Freedom of Belief

[Fat1Fared]

Ok all, topic is basically, what is more important:-

=Defending someone’s feelings

or

=Defending our right to belief whatever want, no matter how stupid or degraded it is,

(now know question is far to loose at moment, but suspect as topic gets going, we can narrow so get at real points in question AKA Gray areas)

=I think a good example is today, which was the event which brought on my want to make this topic.
-Today, I managed to upset every other member of my Uni's Student Union Council, by voting against their policy of allowing no extremist messages to delivered in the Uni, now while I was not against them banning these people from lettering or ranting with megaphones on uni property....etc
-i had to say no to stopping us allowing debate in these area's, I hope most of you guys know me enough to know that I am not anyway linked to anti-race, sex....etc groups and in fact probably most liberal person around, but I instantly got lumped as one of those by people today. -_-
-Because unlike 99% of those other self-proclaimed liberals in the council, I actually care about our basic freedoms and rights, but seemed people just wanted to lump everyone into small box's of for or against, us and them...etc which helps no one.
-To be fair to them not all made themselves out to be liberal and were simply honest in saying they just didn’t want beliefs they didn’t like expressed, which while not something I can eddear too, I can at least respect their honesty and some brought up fair concerns…etc (but I will let those on here, who will be against my view express those)
-I also agreed that their needed to be regulations on how and when do this, but not outright ban, which stopped 99% of debate outright and only allowed certain speakers to come at full discretion of union President with no right of appeal and basically meant no speakers or fair debates would ever occur on it.

=So despite not liking even most "lax" of anti-persons beliefs, my god I will fight to death for their right to believe such things and express them "fairly and under controlled conditions",
-Because even if I think their stupid in believing their racist or homophobic or...etc beliefs, I understand my belief is no more a factual thing than there's and the second you start making these judgments of right and wrong without even allowing debate in these area's, is the second you become the oppressor and worse than those fighting, no matter what stupid belief is being oppressed is.
-I believe let them come and as long do it within our rules and it is done in controlled conditions (AKA actual talk, not just ranting and with people to chair it) where poeple can question them and express their own views back, let them talk,

-I also believe intruth this normally does more harm to their beliefs than outright ban's because their beliefs get massively exposed, but that is besides the point, the point is, not that we enforce the "right beliefs" and ban the "wrong" but that we allow all a fair say and fair freedom of belief because beliefs are just that, a belief and so to start sticking right or wrong labels on them, just makes you same as those who down others personal life choices and creates more divides among poeple, as well it isolates many poeple with moderate versions of these views and drives them further into these groups as feel their views are oppress and only place have the their right to look at it, is with these groups, drawing them further in.

-Lord Hoffennman said for me (though this is very extreme example)

“The real threat to the life of the nation … comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give terrorists such a victory.”

=So what you all believe ^_-

[Gamemaster300]

hmmmm, based on what i obsorbed from that, the question in a basic form is do you believe people have the right to say what they want, no matter what there opinion is. If this is the case, i agree fully with you FAT. people should be free to talk about whatever they want. It is wrong to diminish speach of any kind. America's first amendment garentees the right to free speech. This however is not entirly true. If you do something to infringe upon someone else's rights then you have to stop. In other words in the US rights are limited. This however doesn't really partain to speech. (though it may lator on). What i mean by that is how are you going to infringe on someone's rights by talking???

Now in America you have the right to a free education. Or rather you get one. K-12 grade. Since these are areas set up by the government our supreme court has ruled these are special area's. Where rights by the constitution don't necisarily apply. That is to say if you do something distracting as a form of speech, AKA died hair, wacky hats, etc. they (being the people in charge) can make that not allowed. If you do allow speech of any idea, not just allowing speech where ever, than this becomes irelivent. Though you may be looked down upon you can still say what you want.

Next there is the issue of a threat. I'm sure fat is just talking in regards to ....... formal speeching, if you will, talking in regard to law or something. If he means any talk, any idea i could go on. If he is merly talking about consideration of ideas, then i have said what i wanted to say.

[Underling]

The more contentious or unpleasant an idea, the more important it is people are free to express it, such that it can be openly argued against and put down.

It's not a person's right to express these views that I'm interested in, but rather my right to hear them.

I won't tolerate other people deciding what information I should or should not have access to.

[Gamemaster300]

So you mean you would go out to look for these other views?

[Underling]

So you mean you would go out to look for these other views?

Not unless I had a particular reason to. It's not the ideas themselves that are important, extremist views by definition often being based on poor reasoning, but should they exist they need to be dealt with.

[Gamemaster300]

Yes, well how are you going to be aware of these opinions if people are not allowed to state them in the first place?

You said you don't care for the right for people to speeck but that the opinions should be out there, to be heard.

[Underling]

Yes, well how are you going to be aware of these opinions if people are not allowed to state them in the first place?

You said you don't care for the right for people to speeck but that the opinions should be out there, to be heard.

What are you talking about, a person's freedom to speak is obviously a corollary of my right to hear them.

[Gamemaster300]

It's not a person's right to express these views that I'm interested in, but rather my right to hear them.



This is what i'm talking about

[Underling]

This is what i'm talking about

Yes? I said I'm less interested in it, not that people shouldn't have it.

I'm quite clearly implying they should.

[Gamemaster300]

Yes? I said I'm less interested in it, not that people shouldn't have it.

Alright, that makes sence. It sorta looked like you didn't care about there right to speech.

[Fat1Fared]

hmmmm, based on what i obsorbed from that, the question in a basic form is do you believe people have the right to say what they want, no matter what there opinion is. If this is the case, i agree fully with you FAT. people should be free to talk about whatever they want. It is wrong to diminish speach of any kind. America's first amendment garentees the right to free speech. This however is not entirly true. If you do something to infringe upon someone else's rights then you have to stop. In other words in the US rights are limited. This however doesn't really partain to speech. (though it may lator on). What i mean by that is how are you going to infringe on someone's rights by talking???


=Sort of, but it is boarder than just speech, it is infact boarder than even expression, it simply the freedom to believe, I guess (maybe putting the question and then my views in two different posts would have worked better, but meh)
-The point is, the main argument against me was that groups which be effected maybe insulted or angered, but I find this an erroneous argument on two grounds of logic:-
1=Getting upset about their views on vindicates them, because if you think their view is stupid what does it matter if negative one on you, you should be strong enough in your belief to think, their view clearly has flaws, so rather than getting upset, I should ether, enlighten it, ignore it or pity it
2=Almost very opinion will insult someone somewhere, just because it is minority "extremists" doing it, doesn't mean majority suddenly has right to oppress them, these people should remember it was not long ago that they were the oppressed minorities and so taking the place of oppressor only creates vicious spiral and feeds the problem rather deals with it

=The other was, that I would feel threatened, which was plain stupid, because the fact is, if these people were going to do more than talk, then something tells me, a sign on union board saying their not allowed on property isn't going to stop them -_-


Now in America you have the right to a free education. Or rather you get one. K-12 grade. Since these are areas set up by the government our supreme court has ruled these are special area's. Where rights by the constitution don't necisarily apply. That is to say if you do something distracting as a form of speech, AKA died hair, wacky hats, etc. they (being the people in charge) can make that not allowed. If you do allow speech of any idea, not just allowing speech where ever, than this becomes irelivent. Though you may be looked down upon you can still say what you want.


=This interesting one not thought of when made this, but I think their should be some responability on the individual, I mean if i cannot study because of someone elses hair, who's fault is that o_0



Next there is the issue of a threat. I'm sure fat is just talking in regards to ....... formal speeching, if you will, talking in regard to law or something. If he means any talk, any idea i could go on. If he is merly talking about consideration of ideas, then i have said what i wanted to say.

-Well this is where rules are needed, like I said I agree cannot just allow them onto, say the campus lecture theatre with Megaphone and then let them rant "death to .....etc" because as well, that is pointless and will more likely than not incite violence, but then if they wish to come on the stage and say "I wish to kill all...... because .....etc" then let them, so we can then give them reasons why we disagree with this view (believing we do)

The more contentious or unpleasant an idea, the more important it is people are free to express it, such that it can be openly argued against and put down.

It's not a person's right to express these views that I'm interested in, but rather my right to hear them.

I won't tolerate other people deciding what information I should or should not have access to.

Once again underling, I must suck up to you and say i agree, a specially on the second point, the way some committee members went on, you would think that they honestly believed that every student would, if we allowed to hear these views to be expressed suddenly start being extremists and the world would end, when uni's without these policy's have shown that most uni students are more than capable of making own political and social decisions and many when these views are expressed turn against it, and it the union which is right now acting like the hate mob
(though realise you were being more general than my silly uni policy, felt may good example)

[Underling]

(though realise you were being more general than my silly uni policy, felt may good example)

It is, university is exactly the sort of place for this sort of thing, you were quite right to vote against them.

