tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6522391405819961607.post2438955589505648435..comments2023-07-06T16:54:50.444+01:00Comments on Stam's Blog: Islam vs USAStamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09237569927987933875noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6522391405819961607.post-64511171586008229482010-03-24T12:46:42.909+00:002010-03-24T12:46:42.909+00:00Hi Andrej
Thank you for your comments. In my blog...Hi Andrej<br /><br />Thank you for your comments. In my blog I stated that I was only against 'absolute freedom of speech' not 'freedom of speech'. Maybe I did not make clear what I meant by that.<br /><br />Basically, I am all for freedom of speech, however not for freedom to incite hatred, making racist comments, etc...Therefore, I have no problem with someone stating an opinion even though it is not based on facts...but I do not want to have someone saying 'kill this' and 'hate that', which is were the term 'absolute' comes in.Stamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09237569927987933875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6522391405819961607.post-48794247067404668642010-03-18T03:35:26.084+00:002010-03-18T03:35:26.084+00:00Excellent blog!
Only one comment though, regardin...Excellent blog!<br /><br />Only one comment though, regarding your opposition to the "absolute freedom of speech".<br /><br />Limiting free speech to only "proven" facts would be the end of free speech! How come?<br /><br />Well,as any lawyer, matamatician, philosoph, or scientist will tell you, proving anything is literally impossible!<br />There is always a percentage, smaller or larger, of any proof, that is simply accepted as "true".<br /><br />The law uses two levels of burden of proof,the stronger, "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal cases and the weaker, "balance of probabilities" for civil cases.<br />Neither of these, however, GUARANTEE the proof,and the lawyers will be the first to admit that beyond certain point, the law simply "assumes" certain "accepted" "truths".<br /><br />In mathematics, proving anything requires you to accept certain "axioms" which are unprovable but accepted as "truth".<br /><br />In science, every so many years the "accepted and proven theories" get proven to be "not so true"...<br /><br />So in eliminating "unproven" claims from free speech, we would be left with only the facts accepted as "true" by "the legal system" or by "the society" or by "the science"....<br /><br />There would be, thus, no value in having "free speech" if you could only say what is already "known" or "accepted".<br /><br />It would simply be called "education", which of course, has its values, but is "by definition" not "free speech".<br /><br />Without the option to say that which is not already known or accepted as "the truth", free speech becomes useless and extinct and becomes education, doctrine, religion, journalism...or one of numerous other vehicles for transfer of "accepted" knowledge.!<br /><br />Yes,of course, there might be a risk of somebody falsely accusing you of terrible crimes, but the benefits of "absolute free speech" for the development of humanity and its ideas surely outweigh the risk of occasional wrong accusation (unless it happens to me ,of course!!!) (just joking!)<br /><br />Especially keeping in mind that any such "victim" could use the very same tool of "absolute free speech" to launch their defence or a verbal "counter attack".<br /><br />No wonder that a very clever man once said:<br />"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."<br /><br />What do you think?<br />AndrejAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6522391405819961607.post-5725550635955298222010-03-14T22:56:39.496+00:002010-03-14T22:56:39.496+00:00Hi there, I enjoyed every bit of your blog and goo...Hi there, I enjoyed every bit of your blog and good work there mate. I must also not fail to tell you that the US even though biased in their dealings in world affairs, they have in a way been able to keep this world of ours as one and in peace to an extent. You can imagine what countries like Russia, Germany, China etc would have done to smaller countries of this world. The US in my opinion have been able to keep these countries at bay from taking over the smaller ones. The US is as corrupt and biased as any other Nation you have mentioned above but in a way if you believe in God I think God is using them as the world police, to check on the negative and dangerous activities of war hungry nations like Iran, Iraq etc. I will use my country Nigeria as a case study. In all the places (Christian)states, the few muslims that live there want to possess and occupy the lands there by hook or crook. They have succeeded in creating more harm than good in most peaceful states in Nigeria. Recently, I'm sure you've heard of the Jos crisis? Jos is predominantly a Christian state with more than 99% population being Christians. Muslims went their as coal miners in the 50's and now they are claiming part of that state as theirs and have since engaged that peaceful state in a blood bath of recent. I am sure if you check on the meaning of Islam you will understand why Islam as a religion does not preach peace but violence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com