I looked for picture of "bound and gagged" that was one of the free images that was postable.Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Why do you think the cause was nothing to do with free speech when the doctor - who was a lot closer to it than you or I - said that free speech was exactly what caused the death (even if bullets had to take the official blame)?
Firstly you have not said exactly what incident you refer to.
Secondly free speech was not the cause, it was the underlying politics of the troubles.
Are you referring to the attack on the bloody Sunday civil rights march?
I have no idea why he said that, I guess he would have preferred the whole incident was censored.
He was the coroner, he was not even there.
The problems were rooted in mass unemployment and protestants not wanting catholics to have jobs or homes.
To say it was due to free speech is nonsense as the free speach laws were broadly the same before and after the incident.
Last edited by tricky_colour; 20/12/2017 at 7:18 PM.
Firstly you have not said exactly what incident you refer to.
Secondly free speech was not the cause, it was the underlying politics of the troubles.
Are you referring to the attack on the bloody Sunday civil rights march?
I have no idea why he said that, I guess he would have preferred the whole incident was censored.
He was the coroner, he was not even there.
It was a young man's death in the North.
What is politics if not free speech?Secondly free speech was not the cause, it was the underlying politics of the troubles.
No, I'm referring to this particular death; the one the coroner ascribed to free speech.Are you referring to the attack on the bloody Sunday civil rights march?
This for me is the crux.I have no idea why he said that, I guess he would have preferred the whole incident was censored.
Why do you have no idea why the coroner blamed free speech? Why do you think it would rather have been censored? Is it because it suits your argument?
The reality is that if it disagrees with your argument, you should have a good reason to dismiss it. "I don't know why" isn't a good reason.
Your argument for ultimate free speech is that people aren't idiots, and will adopt to new arguments as they are made. But you're disproving this argument even as you type.
But the coroner, while not present at the actual death, was certainly present at the overall environmental issues - ie the culture of hate speech against either side of the divide in the North at the time. Why do you think you have the authority to dismiss his findings?He was the coroner, he was not even there.
This "debate" is just not fair. It's like Man Utd v Dublin Bus.
This morning when I got to the train station, the real-time display said my train was seven minutes away. A minute later, the display said my train was now one minute away. Some conclusions, with reference to this thread -
> My train was both seven minutes away and one minute away at the same time. Obviously impossible.
> One piece of information was wrong (But tricky tells us this is impossible)
> Seven minutes was correct with the information available at the time, but in light of new information, this was revised to one minute. But tricky doesn't seem to hold to this either given how he's still arguing that no coroner ever declared free speech as a cause of death even after he's been given an example of this exact thing happening.
> I'm lying and none of this actually happened - but information can't be wrong, so that's not possible.
I don't think any other explanation can be given. Yet any of the explanations above is basically impossible according to tricky.
So - where was my train?
Last edited by pineapple stu; 21/12/2017 at 12:43 PM.
Nowhere near you, considering you were standing at a bus stop.
Partial credit!
It was the stop for the bus from Phibsboro to Tallaght, but that doesn't exist.
So is it a bus stop if I tell you that a random spot on the path is a bus stop? Evidently yes, because info can't be wrong.
If it doesn't have the latest LOI scores on it it's not a bus stop. QED.
Depends on how you define 'information'. Tricky seems to comprehend it as being pretty much any claim or statement at all.
Incidentally, I think the bus timetable (in its poster-at-the-bus-stop form at least) is a bad example to use - a bus timetable informs you of when a bus is scheduled to arrive. The bus not arriving on time does not make the schedule incorrect.
I think it's much easier to look at the example of Trump's tweet about the attacker being a Muslim, a claim which was demonstrated to be false. From this you can argue that demonstrably false claims do not constitute 'information' by any logical definition. If information is never wrong, and what Trump tweeted was demonstrably wrong, then what Trump tweeted cannot have been information.
We can go even further and look at misinformation, particularly when that is spread by somebody who knows it to be incorrect. There are plenty of examples from military history, for example, of efforts made specifically to deceive the enemy about the time/location/strength of a particular attack, say. It would be ludicrous to claim that such 'information', which is designed to deceive, could never be wrong.
Yeah, I think you're right, which is why I changed it to a real-time display in the second example.
I could have used a more serious example (like you did) - but I thought a silly example suited the debate. Like, are we seriously even arguing whether information can be wrong here? Of course it can.
You referred me to an incident with out any background, so basically you are asking me to comment on something which I know little about.
Basically you are saying "judge the evidence" without providing any evidence.
That is just the opinion one man and a ridiculous one imo.
Before hate speech come hate, banning hate speech does not address the hate it lets it grow, it is a the problem not the solution.
You seems to be putting a lot of words into my mouth and then condemning the words.
"Why do you think it would rather have been censored?" NOT what I said " I guess he would have preferred the whole incident was censored" (because he is big fan of censorship).
You can't resolve problems without looking at the underlying causes and you can't do that if people are not free to speak their minds.
Seems to me the underlying issues are unemployment and a lack of housing and banning free speech will do nothing to
address the issues.
Problem is I guess is that those in power (including the coroner in his protected position) had no intention or indeed desire to address such issues.
This "culture of hate speech" is just a ridiculous statement it is used to deny underlying issues and pretend the problem is due to some "culture" whatever that means.
I have the authority to dismiss his finding as they are not backup up by the evidence, I don't need any "authority" to speak ro at least I should not.
Being in a position of power does not bestow and value or validity on a person words, only evidence does that.
Authorities can be wrong, stupid, or liars for starters.
And I have given my reasons, underlying conditions of homelessness and joblessness those are the real issue, real things, which actually matter not words, ie vibrations in airwaves.
For all that you claim to know very little about it, you seem very sure that it's not a challenge to your argument. Without knowing much about it, you think his view is ridiculous, and you think the coroner is a big fan of censorship. How do you arrive at that view?
You absolutely do not have the authority to dismiss the comment out of hand because you can't see the evidence. You could investigate the matter further - I've given source material - but you appear curiously disinclined to do so. In fact, you have barely even read what I posted - I clearly noted it was in relation to sectarian riots in the 30s in Belfast, but later you ask if it related to Bloody Sunday.
So you're not reading the posts. You're not interested in looking into the matter, which directly contradicts one of your stated views. You're dismissing views out of hand because you can't see any evidence (what evidence do you want exactly?) You say you know very little about something, but have very strong views nonetheless.
Think I'm going to have to drop out of this debate until you can actually debate matters properly.
There is no problem with Trumps tweet as it help highlight that the information was wrong or at least has been declared wrong by some authority, now that does not necessarily mean it is wrong of course. It could be wrong, but for me a better proof would be an interview with the person in question, which could be collaborated by interviews with people who knew him.
Authorities of course do not always tell the truth for various reasons, they often perceive some benefit in lying. We all know this to a certain extend. There was some incident in WWII about a tube station bombing which was covered up for example for the benefits of "moral".
But of course keeping quite about disasters is the best way of ensuring they happen again, so most stupidity from authority, still at least no incompetent person(s) in authority lost their job, so it was for the greater good (of incompetent people in authority).At the time the incident was not widely publicised for fear of the impact it might have on morale, but it was difficult to keep quiet about so many deaths.
And hence all is well
Well you never present the source material and even if you did my view would be the same so no great loss there!
The coroner never provide any evidence. I see no reason why I should be held to a higher standard, buy I did give a well
reasoned argument anyway.
It was clearly related to sectarian problem of which bloody Sunday was one (or two if you count the other one in the 1920's).
It is a minor point relay but it would have been nice to have had more detail.
Point is hate speech comes from hate and the hate will still be there even if you censor the speech.
The speech is a symptom of the problem not the cause.
Pretending or mistakenly believing it is he cause does not help.
If concerns are not address the hate remains speech or no speech.
Em - yes I did?
Your view would be the same regardless of what's written in the main book? So basically you form a view and refuse to change it despite what you might read to change it?
How do you conclude that?
Are you implying I am Man U?
https://cdn-04.independent.ie/incomi...20h342/bus.jpg
Man U bus in Dublin.
I was not sure what you referred to it could have been clearer imo.
I don't have the book, you are asking me to comment on the unknown that is impossible but I am
doing my best.
If you raise a fully detailed argument I can reply in detail. I don't do that with some vague reference.
I did not see the coroners evidence for his view hence he has not provide it to me not evidence which is credible anyway.
If I told you to go out add kill someone would you do it?
No.
That pretty much indisputable point proves my case.
Unless of course you would, in which case I am glad I put it as a question rather than a command else I would
likely be an accessory to murder under the the silly laws that exist as regard hate speech.
It could have been clearer than actually stating the source in my post immediately before the quote?
How?
Wow.
Let's ignore whether you actually know how to influence someone to the point of murder. Whether you know how long and what in-depth sort of brainwashing (effectively) has to go into the process. And of course, whether the other 7,599,999,998 people in the world might be different to you or I.
I know I didn't kill Elvis. That pretty much indisputable point proves my case that he's not actually dead.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks