Cinema Prayer Banned........

[ChrisJones 7,975]

The right of a nation to exist as a distinct entity outweighs the right of any individual to engage in destructive activities,a society can't imo thrive without a fair degree of freedom,which is the ultimate goal of nationalism.

 

Okay but why should the rights of the nation supercede it's citizens?

 

What do you believe consists of a 'fair degree of freedom' and what safeguards would be implemented to protect individuals that disagree with a fascist, or nationalist, government?

[neems 2,406]

 

The right of a nation to exist as a distinct entity outweighs the right of any individual to engage in destructive activities,a society can't imo thrive without a fair degree of freedom,which is the ultimate goal of nationalism.

 

Okay but why should the rights of the nation supercede it's citizens?

 

What do you believe consists of a 'fair degree of freedom' and what safeguards would be implemented to protect individuals that disagree with a fascist, or nationalist, government?

 

 

The nation IS the citizens (for the most part),not the geographical area,it's the distinct and irreplaceable ethnic and cultural group of people that have harmonised with the land they live on.

It's more important that the nation itself survives,its survival should always supercede the rights of any group who would damage it.

 

To answer your first question simply,survival is more important than the right to engage in damaging activities.

 

And your second,a 'fair degree of freedom' is total freedom,as long as it isn't damaging to the nation and to a much lesser extent humanity as a whole.

Edited November 27, 2015 by neems

[ChrisJones 7,975]

The nation IS the citizens (for the most part),not the geographical area,it's the distinct and irreplaceable ethnic and cultural group of people that have harmonised with the land they live on.

It's more important that the nation itself survives,its survival should always supercede the rights of any group who would damage it.

 

Well is it, or isn't it? A nation comprises of all citizens, in your definition? I simply disagree that the nation's interests come before everything else.

 

Are rights gifted by the government nation in this example?

 

If any person harmonises with the nation, do they qualify as a national? Are they entitled to the rights and protection of the nation?

 

To answer your first question simply,survival is more important than the right to engage in damaging activities.

 

Rights are not damaging activities. They're intrinsic to freedom. So I ask again what safeguards would you implement to protect citizens that disagree? Most people that identify with your cultural, and ethnic, requirements will not agree on everything that the government nation decrees.

 

The current nation government has ruled, in the example above, that a man is not entitled to his beliefs. Would refusing entry to a premises be classified as a damaging activity?

 

Damaging activities is an extremely ambiguous term, so who would define what dangerous activities are? Is that limited to acts of violence, and sedition, or does it also include contrary political opinion. Again I only ask because fascism, historically, has had a violent, and often brutal, relationship with contrary opinion.

 

And your second,a 'fair degree of freedom' is total freedom,as long as it isn't damaging to the nation and to a much lesser extent humanity as a whole.

 

Is freedom gifted by the state, in this example?

 

[neems 2,406]

 

The nation IS the citizens (for the most part),not the geographical area,it's the distinct and irreplaceable ethnic and cultural group of people that have harmonised with the land they live on.

It's more important that the nation itself survives,its survival should always supercede the rights of any group who would damage it.

 

Well is it, or isn't it? A nation comprises of all citizens, in your definition? I simply disagree that the nation's interests come before everything else.

 

Are rights gifted by the government nation in this example?

 

If any person harmonises with the nation, do they qualify as a national? Are they entitled to the rights and protection of the nation?

 

To answer your first question simply,survival is more important than the right to engage in damaging activities.

 

Rights are not damaging activities. They're intrinsic to freedom. So I ask again what safeguards would you implement to protect citizens that disagree? Most people that identify with your cultural, and ethnic, requirements will not agree on everything that the government nation decrees.

 

The current nation government has ruled, in the example above, that a man is not entitled to his beliefs. Would refusing entry to a premises be classified as a damaging activity?

 

Damaging activities is an extremely ambiguous term, so who would define what dangerous activities are? Is that limited to acts of violence, and sedition, or does it also include contrary political opinion. Again I only ask because fascism, historically, has had a violent, and often brutal, relationship with contrary opinion.

 

And your second,a 'fair degree of freedom' is total freedom,as long as it isn't damaging to the nation and to a much lesser extent humanity as a whole.

 

Is freedom gifted by the state, in this example?

 

 

 

The nation is the people,they share a culture ,language and ethnicity,a lot of alien people hold citizenship here,some have done for generations,but they aren't part of the nation.

