Cyprus-Forum.com

by **Schnauzer** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 11:00 am

cyprusgrump wrote:
Schnauzer wrote:
Schnauzer wrote: Particularly after a few drinks.

cyprusgrump wrote: Once we give certain groups the 'right' to be insulted we give away our right to free speech...

Can't quite grasp the sense of the last line of your response, unless you had one or two before writing it.

I'd have thought it was quite obvious...

Say somebody makes a joke about ginger headed people and a ginger complains... It happens by the way...

The correct response is 'get over it - it is just words'. But if you uphold the complaint you then restrict the freedom of people to make hinger jokes...

It is a trivial example, but once you start where do you stop?

It would appear that it was myself that had one or two before 'reading' it......................BUT,

What threw me was your earlier comment :- "Once we give certain groups the 'right' NOT to be insulted we throw away our right to free speech".

Therefore, in the final analysis, whether or NOT we grant the 'right' to be insulted we give away our right to free speech.

Now, does that mean we are free to insult OR forbidden to do so (if we wish to maintain/defend our 'right' to free speech) ?.

A suitable topic for an 'After Dinner' conversation methinks, what say you ?. :lol:

by **cyprusgrump** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:09 pm

Schnauzer wrote:
cyprusgrump wrote:
Schnauzer wrote:
Schnauzer wrote: Particularly after a few drinks.

cyprusgrump wrote: Once we give certain groups the 'right' to be insulted we give away our right to free speech...

Can't quite grasp the sense of the last line of your response, unless you had one or two before writing it.

I'd have thought it was quite obvious...

Say somebody makes a joke about ginger headed people and a ginger complains... It happens by the way...

The correct response is 'get over it - it is just words'. But if you uphold the complaint you then restrict the freedom of people to make hinger jokes...

It is a trivial example, but once you start where do you stop?

It would appear that it was myself that had one or two before 'reading' it......................BUT,

What threw me was your earlier comment :- "Once we give certain groups the 'right' NOT to be insulted we throw away our right to free speech".

Therefore, in the final analysis, whether or NOT we grant the 'right' to be insulted we give away our right to free speech.

Now, does that mean we are free to insult OR forbidden to do so (if we wish to maintain/defend our 'right' to free speech) ?.

A suitable topic for an 'After Dinner' conversation methinks, what say you ?.

After dinner sounds good...

Perhaps I wasn't consistent with my terminology...

I would say you do NOT have the right NOT to be insulted. I.e. I am free to insult you or your beliefs... Therefore I have free speech....

If you DO have the right NOT to be insulted I am not allowed to insult you - my right to free speech is curtailed.

by **B25** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:39 pm

CG, I think you should change the word 'Insulted' to 'Challenged'.

Insulted conjurs confrontation. If a challenge insults you, that another matter, but outright Insults is something different.

by **cyprusgrump** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:03 pm

B25 wrote:CG, I think you should change the word 'Insulted' to 'Challenged'.

Insulted conjurs confrontation. If a challenge insults you, that another matter, but outright Insults is something different.

Well...

My thoughts are the same really...

If I insult somebody because they are black or ginger or fat or whatever... that isn't a nice thing to do, agreed (and I would never do such a thing)...

But if I am prevented from doing so that impacts on my right to free speech.

Free speech allows you to say what you like - and everybody else to do the same. Unfortunately, you have to accept that things others say are sometimes going to be insulting, confrontational and perhaps even disgusting because they have different beliefs and views to you... But free speech is for everybody and you have to accept that...

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:20 pm

You cannot insult someone if, for example, you point out they are fat (and not cuddly) if that is the truth. You might hurt them - their feelings. But they cannot complain it as an "insult" otherwise they have a problem with hearing the truth. In which case they have the choice to diet.

Same with the Turks in this topic. If they don't want to be depicted as aggressors they should return the stuff they have taken by force - like Hagia Sofia and its territory.

by **cyprusgrump** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:39 pm

GreekIslandGirl wrote:You cannot insult someone if, for example, you point out they are fat (and not cuddly) if that is the truth. You might hurt them - their feelings. But they cannot complain it as an "insult" otherwise they have a problem with hearing the truth. In which case they have the choice to diet.

Same with the Turks in this topic. If they don't want to be depicted as aggressors they should return the stuff they have taken by force - like Hagia Sofia and its territory.

But the problem is that we are now living in a society where more and more people complain that they have been insulted... and more often than not an apology is forthcoming...

Worse still, the righteous like to complain on behalf of others that MIGHT be insulted... So you get the case of somebody complaining about a Gollywog in a shop window just in case some black people find it offensive...

by **Sotos** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:40 pm

The real question is who is behind this? Lego for the promotion of their toys or the Tourism Agency of Turkey?

by **cyprusgrump** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:46 pm

Sotos wrote:The real question is who is behind this? Lego for the promotion of their toys or the Tourism Agency of Turkey?

by **GreekIslandGirl** » Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:11 pm

cyprusgrump wrote:
GreekIslandGirl wrote:You cannot insult someone if, for example, you point out they are fat (and not cuddly) if that is the truth. You might hurt them - their feelings. But they cannot complain it as an "insult" otherwise they have a problem with hearing the truth. In which case they have the choice to diet.

Same with the Turks in this topic. If they don't want to be depicted as aggressors they should return the stuff they have taken by force - like Hagia Sofia and its territory.

But the problem is that we are now living in a society where more and more people complain that they have been insulted... and more often than not an apology is forthcoming...

Worse still, the righteous like to complain on behalf of others that MIGHT be insulted... So you get the case of somebody complaining about a Gollywog in a shop window just in case some black people find it offensive...

I don't know if people complain more about being insulted - after all, many a dual was fought at dawn to restore one's character after insult.

And many a dual was fought on behalf of a maiden's good name. Nights in shining armour fought for the rights of others, over eons. Methinks, nought much has changed but our ability to insult on the Net ...