Here in the USA we can learn from the UK

[DebateChallenge]

You obviously hate freedom.

If anybody hates freedom it's you.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Nope. Have you never heard of the Continental Army ?

What about it?

Also the USA was ably assisted by France - which is why France is the USA's oldest ally.

That's beside the point.

 

[jaeger19]

Hate Speech laws around the world prove otherwise, plus you've been given an objective definition.



Including the right to harm others with hate speech
As befits someone who thinks torture is "civilized" behavior.



Let's see:
1. You claim to be a practicing doctor
2. You claim to have an inter-racial marriage
3. You claim to have children
4. You claim to speak French and Spanish
5. You claim to have employees
6. You claim to live on a livestock farm, which you claim to own
7. You claim to have been a gun store owner
8. You claim to have been a former
8.1 Policeman
8.2 Nightclub bouncer
8.3 MMA fighter

I'm not even sure you're a gun owner.



You think Cuba is "civilized" or are you saying now that you don't like civilized societies ?



So the problem is that you either reply to posts without reading them, or just lack comprehension skills.



"common sense" is NOT just your opinion.

1. Nope. They were subjective.
2. Define "harm".
3. Rich.. for the life if me..I can't figure why you think my history is so extraordinary.
I know plenty of people that have such experience.

4. Rich. The uk has a long history of torture. ..

5. Wtf are you talking about?
6. Nope. I just like callig ou on your bs.
7. You are welcome to explain what you think banning white supremacist material from people that are are already avowed white supremacist will accomplish.

 

[Rich2018]

They were subjective.

Laws are objective (US Constitution excepted)
The definition you've been given is in no way "subjective".

Define "harm".

Definition of HARM

physical or mental damage : injury; mischief, hurt… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

...for the life if me..I can't figure why you think my history is so extraordinary.

It's not, merely that your stories about it are at best "imaginary".

The uk has a long history of torture.

You said that Cuba is "civilized", yet STILL routinely employs torture
QED: you love states that employ torture, like Cuba, and the USA with its coerced "confessions".

I just like callig ou on your bs.

Coming from you with your tall tales, that is actually quite funny.

You are welcome to explain what you think banning white supremacist material from people that are are already avowed white supremacist will accomplish.

I already did, and you already admitted that you either didn't read it properly or simply lack the ability to comprehend.

 

[jaeger19]

Laws are objective (US Constitution excepted)
The definition you've been given is in no way "subjective".

Definition of HARM

physical or mental damage : injury; mischief, hurt… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

It's not, merely that your stories about it are at best "imaginary".



You said that Cuba is "civilized", yet STILL routinely employs torture
QED: you love states that employ torture, like Cuba, and the USA with its coerced "confessions".



Coming from you with your tall tales, that is actually quite funny.



I already did, and you already admitted that you either didn't read it properly or simply lack the ability to comprehend.

1. Hate speech laws are subjective. The same with lewdness laws or obscenity laws.
2. Cool. Tell me how you objectively measure mental harm and whether it's occurred.
3. Well..if it's not exceptional.. why would you consider it imaginary?
Huh? Please explain in detail.

4. Yes. However..I guess we should conclude the uk is not civilized.

Accountability, denial and the future-proofing of British torture

Abstract. When powerful liberal democratic states are found to be complicit in extreme violations of human rights, how do they respond and why do they resp

academic.oup.com

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2230.12578

5. Nope. I read it properly. It simply didn't explain squat.

 

[RF667799]

Hate Speech laws around the world prove otherwise, plus you've been given an objective definition.



Including the right to harm others with hate speech
As befits someone who thinks torture is "civilized" behavior.



Let's see:
1. You claim to be a practicing doctor
2. You claim to have an inter-racial marriage
3. You claim to have children
4. You claim to speak French and Spanish
5. You claim to have employees
6. You claim to live on a livestock farm, which you claim to own
7. You claim to have been a gun store owner
8. You claim to have been a former
8.1 Policeman
8.2 Nightclub bouncer
8.3 MMA fighter

I'm not even sure you're a gun owner.

I've known two doctors who were subdivision developers, and one who owned a rig and drilled wildcat oil wells. One of the doctors who was a subdivision developer, was also a hotel owner. The other one owned a pretty substantial farming operation.

You think Cuba is "civilized" or are you saying now that you don't like civilized societies ?



So the problem is that you either reply to posts without reading them, or just lack comprehension skills.



"common sense" is NOT just your opinion.

 

[Rich2018]

1. Hate speech laws are subjective. The same with lewdness laws or obscenity laws.

Do you actually know any anti-hate speech laws ?
Can you quote any of them ?
I doubt it - you have NO idea what you're talking about.

Tell me how you objectively measure mental harm and whether it's occurred.

Like if a woman complains to the police that he husband had just physically abused her ?
How do the police quantify the harm that she's suffered ?

Ultimately a court will decide the appropriate punishment/compensation. Do you really not know how the criminal justice system works ?

Well..if it's not exceptional.. why would you consider it imaginary?

Because they exist only in your imagination.

Yes. However..I guess we should conclude the uk is not civilized.

You said that:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

And as proof you named just one : Cuba

But Cuba employs torture amongst its many human rights violation. So do you admit you were WRONG when you said that:
1. Cuba is civilized
2. Authoritarian regimes are OFTEN civilized

Or do you have any other examples of "civilized "authoritarian" states ?
Or do you just like countries that employ torture on their people ?

I read it properly. It simply didn't explain squat.

Your posts say otherwise.

 

[RF667799]

Do you actually know any anti-hate speech laws ?
Can you quote any of them ?
I doubt it - you have NO idea what you're talking about.



Like if a woman complains to the police that he husband had just physically abused her ?
How do the police quantify the harm that she's suffered ?

Ultimately a court will decide the appropriate punishment/compensation. Do you really not know how the criminal justice system works ?



Because they exist only in your imagination.



You said that:

And as proof you named just one : Cuba

But Cuba employs torture amongst its many human rights violation. So do you admit you were WRONG when you said that:
1. Cuba is civilized
2. Authoritarian regimes are OFTEN civilized

Or do you have any other examples of "civilized "authoritarian" states ?
Or do you just like countries that employ torture on their people ?



Your posts say otherwise.

Even though at some levels virtually everyone will agree, "torture" is still defined subjectively.

The problem with your arguments is they show no understanding of rights coupled with the democratic process. So your opinions become facts and your whims become things you advocate to be law.

 

[jaeger19]

Do you actually know any anti-hate speech laws ?
Can you quote any of them ?
I doubt it - you have NO idea what you're talking about.



Like if a woman complains to the police that he husband had just physically abused her ?
How do the police quantify the harm that she's suffered ?

Ultimately a court will decide the appropriate punishment/compensation. Do you really not know how the criminal justice system works ?



Because they exist only in your imagination.



You said that:

And as proof you named just one : Cuba

But Cuba employs torture amongst its many human rights violation. So do you admit you were WRONG when you said that:
1. Cuba is civilized
2. Authoritarian regimes are OFTEN civilized

Or do you have any other examples of "civilized "authoritarian" states ?
Or do you just like countries that employ torture on their people ?



Your posts say otherwise.

1. I understand " hate" and lewdness and obscenity laws are all subjective.

2. You can quantify physical harm. " i.e. the woman suffered a broken nose..three broken ribs.. facial edema and eccymosis.

But nice diversion.
I asked you to "Tell me how you objectively measure mental harm and whether it's occurred."

And you diverted to physical harm.

So again tell me how you objectively measure mental harm and whether it's occurred.

You say...but but but a court.
Which means that if someone writes a book that another doesn't like..they can claim..
"I was mentally harmed."..and the writer gets taken to court.

This would greatly curb free speech.

3. You have some proof? Or are you again just doing hate speech?

4. Yes. The uk has recently employed torture among its human right violations
Or are you suggesting the uk isn't a civilized nation?

Accountability, denial and the future-proofing of British torture

Abstract. When powerful liberal democratic states are found to be complicit in extreme violations of human rights, how do they respond and why do they resp

academic.oup.com

5. China.. Russia..Vietnam..Saudi Arabia.

 

[Rich2018]

I understand " hate" and lewdness and obscenity laws are all subjective.

As stated, laws are written to be objective
And objective anti-hate laws exist all around the world

You've been given an objective definition of "Hate Speech"

Therefore it is clearly your "understanding" that is flawed.

You can quantify physical harm. " i.e. the woman suffered a broken nose..three broken ribs.. facial edema and eccymosis.

Go on then quantify the damage of a broken nose
How much "harm" did it cause the victim ? A 4 or 5 out of 10 ?

You are talking nonsense. Only the courts get to decide, not someone like you

The relatives of the Sandy Hook school massacre suffered great harn caused by Alex Jones and his radio show
They were recently awarded $1.5 billion, by a court/jury.

I asked you to "Tell me how you objectively measure mental harm and whether it's occurred.

The same way you "objectively" measure the physical "harm" of a broken nose. On a scale of 1-10, how do you rate a broken nose ?

The uk has recently employed torture among its human right violations

Stop trying to divert.
You said that:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

And as proof you named just ONE : Cuba

But Cuba employs torture amongst its many human rights violation. So do you admit you were WRONG when you said that:
1. Cuba is civilized
2. Authoritarian regimes are OFTEN civilized

Do you have any other examples of "civilized "authoritarian" states ?
Or do you just like countries that employ torture on their people ?

5. China.. Russia..Vietnam..Saudi Arabia.

Are examples of "civilized" authoritarian states ?
Don't make me laugh !!!! (China is probably the biggest violator of human rights in the world)

From the US State Dept, China: "The Chinese Communist Party is waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men, and children, and members of other Turkic Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, China. Documented human rights abuses include coercive population control methods, forced labor, arbitrary detention in internment camps, torture, physical and sexual abuse, mass surveillance, family separation, and repression of cultural and religious expression."

Technical Difficulties

Again from the US State Department, Vietnam: "Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and punishment by government agents; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy..."

Technical Difficulties

Again from the US State Dept, Saudi Arabia

Technical Difficulties

You really like authoritarian states that employ torture don't you ?
Either that or you just don't know WTH you're talking about

Probably both
Do you have any more authoritarian states that you're in love with ?

 

[jaeger19]

As stated, laws are written to be objective
And objective anti-hate laws exist all around the world

You've been given an objective definition of "Hate Speech"

Therefore it is clearly your "understanding" that is flawed.



Go on then quantify the damage of a broken nose
How much "harm" did it cause the victim ? A 4 or 5 out of 10 ?

You are talking nonsense. Only the courts get to decide, not someone like you

The relatives of the Sandy Hook school massacre suffered great harn caused by Alex Jones and his radio show
They were recently awarded $1.5 billion, by a court/jury.



The same way you "objectively" measure the physical "harm" of a broken nose. On a scale of 1-10, how do you rate a broken nose ?



Stop trying to divert.
You said that:

And as proof you named just ONE : Cuba

But Cuba employs torture amongst its many human rights violation. So do you admit you were WRONG when you said that:
1. Cuba is civilized
2. Authoritarian regimes are OFTEN civilized

Do you have any other examples of "civilized "authoritarian" states ?
Or do you just like countries that employ torture on their people ?



Are examples of "civilized" authoritarian states ?
Don't make me laugh !!!! (China is probably the biggest violator of human rights in the world)

From the US State Dept, China: "The Chinese Communist Party is waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men, and children, and members of other Turkic Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, China. Documented human rights abuses include coercive population control methods, forced labor, arbitrary detention in internment camps, torture, physical and sexual abuse, mass surveillance, family separation, and repression of cultural and religious expression."

Technical Difficulties

Again from the US State Department, Vietnam: "Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and punishment by government agents; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy..."

Technical Difficulties

Again from the US State Dept, Saudi Arabia

Technical Difficulties

You really like authoritarian states that employ torture don't you ?
Either that or you just don't know WTH you're talking about

Probably both
Do you have any more authoritarian states that you're in love with ?

1. No. Not all laws. For example hate speech..lewdness laws and obscenity laws.
2. No I have nor been given an objective definition.
3. A fracture of the nose is objective. 3 fractured ribs are objective.
I can see both on an x ray.
Now..how do you objectively determine that mental harm has occured and how much.
4. No divergence. The uk has employed torture..fairly recently.
Are you saying the uk isn't civilized. ?

British torture in the 'war on terror' - PubMed

Despite long-standing allegations of UK involvement in prisoner abuse during counterterrorism operations as part of the US-led 'war on terror', a consistent narrative emanating from British government officials is that Britain neither uses, condones nor facilitates torture or other cruel...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Rich2018]

Not all laws. For example hate speech..lewdness laws and obscenity laws.

Yes ALL laws - including those concerning "hate speech"

Plus you have the objective definition of "hate speech" from the UN

As I said, you have no idea what you're talking about, but go on, cite me a "Hate Speech" law, and quote the bit the YOU think is subjective.

I have nor been given an objective definition.

A blatant lie - see post#558
Or are you just too lazy to read it ?

A fracture of the nose is objective. 3 fractured ribs are objective.

Go on then, on a scale of 1-10, quantify the harm of a broken nose.

Now..how do you objectively determine that mental harm has occured and how much.

The same way that you quantify the amount of harm from a broken nose

The courts decide.

4. No divergence. The uk has employed torture..fairly recently.

You said that:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

You gave as an example Cuba, then China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. As show, these regimes are indeed authoritaran, but commit multiple human rights violations
The fact that you mention China as a "civilized" authoritarian state takes the biscuit and PROVES that you have absolutely no clue WTH you're talking about !!!!!!

That and you must really love authoritarian states that employ torture on their own people

Quite consistent for a guy who likes hate speech

I guess you don't have any more examples after I used the US State Department's own verdicts on the "civilized" nations that you apparently so love

Or do you wish to admit that authoritarian regimes are NOT often " civilized" ?

 

[RF667799]

As stated, laws are written to be objective
And objective anti-hate laws exist all around the world

You've been given an objective definition of "Hate Speech"

Therefore it is clearly your "understanding" that is flawed.



Go on then quantify the damage of a broken nose
How much "harm" did it cause the victim ? A 4 or 5 out of 10 ?

You are talking nonsense. Only the courts get to decide, not someone like you

The relatives of the Sandy Hook school massacre suffered great harn caused by Alex Jones and his radio show
They were recently awarded $1.5 billion, by a court/jury.



The same way you "objectively" measure the physical "harm" of a broken nose. On a scale of 1-10, how do you rate a broken nose ?



Stop trying to divert.
You said that:

And as proof you named just ONE : Cuba

But Cuba employs torture amongst its many human rights violation. So do you admit you were WRONG when you said that:
1. Cuba is civilized
2. Authoritarian regimes are OFTEN civilized

Do you have any other examples of "civilized "authoritarian" states ?
Or do you just like countries that employ torture on their people ?

Their courts got to decide that, not someone like you.

Are examples of "civilized" authoritarian states ?
Don't make me laugh !!!! (China is probably the biggest violator of human rights in the world)

From the US State Dept, China: "The Chinese Communist Party is waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men, and children, and members of other Turkic Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, China. Documented human rights abuses include coercive population control methods, forced labor, arbitrary detention in internment camps, torture, physical and sexual abuse, mass surveillance, family separation, and repression of cultural and religious expression."

Technical Difficulties

Again from the US State Department, Vietnam: "Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings by the government; torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and punishment by government agents; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy..."

Technical Difficulties

Again from the US State Dept, Saudi Arabia

Technical Difficulties

You really like authoritarian states that employ torture don't you ?
Either that or you just don't know WTH you're talking about

Probably both
Do you have any more authoritarian states that you're in love with ?

 

[jaeger19]

Yes ALL laws - including those concerning "hate speech"

Plus you have the objective definition of "hate speech" from the UN

As I said, you have no idea what you're talking about, but go on, cite me a "Hate Speech" law, and quote the bit the YOU think is subjective.



A blatant lie - see post#558
Or are you just too lazy to read it ?



Go on then, on a scale of 1-10, quantify the harm of a broken nose.



The same way that you quantify the amount of harm from a broken nose

The courts decide.



You said that:

You gave as an example Cuba, then China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. As show, these regimes are indeed authoritaran, but commit multiple human rights violations
The fact that you mention China as a "civilized" authoritarian state takes the biscuit and PROVES that you have absolutely no clue WTH you're talking about !!!!!!

That and you must really love authoritarian states that employ torture on their own people

Quite consistent for a guy who likes hate speech

I guess you don't have any more examples after I used the US State Department's own verdicts on the "civilized" nations that you apparently so love

Or do you wish to admit that authoritarian regimes are NOT often " civilized" ?

1. Nope.
2. From the un.
"There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what
is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group
on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality,
race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor"

Objectively define pejorative and discriminatory language.

Cripes..even the un states what's " hateful"
Is controversial and disputed.
Hardly objective is it.?

3. A broken nose you ridiculous dude is already objective. It's verifiable on x ray.
But it can be further quantified by the extent of the fracture..quantified by the amout of displacement of the bone.
Etc.

Can you do the same thing with mental harm?
Obviously you can't.
So stop your bs


4. Umm rich..you keep ignoring that the uk has recently used and facilitated torture in the war on terror.
Do you contend that it's not a civilized nation?

Seems to me rich..your definitions of civilized are just as weak as your definition of " Hate speech".
Your definition seems pretty subjective..
If torture disqualifies China from being civilized..
Why isn't the uk also disqualified from being civilized. ?

Please explain.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope.

So you can't cite a "Hate Speech" law, and quote the bit the YOU think is subjective
As usual, just your worthless opinion.

From the un.
"There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what
is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed. In the context of this document, the term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group
on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality,
race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor"

Objectively define pejorative and discriminatory language.

So now you're admitting that you DID receive an objective definition

Language assigning negative qualities to a minority group. Is that clear enough for you ?

A broken nose you ridiculous dude is already objective. It's verifiable on x ray.

As I said - go on then, on a scale of 1-10, please rate the harm of receiving a broken nose.

But it can be further quantified by the extent of the fracture..quantified by the amout of displacement of the bone

And that adjust the rating of the harm received, how exactly ?
You really don't know what you're talking about - what, in your "medical" opinion, if the OBJECTIVE difference in the level of harm received between a broken nose and a broken tooth or a broken leg
Please cite the quantitative differences, in your opinion.

...you keep ignoring that the uk

Er no. You said that:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

You gave as an example Cuba, then China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. As show, these regimes are indeed authoritaran, but commit multiple human rights violations
The fact that you mention China as a "civilized" authoritarian state takes the biscuit and PROVES that you have absolutely no clue WTH you're talking about !!!!!!

That and you must really love authoritarian states that employ torture on their own people

Quite consistent for a guy who likes hate speech

I guess you don't have any more examples after I used the US State Department's own verdicts on the "civilized" nations that you apparently so love

Do you still stand by your stupid assertion that authoritarian regimes are often " civilized" ?
Or has the State Departments own website dissuaded you from such a stupid assertion ?

 

[jaeger19]

So you can't cite a "Hate Speech" law, and quote the bit the YOU think is subjective
As usual, just your worthless opinion.



So now you're admitting that you DID receive an objective definition

Language assigning negative qualities to a minority group. Is that clear enough for you ?



As I said - go on then, on a scale of 1-10, please rate the harm of receiving a broken nose.



And that adjust the rating of the harm received, how exactly ?
You really don't know what you're talking about - what, in your "medical" opinion, if the OBJECTIVE difference in the level of harm received between a broken nose and a broken tooth or a broken leg
Please cite the quantitative differences, in your opinion.



Er no. You said that:

You gave as an example Cuba, then China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. As show, these regimes are indeed authoritaran, but commit multiple human rights violations
The fact that you mention China as a "civilized" authoritarian state takes the biscuit and PROVES that you have absolutely no clue WTH you're talking about !!!!!!

That and you must really love authoritarian states that employ torture on their own people

Quite consistent for a guy who likes hate speech

I guess you don't have any more examples after I used the US State Department's own verdicts on the "civilized" nations that you apparently so love

Do you still stand by your stupid assertion that authoritarian regimes are often " civilized" ?
Or has the State Departments own website dissuaded you from such a stupid assertion ?

1. Rich. You realize even the UN writing noted that " hate" was not clearly defined.
Sure..define " negative" exactly.
An Asian comedian says " Asian drivers..no survivors".
Should they be arrested and jailed for hate speech?
A black person protesting police abuse says " white cops are racist".
Should he be jailed for hate speech?

2. Why? A broken nose is ALREADY objective. It can be viewed..it can be quantified.
I suppose you could make an objective scale of 1 to 10 out of how much fracturing or displacement of the nasal bones.

You can't do such with " mental harm".

3. A broken tooth a broken femur or a broken nose can all be quantified and objectively measured.
How do you measure " mental harm".
What x ray..what imaging confirms that it has occured?

4. I guess you will keep diverting from acknowledging that based on your own definition of civilized...tge UK is not a civilized nation.

I don't believe the definition of a civilized nation is simply whether they " torture".

A civilized nation is one in which.
1. There is complex social structure with established institutions and hierarchies. They have systems of governance, laws, and regulations to maintain order and ensure the well-being of their members.

2. There is a higher levels of technological advancement. They have developed tools, infrastructure, and systems that improve the quality of life and facilitate various aspects of daily living, such as transportation, communication, and healthcare.

3.There is wide range of cultural practices and traditions that have developed over time. These can include art, literature, music, cuisine, and religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

[Rich2018]

1. Rich. You realize even the UN writing noted that " hate" was not clearly defined.

It is clear enough.

A black person protesting police abuse says " white cops are racist".
Should he be jailed for hate speech?

No, because the evidence suggests that he's speaking the truth.

A broken nose is ALREADY objective. It can be viewed..it can be quantified.
I suppose you could make an objective scale of 1 to 10 out of how much fracturing or displacement of the nasal bones.

And distress caused by hate speech is
The question I asked you is how do you rate, on a scale, 1-10 the "harm" caused by a broken nose
Versus the "harm" caused by hate speech ?

A court recently fined Alex Jones $1.5billion for his hate speech and lies towards the Sandy Hook school massacre relatives/survivors.

So come on, if a broken nose is so objective in your mind, what value harm, 1-10, would you rate it ?
(that you can see a broken nose, but not mental distress, makes no difference - personal harm is caused by both)

You can't do such with " mental harm".

Spoken lie a truly ignorant person regarding medicine, and conclusive proof that your claim to be a doctor is just a pack of lies).

I guess you will keep diverting from acknowledging that based on your own definition of civilized...tge UK is not a civilized nation.

Jaeger, FOCUS
YOU said:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages

So, do you with to retract your BS assertion, or do you want to admit your love for authoritarian regimes ?

I don't believe the definition of a civilized nation is simply whether they " torture".

So you contest the US State Departments web pages detailing the many (especially China) human rights violations of yur beloved authoritarian regimes ?

 

[RF667799]

It is clear enough.



No, because the evidence suggests that he's speaking the truth.

Well that might be the most stupid statement I'll see all day.

And distress caused by hate speech is
The question I asked you is how do you rate, on a scale, 1-10 the "harm" caused by a broken nose
Versus the "harm" caused by hate speech ?

A court recently fined Alex Jones $1.5billion for his hate speech and lies towards the Sandy Hook school massacre relatives/survivors.

So come on, if a broken nose is so objective in your mind, what value harm, 1-10, would you rate it ?
(that you can see a broken nose, but not mental distress, makes no difference - personal harm is caused by both)



Spoken lie a truly ignorant person regarding medicine, and conclusive proof that your claim to be a doctor is just a pack of lies).



Jaeger, FOCUS
YOU said:


Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages

So, do you with to retract your BS assertion, or do you want to admit your love for authoritarian regimes ?



So you contest the US State Departments web pages detailing the many (especially China) human rights violations of yur beloved authoritarian regimes ?

 

[jaeger19]

It is clear enough.



No, because the evidence suggests that he's speaking the truth.



And distress caused by hate speech is
The question I asked you is how do you rate, on a scale, 1-10 the "harm" caused by a broken nose
Versus the "harm" caused by hate speech ?

A court recently fined Alex Jones $1.5billion for his hate speech and lies towards the Sandy Hook school massacre relatives/survivors.

So come on, if a broken nose is so objective in your mind, what value harm, 1-10, would you rate it ?
(that you can see a broken nose, but not mental distress, makes no difference - personal harm is caused by both)



Spoken lie a truly ignorant person regarding medicine, and conclusive proof that your claim to be a doctor is just a pack of lies).



Jaeger, FOCUS
YOU said:


Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages

So, do you with to retract your BS assertion, or do you want to admit your love for authoritarian regimes ?



So you contest the US State Departments web pages detailing the many (especially China) human rights violations of yur beloved authoritarian regimes ?

1. Great..then define it exactly.
2. Really. You have evidence that all white cops are racist? Do tell.
And how about tge Asian comedian saying " Asian drivers no survivor".

Should he be arrested for hate speech?
Or do you think he is also being factual?

3. Right. I can quantify a broken nose easily based on fracture size and bone movement. Based on x ray or CT.

Your but but "1 -10 is meaningless."
How do you measure mental harm objectively?

No..I do understand the difference in objectively measuring a fractured nasal bone(s,)
And measuring a person's " mental harm"
Especially from "hate speech".

You however have no clue which is why you can't answer.

4. No nothing i said was rebutted by the us state department..
If you believe that ....then you must also believe that the torture perpetrated and facilitated by the uk means the uk is not a civilized nation.

Seriously dude.." love for authoritarian regimes".?
Just more of your desperation.

Lmao.

 

[Rich2018]

Great..then define it exactly.

There are anti-hate laws from countries all around the globe. You said those laws are subjective, I challenged you to cite such a law and quote the bit from it that was subjective, in your opinion
And surprise, surprise, you went completely silent.

You have evidence that all white cops are racist? Do tell.

I didn't say all. And even if the man did, it wouldn't qualify as hate speech.

Should he be arrested for hate speech?
Or do you think he is also being factual?

Is he an Asian himself ?

I can quantify a broken nose easily based on fracture size and bone movement. Based on x ray or CT.

Your but but "1 -10 is meaningless."
How do you measure mental harm objectively?

Go on then, objectively quantify the harm inflicted from a broken nose, on a scale 1-10
Or do you not understand what QUANTIFY means ?

4. No nothing i said was rebutted by the us state department..

You said:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages by detailing the many human rights violations in those countries, up to and including torture

You are quite the authoritarian aren't you jaeger, being in love with so many authoritarian regimes, with so many humans rights violations ?
I guess you just don't care for human rights.

 

[RF667799]

There are anti-hate laws from countries all around the globe. You said those laws are subjective, I challenged you to cite such a law and quote the bit from it that was subjective, in your opinion
And surprise, surprise, you went completely silent.




I didn't say all. And even if the man did, it wouldn't qualify as hate speech.

You don't have to say "all" when you state it as a categorical claim.

"White cops are racist" includes the premise that anyone selected from the category "white cop", will be racist.

Ironically, it is itself a bigoted, racist statement that holds a stereotype as a universal truth.

Is he an Asian himself ?



Go on then, objectively quantify the harm inflicted from a broken nose, on a scale 1-10
Or do you not understand what QUANTIFY means ?



You said:

Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages by detailing the many human rights violations in those countries, up to and including torture

You are quite the authoritarian aren't you jaeger, being in love with so many authoritarian regimes, with so many humans rights violations ?
I guess you just don't care for human rights.

 

[jaeger19]

There are anti-hate laws from countries all around the globe. You said those laws are subjective, I challenged you to cite such a law and quote the bit from it that was subjective, in your opinion
And surprise, surprise, you went completely silent.




I didn't say all. And even if the man did, it wouldn't qualify as hate speech.



Is he an Asian himself ?



Go on then, objectively quantify the harm inflicted from a broken nose, on a scale 1-10
Or do you not understand what QUANTIFY means ?



You said:

Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages by detailing the many human rights violations in those countries, up to and including torture

You are quite the authoritarian aren't you jaeger, being in love with so many authoritarian regimes, with so many humans rights violations ?
I guess you just don't care for human rights.