The state should be the embodiment of those most qualified to lead,within the nation,again we have alien people in Parliament.

 

Yes freedom is gifted,as in all societies where it could be taken away,the safety measure is that free and talented people = successful society,which is the goal.

that is negated if they use their freedom to attack their own people directly or indirectly.

 

Supporting and normalizing the homosexual way of life damages the the family unit and health of the nation,as such is an attack on the nation and should never be tolerated,so ideally had the baker made the cake he would have been held to account.

 

Anything that seeks to undermine the strength,health and posterity is an attack.

 

It's important to realise an attack doesn't have to be physical (at least at first) to devastate a nation.

[WILF 46,811]

I detest the phrase "hate crime".......who decides what constitutes a "hate crime"?

 

If someone decides to tell a homosexual that they find them disgusting is that a "hate crime" or his individual view?

If he decides then not to serve homosexuals because he finds homosexuality and those who indulge abhorrent is that a "hate crime" or his individual right to an opinion?

 

This where laws designed to (so called) protect the many affect the individual......everything by the state comes down to an individual level, you can't separate the two IMHO

[The Seeker 3,048]

I detest the phrase "hate crime".......who decides what constitutes a "hate crime"?

If someone decides to tell a homosexual that they find them disgusting is that a "hate crime" or his individual view?

If he decides then not to serve homosexuals because he finds homosexuality and those who indulge abhorrent is that a "hate crime" or his individual right to an opinion?

This where laws designed to (so called) protect the many affect the individual......everything by the state comes down to an individual level, you can't separate the two IMHO

Hate crime a phrase only ever used by the so called oppressed "victims"

 

Unfortunately in our society we now have plenty of "victims"

 

My son (13) recently had a run in with two Pakistanis in school who decided to shout over a staircase to him "oi you white mother f*cker c**t" my lad replied "who do you think you are talking to you can't say that to me" so next thing these cockroaches (three of them they are always in gangs don't you find) decided to lay into my son nothing major just a few punches.

 

So I get involved report it to the headmistress and she watches the CCTV and gets my son and the three Pakis in. What do you think the first thing out of their mouths was eh? "We only did it because we are sick of the rest of the school making fun of our accents and mocking us because we are Pakistani"

 

The school suspended them for 3 days and informed their parents.

 

Now let me answer some of your questions no before you even ask the " I would have got my son to kick the shit of them" the school has automatic expulsion for anyone fighting. If he had retaliated even though my son wasn't in the wrong he would have been expelled no question. They are shit scared of anything turning into a racist issue

 

My point is these leaches in our society know the score these are kids think of how the adults can work it?

[WILF 46,811]

Mate, honestly that question never even crossed my mind.....if it had been the other way round your boy would have been expelled, no question.

This is where all this type of legislation falls down......it's made law in the name of equality but actually it onl applies to the minority.

It's bad law all round IMHO

[neems 2,406]

Mate, honestly that question never even crossed my mind.....if it had been the other way round your boy would have been expelled, no question.

This is where all this type of legislation falls down......it's made law in the name of equality but actually it onl applies to the minority.

It's bad law all round IMHO

 

And do you honestly believe that's an accident?

[j j m 6,539]

what a load of cr.p

[WILF 46,811]

 

Mate, honestly that question never even crossed my mind.....if it had been the other way round your boy would have been expelled, no question.

This is where all this type of legislation falls down......it's made law in the name of equality but actually it onl applies to the minority.

It's bad law all round IMHO

 

And do you honestly believe that's an accident?

No, I have believed for a long time that it is completely deliberate.

 

And one world leader has written a book about the destruction of European culture via attacks by the state and the importation of foreign cultures..........and who is this man ?

Edited November 27, 2015 by WILF

[neems 2,406]

The only book I've read went into detail on that subject is camp of the saints,it's definitely worth a look.

 

But people have written about it since they first made their ideologies public.

Edited November 27, 2015 by neems

[WILF 46,811]

I have just looked that book up, you couldn't argue that it's premise seems to be being proved true.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Sorry for the delay gents, real life kinda got in the way there for a few days...

The nation is the people,they share a culture ,language and ethnicity,a lot of alien people hold citizenship here,some have done for generations,but they aren't part of the nation.

The state should be the embodiment of those most qualified to lead,within the nation,again we have alien people in Parliament.

Okay so now we're getting into the crux of it. The nation isn't the people because you've already segregated the concept based on culture, language and ethnicity.

Essentially what you're saying is that if a person does not satisfy the cultural, lingual, and ethnic part of the equation then they cannot be part of the nation?

If so then what safeguards does this system implement to safeguard these people? Are they entitled to any rights at all? Limited rights? Or none?

I agree that only the most qualified should lead, in any national representation, but that's kinda the point of any leadership role. Why should it be limited to your criteria?

Yes freedom is gifted,as in all societies where it could be taken away,the safety measure is that free and talented people = successful society,which is the goal.
that is negated if they use their freedom to attack their own people directly or indirectly.

I vehemently disagree with that. Rights are not the nations to grant, or rescind. They are inalienable. They are rights, not priveleges. If anyone believes that rights can be granted, or rescinded, then they are part of the problem rather than the solution.

If the nation government is given that power then freedom does not, and cannot, exist.

If that government can then manipulate the legal field to what defines an attack, then it can choose to allow/censor any kind of opinion. Dissent is not an attack it's how nations are built and defines their legacies.

Supporting and normalizing the homosexual way of life damages the the family unit and health of the nation,as such is an attack on the nation and should never be tolerated,so ideally had the baker made the cake he would have been held to account.

Anything that seeks to undermine the strength,health and posterity is an attack.

It's important to realise an attack doesn't have to be physical (at least at first) to devastate a nation.

 

Utter nonsense. The biggest threat to the traditional family unit is heterosexual relationships. It's now literally a flip of a coin as to whether they survive, as were now down to a 1 in 2 divorce rate. Homosexuality has existed as long as heterosexuality and what consenting adults do, in the privacy of their own home is neither mine, yours, anyone elses, or the nation's business.

 

The nation seeking to further it's own interests, at the expense of the people, is an attack on itself.

 

The voice of dissent isn't an attack when it criticizes the nation. Again the nation is the culmination of the people. They come first. The nation serves the people. Not the other way around.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

I detest the phrase "hate crime".......who decides what constitutes a "hate crime"?

 

If someone decides to tell a homosexual that they find them disgusting is that a "hate crime" or his individual view?

If he decides then not to serve homosexuals because he finds homosexuality and those who indulge abhorrent is that a "hate crime" or his individual right to an opinion?

 

This where laws designed to (so called) protect the many affect the individual......everything by the state comes down to an individual level, you can't separate the two IMHO

 

I do to, WILF, but hate crimes are indeed here to stay.

 

Hate crimes exist because of the of the over correction of crimes against minority groups. They stacked up until the pressure came to fix the balance, and biases came along during the enforcement process. The hate crime is the result of that overcompensation and poor drafting, not to mention the addition of quotas to enforcement.

 

Their laws came to pass, however, because certain groups of individuals decided to physically attack certain other groups. That cannot be right, wouldn't you agree? Opinion is fine, providing that opinion doesn't reduce anyone elses freedom to move around. Again does yours, or my, individual freedoms allow us to increase/decrease someone elses?

 

What we have now, with the christian baker example listed above, is the first use of the 'gay card.' As I've said on numerous threads. Crime, is crime, is crime, is crime. It shouldnt be segregated further and made into something it isn't. The baker didn't assault this couple. He simply refused to serve them in his private place of business. That is not a crime, in my book, but is now a legal precedent. They could've simply used their own freedoms to select another merchant from the plethora of other businesses that would have no issue with them whatsoever. Instead they took their 15 mins of fame and made it a news incident. Again I think the baker is wrong, but that's his call. He didn't attack them. He didn't assault them. He simply exercised his rights and now the nation government as ruled that the couples rights, now take legal precedence over those of the bakers. That is plainly wrong whether I agree with him, or not.

 

Remove the criteria and enforce it equally across the board. Crime is crime and shouldn't be enforced differently based on cultural, ethnical, or lingual biases.

 

A question for neems, here, though. Seeing as the current government enforces it's laws based on a different interpretation of cultural, ethnical, and lingual qualities, do you accept that you're attacking the nation, under your own definition? Do you think you have a right to be treated differently, under your proposed system, and why?

 

For the record I attack both systems, and under your system I wouldn't have the freedom to do so. As bad as this current system is I, at least, have that right.

Edited December 7, 2015 by ChrisJones