k so------ 666 posts! hell yh, satanic topic ftw!
new freakin topic

1- freedom of speech is a rigth
2- freedom to be and think freely is a rigth

3- discrimination is an offense which should never exist


k so i know u can agree with those 3 things
now i show u something

A nazi killing jews -> is discrimination, just because his jew. geeДz

example:
what if, im a neo-nazi i never and dont plan to kill jews, but my ideologys are strong and i belive in what i belive,never being influenced by no one and deciding on my own.

but people say im a freakin nazi and thus shun me for being such thing, because of the nazis past.

now lets look at the topics.
I havent done anything wrong
I have the freedom to think and be what i want

then why do people discriminate me from what i am ? i havent done anything wrong. its not like ill be the next hitler or something.
----------------------------------------------------------
so, why are people hipocrits on this matters ? why the "freedom to be or think" isnt sudently freedom ? mhm?

because, you have the freedom to think what you want, as long as it doesn't conflict with another persons ideology

Well people shun you for being a nazi because:
-Being a nazi means that you believe that jews are "a parasitic race".
-Nazi's are racist. There no question about it. Its the same situation with the KKK. They are racist and nobody likes them.

but then if u hate them cuz their racist, then ur being discriminatory agaisnt them D: where does this dilema stop ?

someone get mr.intelectualspecialedition to explain this

alright. The reason you hate them is because they discriminate. Thats a perfectly valid reason. You're not discriminating against them. Its kinda like hating a murderer for killing people. Its socially acceptable

society is hipocrit then ?

Actually it is but not in this case.
Discrimination: "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex"
discrimination is unjust treatment of people who did nothing to deserve it. Discriminating against other people makes other people hate you which is a just cause for hate. If people do something wrong and you don't like them because of that then thats not discrimination.

^_^



sup.
My beliefs on this matter are the same as Voltaire, and I will use a quote of his to best lay them out.
"I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Freedom of speech. Completely agree with it to nearly any extent, but using the harm principle, you can decide what speech is protected under this code.
Basically if you do no harm then no harm shall be done to you. But as people associate "Nazi" with "killing jews", you going around saying you're a Nazi may cause psychological harm to people. Now I can admit this is sort of a gray area because the person could simply just stop listening and walk away, where I would say it causes harm is if you force any of your ideas on them, not even causing physical harm, but if you follow them around knowing that they are uncomfortable or in some distress because of it, then that is no longer protected speech.

In the case you laid out Shemen, where you have your specific views, but do not act on them, I would say that you should not be discriminated against for it. On that note, if you have those views, it only seems logical that the "right" way for things to be would be for the world to follow your views, therefore, people could be justified in thinking that you will act... someday.

I'll use the example of a failed, pre-meditated murder. If someone were to plan out all the details (when, how, etc) for a murder, but were found out before any action was taken, they could claim that they were not actually intending to kill that person, that they just fulfilled their views, which would be that this person should be dead. Whether or not they were going to kill the person doesn't matter, it's their views that got them into jail.
Could be a similar situation with your "Neo-Nazi" example.


yes


I'm not a fan of that definition, because there are certain things that people of a certain age or sex can do better or more efficiently than their counterparts. Race should not come into it simply because it does not really affect abilities.

Age or Sex are obvious ones because take construction work for example;
the average 20 year old is more suited for the job than the average 60 year old.
Just as the average male is more suited for it than the average female.

This is based solely on the physical strength, where as younger men tend to be better suited for that job.
If I wanted to go in-depth about it, I could reference the "Hunter-Gatherer" days in evolutions past... but I'm sure the point sinks in with just that.

Well yea i completely agree to that but there in the definition it says unjust treatment. It is (according to me) perfectly fair to give a construction job to a 20 year old that is more capable than a 60 year old but if you give the job to a 20 year old when there is a 30 year old person who is stronger / healthier than the 20 in this case that would be unjust.

If you want to take it that way, justification can be found any which way.
Hiring the 20 year old is better in the long run, and he will have more time to learn, making him better than the 30 year old.

I agree with what you're saying, I just wanted to show that it isn't a perfect system. Justification can be found just about anywhere (or for anything) if you word it the right way.