Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

Where would you draw the line? Which should be legal?

Two exceptions (that are across the line): threats and defamation. So your list is quite simple.

LEGAL
- insulting ideologies
- insulting people
- insulting religions
- insulting races / nationalities
- denying holocaust

ILLEGAL
- telling people to kill some other people
- telling people to kill some other people, and then tell their exact locations

Then we disagree.

Things like swastika, praising Hitler, marching in nazi uniforms, etc is banned in many countries. It also threatens a lot of people, even if they don't say explicitly, that people should be killed. It's almost like telling people to kill someone.

Things like swastika, praising Hitler, marching in nazi uniforms, etc is banned in many countries.

True. In my country too. Denying the Holocaust is a punishable act. I'd like to see that law disappear. (And of course, I personally disagree with the opinion of Holocaust-denial, let that be clear. But I defend people's right to say stupid things.

It also threatens a lot of people, even if they don't say explicitly, that people should be killed.

So people cannot be dressed like Soviets too?

And what with the Armenian Genocide? Shouldn't that be treated equally like the Jewish Genocide? (And no, I'm not discussing if the Armenian Genocide was real or not.)

It's almost like telling people to kill someone.

It is not. This is exactly the reason why freedom of speech (apart from those two exceptions) should not be restricted, because people interpret signs and speech not always like it was meant. "I will kill you" is way more clearer than a swastika. After all, a swastika is even very common in for instance the Hindu culture.
(editado)

So people cannot be dressed like Soviets too?

They can for educational purposes, otherwise hammer and sickle is also banned in many countries. In Hungary, even red star is banned. There was even a funny case, when some retards sued Heineken for using a red star in their logo. At least they lost.

And what with the Armenian Genocide? Shouldn't that be treated equally like the Jewish Genocide?

Yes, it should be.

It's almost like telling people to kill someone.

It is not. - We disagree, because it's quite an obvious referral.

But this debate is endless, so I think, it's pointless to continue. I was just showing the other side of the coin. Btw, I don't agree either with every laws in Europe, that limits free speech, but like so many things, these are never going to be perfect, and everyone will have a different opinion about it.

I think everybody is responsible for the damages made by his words:

if i say something of you that take you a damage I must repay you.
But this is a civil rule, not a penal one.

I'll make everything legal. I don't care if you say someone to kill someone else, and where he is. you didn't anything wrong, did not cause any death or danger.

It is probably your time of the month. Period.

"The only thing that socialism ever did for the poor is giving them lots of company."

Lawrence Reed

It is probably your time of the month. Period.

Recognised yourself in a few of the types, right? Sometimes a mirror isn't much fun ....
(editado)

Recognised yourself in a few of the types, right? Sometimes a mirror isn't much fun ....

You can make such a cartoon on all ideologies. Of course there is some truth in them (that's why they're political cartoons), but it's not a mirror.



I'm pretty sure you recognize yourself in this like I recognize myself in your cartoon.

I'm not a political-missionary trying to spread an unproven and unrealistic ideology as if I'm somekind of a religious extremist, so if I would recognize myself in some of those pictures I wouldn't even care.
(editado)

See the last sentence of my previous message.

And I'm not the one spreading the idea of "collective theft is good", so who really is the extremist here? ;-)

You can call me an extremist, but then again, I'm only defending freedom. So if you think I'm an extremist, that says more about you than it does about me.
(editado)

You know exactly what I mean, if not, just read back your own posts and see what the subject 99.99% of the times is, or becomes when you join a conversation. It's way more as 'only defending freedom'.

And there is no need to say to me I'm spreading some idea as I don't. And if you want to know, I support a system which brought us prosper, wealth and freedom.

And there is no need to say to me I'm spreading some idea as I don't.

You pretend that you don't. But you do. You're not opposed to a large government (in percentage of GDP). And therefore, you are pro collective theft. Deny it, but that won't change the facts.

And if you want to know, I support a system which brought us prosper, wealth and freedom.

Oh, the classic statistical mistake. Correlation does not mean that there is causality. You know, statistically, couples with children are less happy. So according to your logic, one might say that children make couples unhappy. That is utter bullshit of course, the point is that couples without children that are unhappy will faster separate than couples with children that are unhappy. So please: CORRELATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSALITY.

I'd say we have prosperity, wealth and relative freedom (although seriously restricted) despite your system, not because of your system.

And there you go again ....