[Gamemaster300]

The right to believe, the only way to have that is if you are open to all the ideas there are as well as to have your own. This unfortunatly is not the case everywhere. People are also limited by the biasness of the media. But thinking under ideal cercomstances. Yes, the right to believewhat ever you want should always be charished. Even if you can't say it. For example in north korea i'm sure there are people who believe they want to get out. If they say it then they are likely killed or worked to death or what ever the case may be, it is prevented. But they can still believe

People will believe no matter who sais something, or what they said, or even if they can't talk about what they believe. So in a sence your topic is already salved. The right to speech and to believe are completly different. For me the key is when speech is invalved. You can think and believe forever. That is meningless without a way to get it out and apply it to the world.

[Fat1Fared]

underling least after hour or so of debating I got 1 person to vote with me lol (I think problem is like my sister said to me, most people are too busy trying to be seen to be good, rather actually trying to do what think is right)

GameMaster while your point is valid, for the context of the topic at hand you are both narrowing and widening our definitions of beliefs, you are widening it, in that you are allowing it to include every belief, when really this comes more down to fundamental extreme views, and you are narrowing it, because only looking at belief as singular part of our being, when our most fundamental beliefs are what make our being in many regards.
-It is our jumble of beliefs and thoughts which create the sense of self, which is us and this sense of self then creates our actions

=Now admittedly I was being somewhat precocious and vague with the question, as stated myself, but it is because I did not wish to limit this to single forms of expression or act, but to the underlying case of those expressions and actions, so yes we will need to look at external acts, but we will not be looking wholly at single one of them, as it underlying points that is belief which creates all this,

-Cannot remember who said, but someone once said

A belief without an action, doesn't exist and an action without a belief has no right to exist (butchered quote is butchered <_<, think sums up what getting at though, belief and act are linked, so lets look at both, rather than get bogged down in what right/act looking at )

[Gamemaster300]

yes, that is valid, FAT. I am refuring to that last thing you said

But i have stated what i wanted relating to the topic. I'm not sure how to explain or talk about it further. You (i think) are being to general for me. I'm more of a right VS. wrong person, just flat out. This just isn't the topic for me. I can'y really grasp or explain what you are trying to discuss.

[greymagick711]

In the case of your quote A belief without an action, doesn't exist and an action without a belief has no right to exist the right to believe seems a lot like the right to freedom of expression.

A university is definitely a place that shouldn't ignore extremists' opinions for, at the least, two basic reasons. (Mm..yeah, my opinions mostly: )The first reason is for safety. Extremist methods could be one reason for their namesake. The second reason is that universities give a liberal, free-thinking opportunity to students to acquaint themselves with different views. Nothing should be totally barred.

On the other hand, there are times where belief pushes actions too far. Like skin heads. Or even PETA. Or religion.

Meh...would say more, but I am le tired.

[Draconia Dominus]

I think that people should be able to express their opinions freely, provided it is done so in a 'civil' way. People need to realise that opinions are opinions, and everyone is entitled to them.

[Fat1Fared]

GM I have no idea how or why you came to such conclusion on life, so cannot comment there, but I personally feel that black and white views will never work, because always need balance, I just think the balance is not right here, however that is just my belief.
=(as for what debating here, you guys are seriously over complicating it, it is basically what it is, which is a right to believe and express that belief, how far can it go?
-if you want to get technical, then look at the European Convention of Human Rights, positive fundamental rights and see this is simply including all of them in one word, as seemed convulted to say, the right to assembly, association, expression, information, speech, religion, faith, family, private acts.....etc
-think made my point here, this is the to expression, it is also just including lot of other positive rights too, there is no real right to belief, because they split it up mostly when made all these Human Rights conventions, however I thought most people would realise I was not being that clever with use of term belief, just lazy, however suppose should have realised poeple would have to over-analyse that point, people cannot help themselves. The best thing is, despite saying how confusing this simple point is, your talking about generally what I wanted to talk about lol)

DD short and correct in my opinion lol ^_-

Gray I agree and that is why I said we should have rules on the actions they can do when do express themselves IE obvious ones being no fighting and expressing these beliefs in a controlled manor in area where univeristy could make sure it was actually debating or anylising their beliefs, not just allowing them to threaten poeple, but truth is the threat is normally over played as these poeple have nothing to gain by kicking in the heads of several students, they want the students to agree with them and if is violence, more chance they will be attacked than the attacker, <which was valid concern someone brought up, because their safety should be considered, no matter what belief>

[AdjacentOrigin]

People regardless of creed or background should be allowed to say anything they want. We must always seek to preserve our freedoms and liberties. However, if extremists decide to say mocking and hurtful things about recent loss of life, then they shouldn't be surprised if they're confronted (Westboro Baptist Church).