that what most australians think of the queen and the uk is similar to the same way people view a cranky, irratable older relative - Their a great [Censored]ing point, and we can say all sorts of stuff about them, but they're still family, and so if you have a go, we'll get all huffy. The other thing about having our queen, is that politically they have a built in breathing space/get out of difficult situation free card. In that while most situations can be resolved by the austrailan govenment (same as most situations can be resolved by the uk govenment in this country) There are still some situations that require that the queen is "asked" |
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 24, 2009 12:14:08 GMT
^ Yep and seriously, what better gossip can one have than 'Mister X met Her Majesty and screwed up the protocol'  |
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 24, 2009 12:40:02 GMT
*Cough* - Freedom of opinion is not the same as freedom of speech, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Oct 24, 2009 13:14:55 GMT
^ I agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 24, 2009 16:16:52 GMT
Indeed, Glance. Freedom of opinion is something no-one should have control over. If they try that, we're into 1984, which is not a good place to be...
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 24, 2009 18:28:20 GMT
If you limit speech, you limit opinions. Thought Crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 24, 2009 18:34:50 GMT
You are free to express any opinion you want as long as it isn't going to cause problems (i.e. you can't shout fire in the back of a crowded cinema without suffering the consiquenses, but equally you could probably make jokes to your friend about it). Free speech is as much about how you say something as it is what you say (incitement laws).
So you can say that you think all fishmongers stink to hi heaven, but you can say that they should all be thrown off a pier for a bath.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Oct 24, 2009 21:49:16 GMT
Freedom of speech and opinion goes both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 24, 2009 22:05:56 GMT
Agreed, Lews. It has to, else it's meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Nov 10, 2009 0:21:40 GMT
The image America projects (At least as far as this foreigner in another land is concerned!) is of a nation trying really hard to not be racist. Like every other nation on the globe, you have a ways to go, but you seem to be really trying and a whole lot harder than many nations. It's very jarring to me to discover that America has whole huge areas that seem to operate on the principle of segregation by common consent. It's an attitude I'd not normally expect outside of a ghetto or sink estate in most Western nations. Still, I guess it all comes down to generational change in the end. The pace of social progress is always slow... Well, I have been remiss on reading and posting, so time to bring up some good info. Racism is not dead in America, and it is maybe, as one author recently wrote in his book "Waiting for the Lightning to Strike" getting worse. But for those who are young, and probably won't remember this one, will post the Wiki link so you can read it. It happened this month 30 years ago. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre |
|
|
|
Post by ss on Nov 10, 2009 0:41:00 GMT
Freedom of Speech is a belief I firmly have. And I firmly believe people have the RIGHT to be racist. I am not saying it is SMART to be racist, on the contrary, it is counter productive, limiting, and overall cruel and unnessecary. That being said however, people have rights to feel as they wish, and I personally believe Freedom of Speech should not be censored. I think as long as someone does not propose the direct, physical harm of a human being, freedom of speech should be universal. I'd even go as far as to say harm, but I know in reality that could never happen. Freedom of Speech does not mean everyone will agree with you. It means freedom of speech, the right to say what you wish. Censorship inevitably becomes more and more controlling until nothing can be said at all. I agree with you that people have the "right" to be racist, cause you can't keep them from thinking what they want, but you don't have the right to ACT on those thoughts.... As you know my "Jesus" mentality ;D I do happen to know WHY people are racists.....they are sinners....fallen....and they obey their nature.. However, I fail to understand why professing "faith-heads" (as Flix fondly calls us).. ;D can ever justify being racists... I say so for the following reason...The book of Acts in the Bible states----Paul describing the UNKNOWN GOD to the Athenians on Mars Hill, in Athens-----that God---------"hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" (17:26)...So we all come from one bloodline...like it or not....so it begs the question..... What Color was Adam  Here is a good answer.. "In western countries, nearly every imaginative painting of Adam and Eve depict two adult Caucasians with fair skin and blue eyes. These images, even used as Bible illustrations, tend to shape the reader's mental image of the first man and woman. The Sunday-school origin of the dark races is often that they were descendants of Adam and Eve who had migrated to a hot climate where the suntan eventually became an inherited characteristic. These images and explanations discredit Christianity. The true explanation began to be resolved in 1913 when it was shown that human beings carry two genes for color and that each gene consists of "black" or "white" alleles. One allele was received from the mother and the other from the father. The allele is part of the gene, and the gene is part of the DNA – while the DNA resides in the nucleus of every cell in our body. Our skin color is caused by the pigment melanin, and this is controlled by two pairs of genes that geneticists refer to using the letter designations Aa and Bb, where the capital letter represents dominant genes and the small letters represent recessive genes. A and B, being dominant, produce melanin in good quantity while recessive a and b produce only a minor amount of melanin. Hence, our coloration depends upon the number of black and white alleles we received from our parents. The color genes express themselves in only one place – specialized skin cells called the melanocytes – that produce granules of melanin that are delivered to neighboring cells. Eve was made from Adam's rib and was thus a clone of Adam [Genesis 2:21-22]. They would therefore have had identical genes for melanin production. If they were both AABB, they would have been Negroid and produced children of only the darkest of Negroid coloration. If this were the case, the world's population today would be entirely Negro. In fact, only about 10% of the world's population is Negro, so we can be certain that our first parents were not of the AABB combination. By the same argument, if Adam and Eve had both been aabb, all their children would have been aabb meaning that all their descendants would be the lightest Caucasoid possible – there would be no other colors. Clearly, this is not the case, so by a process of deduction we can conclude that Adam and Eve were heterozygous, each having two dominant and two recessive genes, AaBb. They would thus have been middle-brown in color and from them, in one generation, the various shades of brown would have been produced. These color differences were likely amplified following the business at the Tower of Babel [Genesis 11:1-9] when the human gene pool was divided. Loss of genetic information in an isolated population is well known and a problem to breeders of pure-bred dogs, horses and other animals. It seems that one population group that migrated from the Tower of Babel suffered a greater loss of the genetic information required to produce the melanin and became the Caucasians. The bottom line is that Adam was not white or black but a good middle brown." Now that ought to frost some beer mugs....  |
|
.com
