He mentioned it in a jovial mood, and if you start to dissect everything a person says, you can find a lot of faults ..Brah wrote:I am not one to publicly argue religion or politics, and I refuse to allow myself to be boxed into either left/right corners, and I am admittedly ignorant of the reputation of the source though I stop by their website from time to time, but this article said something like what I was thinking after hearing the first thing that from him that I disagreed with.
Oh yes, you can. You may not choose to. It may not be wise or polite or kind – but you can.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rlie-hebdo
iecureilx wrote:He mentioned it in a jovial mood, and if you start to dissect everything a person says, you can find a lot of faults ..Brah wrote:I am not one to publicly argue religion or politics, and I refuse to allow myself to be boxed into either left/right corners, and I am admittedly ignorant of the reputation of the source though I stop by their website from time to time, but this article said something like what I was thinking after hearing the first thing that from him that I disagreed with.
Oh yes, you can. You may not choose to. It may not be wise or polite or kind – but you can.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... rlie-hebdo
PNGMK wrote:I love the Guardian.
While I support the freedom of expression, I also support responsible expression.Brah wrote:In this case, I will quote one of our own, who said this better than I could myself:
Neither the Pope nor a bunch of armed thugs have the right to dictate what can or cannot be printed. Personally I don't like some of the imagery used by Charlie Hebdo, but I defend their right to freedom of expression within the limits that have been laid down by a society.
Brah wrote:Well this is interesting and what I somewhat expected, regarding the credibility of the paper and writer.
A place like the States is at least if not more divided than the UK with the left and the right backed into their respective corners, and I always question anything extremist. At the same time, I have to catch myself from disregarding all perspectives from even them as sometimes they have a point.
In this case, I will quote one of our own, who said this better than I could myself:
Neither the Pope nor a bunch of armed thugs have the right to dictate what can or cannot be printed. Personally I don't like some of the imagery used by Charlie Hebdo, but I defend their right to freedom of expression within the limits that have been laid down by a society.
Hey, I recognise that textthe lynx wrote:While I support the freedom of expression, I also support responsible expression.Brah wrote:In this case, I will quote one of our own, who said this better than I could myself:
Neither the Pope nor a bunch of armed thugs have the right to dictate what can or cannot be printed. Personally I don't like some of the imagery used by Charlie Hebdo, but I defend their right to freedom of expression within the limits that have been laid down by a society.
"...within the limits that have been laid down by a society."
What are the limits?
Or should I refer this question to the person who quoted this line?
No - because they are a voice from the other side. The MSM is pretty much controlled by Murdoch and a few others - the guardian not so.JR8 wrote:PNGMK wrote:I love the Guardian.
Because.... you're a left-wing metropolitan gay minority-race otherly-abled public-sector worker?![]()
As is the Daily Worker, but I don't read that either and for similar reasonsPNGMK wrote:No - because they are a voice from the other side.
I'm not sure what influence Murdoch has over most people. I think I'd have to pay to access any of his media, so by default I don't.The MSM is pretty much controlled by Murdoch and a few others - the guardian not so.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests