Turkey |
|
|
|
|
|
A HISTORICAL NAVAL TREATY
|
| 110. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 03:48 pm |
|
Quote:
Please note the the first amendment only applies to the US. |
Thanks AEnigma. My purpose was to try and illustrate how different phrases can mean different things depending on where one lives or ones point of view. Your contribution has helped.
|
|
| 111. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 04:00 pm |
|
I think we would agree that we all have a duty to learn and, wherever possible, act on what we find out, where necessary.
On the subject of slavery, I am more interested in the present and the following link gives each and everyone of us (whatever our political, cultural or religious persuasion)an opportunity to make a difference. Some may have already acted.
http://www.stopthetraffik.org/chocolatecampaign/
So, it's possible we are all contributing to slavery, consciously or not. Well who ever reds this is now conscious of it.
Divine chocolate is widely available in the UK now but I don't know about elsewhere. Green and Blacks do one line of Fairtrade chocolate . . . it is the Maya Gold flavour. If you don't live where alternatives are available well, there's always chewing gum 
|
|
| 112. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 07:44 pm |
|
Quoting catwoman: ..... We have this idea here of "freedom of thought" and "freedom of speech". Sure, I won't change your country, but I can say whatever I think about it. |
And you sure do! I just wonder what your point is. I did not become a member here to hear insults and continual diatribes against Turkish culture. You provoke negative responses. Just what is the point?
If you are so concerned about human rights why don't you actually do something constructive, like loan some of your abundant energy to some of the anti-human trafficking organizations?
As to your being able to "say whatever you think"
Restrictions on Freedom of speech
Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'free speech' it has been argued that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. A well-known example is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" (Schenck v. United States - a case relating to the distribution of anti-draft fliers during the World War I). Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action". To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a government proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.[1]
Also Hate Speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
|
|
| 113. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 08:04 pm |
|
Aenigma III,
If i could know how ridicilous opinions you have , i would spelled them all out. When you said that you defend all the WEST , so why France is beyond your scope ? Isn't it in the WEST ? Or you have different aim, by hiding behind this freedom of expession in Turkey ?
Here's what you typed :
In other democratic countries there is no responsibility of the 'state' to decide on the control of Freedom of Speech, unlike the US.
That's why i referred France. Or in Germany, talk about Jew Genocide, You would find yourself in jail. What is the power that put the people in jail on those countries ? it is STATE.
Finally, read below twice :
The European Convention on Human Rights
ARTICLE 10
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
|
|
| 114. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 08:05 pm |
|
Relax Alameda....Believe me, they are no match for you.
|
|
| 115. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 08:28 pm |
|
Quoting alameda: Quoting catwoman: ..... We have this idea here of "freedom of thought" and "freedom of speech". Sure, I won't change your country, but I can say whatever I think about it. |
And you sure do! I just wonder what your point is. I did not become a member here to hear insults and continual diatribes against Turkish culture. You provoke negative responses. Just what is the point?
If you are so concerned about human rights why don't you actually do something constructive, like loan some of your abundant energy to some of the anti-human trafficking organizations?
Thank you Alameda.
I think anyone who is suffering opression in the world right now would certainly appreciate a few minutes of an individual's time to their cause rather than hours spent abusing what freedom of speech they have. There is an old saying "actions speak louder than words". Of course we are not to know what good deeds TC members do, that is a private matter, not to be bragged about but whatever good they do in private, it doesn't give them the right to criticise/insult (whatever word you want to use, the result is the same . . . mud pie). If the defense is "well we are only defending ourselves" then be the better person and walk away . . . don't rise to it.
You are (all of you on all sides) perpetuating any conceptions or misconceptions you have about each other.
Almeda, you have tried your best, but I can't help thinking you will get some scornful responses . . . mind you . . . now I say that, maybe you won't . . . there are some contrary people out there.
|
|
|
| 116. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 08:28 pm |
|
We have a saying here in Turkey.
Herşeyi Kendine Yontmak.
you as a turkish learner, look up what it means for.
|
|
| 117. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 08:47 pm |
|
Almeda, I just read my post back and it reads as though I am referring to you in my criticism. I'm not, I just carried away on the soap box. I hope you realised my mistake.
|
|
| 118. |
30 Dec 2007 Sun 09:07 pm |
|
Quoting peace train: Almeda, I just read my post back and it reads as though I am referring to you in my criticism. I'm not, I just carried away on the soap box. I hope you realised my mistake. |
No problem peace train....I'm not that thin skinned. In fact I agree with the tone of your post. Welcome to Turkish Language Class by the way.
I've (sadly) gotten used to the silly personal attacks.
|
|
| 119. |
31 Dec 2007 Mon 12:01 am |
|
Quoting alameda: Quoting peace train: Almeda, I just read my post back and it reads as though I am referring to you in my criticism. I'm not, I just carried away on the soap box. I hope you realised my mistake. |
No problem peace train....I'm not that thin skinned. In fact I agree with the tone of your post. Welcome to Turkish Language Class by the way.
I've (sadly) gotten used to the silly personal attacks. |
Interesting enough, you are one of the worst instagators here..You know exactely what I mean! So, please don't act like you don't take part in personal attacks...you are not so innocent Alameda. You raise many sensitive issues, just sitting back waiting for a reaction. What would you call this?
|
|
| 120. |
31 Dec 2007 Mon 12:33 am |
|
Excuse me teaschip1.....if this is true kindly show your evidence. On another note, as you have noted, I always show my sources....much to your dismay so it seems. I have never instigated a personal attack. I only respond.....and not anywhere near to as many attacks on me as you and your friends have made.
As I don't want to dignify your post any further than this or get into personal attacks which are of no interest to the members here, this will be my only response. However, note I do see your silly attempts to discredit me.
Quoting teaschip1: ...........Interesting enough, you are one of the worst instagators here..You know exactely what I mean! So, please don't act like you don't take part in personal attacks...you are not so innocent Alameda. You raise many sensitive issues, just sitting back waiting for a reaction. What would you call this? |
|
|
|