1. Pick a law and cite it rich.
2. But he did..so why shouldn't he be arrested? Explain how he did not commit Hate speech according to your definition.
Please tell us how you determine that his words did not cause mental harm to white cops and their families.
3. Why should it matter? Show me a hate law that states exceptions for people who say denigrating things about their own race etc.
What if he was half Asian? Does he qualify for half sentence under your " objective hate speech law?".

4. You don't use a " 1 to 10 scale " to quantify a broken nose you ridiculous dude. You would use other measurements such as displacement ..extent of fracture etc.
Other verifiable objective measurements.
I do understand what quantify means.
You don't seem to understand.
Besides..whose nose broken nose would I be measuring you ridiculous dude?

Tell you what. YOU explain in medical terms how YOU would objectively measure a broken nose had occured and to what degree.
Then do the same for " mental harm"

YOU are the one claiming it can be objectively measured in broken noses as well as " mental harm".
So it's incumbent upon you to support your claim.

5. You are so sad...
You simply can't support your premise without admitting that the uk isn't a civilized nation.

 

[Rich2018]

Pick a law and cite it rich.

You said no law can be objective
So I challenged YOU to cite such a law and quote the bit from it that was subjective, in your opinion
And surprise, surprise, you went completely silent.

But he did..so why shouldn't he be arrested?

Nope, because what he said was not hate speech
If you disagree, please explain in detail why that is.

You don't use a " 1 to 10 scale " to quantify a broken nose

Then you don't understand what QUANTIFY means
Something quantifiable means that you CAN assign a value/number to it.

Tell you what. YOU explain in medical terms how YOU would objectively measure a broken nose had occured and to what degree.
Then do the same for " mental harm"

You said a broken nose is QUANTIFIABLE, that means you CAN assign a figire to it
That's kinda what "quantifiable" means.

You are so sad...

Yes it is

You said:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages by detailing the many human rights violations in those countries, up to and including torture

You are quite the authoritarian aren't you jaeger, being in love with so many authoritarian regimes, with so many humans rights violations ?
I guess you just don't care for human rights.

 

[jaeger19]

You said no law can be objective
So I challenged YOU to cite such a law and quote the bit from it that was subjective, in your opinion
And surprise, surprise, you went completely silent.



Nope, because what he said was not hate speech
If you disagree, please explain in detail why that is.



Then you don't understand what QUANTIFY means
Something quantifiable means that you CAN assign a value/number to it.



You said a broken nose is QUANTIFIABLE, that means you CAN assign a figire to it
That's kinda what "quantifiable" means.




Yes it is

You said:

Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages by detailing the many human rights violations in those countries, up to and including torture

You are quite the authoritarian aren't you jaeger, being in love with so many authoritarian regimes, with so many humans rights violations ?
I guess you just don't care for human rights.

1. I said hate speech laws..lewdness laws and obscenity laws aren't objective.
I explained why.
If you disagree. Then CIT YOU EXAMPLE AND DETAIL HOW ITS OBJECTIVELY MEASURED.

You keep making assertions with xzero evidence.

2. Why was the statement " all white cops are racist" not hate speech ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION.

Where you not using the un definition?

"The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech refers to the working definition as: "any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor."".
???

Explain how it's not hate speech.

3. Umm yeah I do like. " HIS NASAL BONE WAS DISPLACED 7 MM FROM ANATOMIC POSITION.
OR
The fracture in his nasal bone was fractured along a line measuring 4 mm.

That is measurable by x ray and quantifiable. How long the fracture in mm.
How far displaced in mm. Etc.

4 nothing was rebutted by the us state department. Please cite where tge us state department states that China,Saudi Arabia..Russia and Cuba are " uncivilized nations..".

You seem to be using " Use of torture or other human rights violations to define a nation as uncivilized.

Well..then you have to include the uk as an uncivilized nation due to its use and promotion of torture in the war against terror.

Do you? Do you consider the uk an uncivilized nation ? Lmao.

 

[Rich2018]

1. I said hate speech laws..lewdness laws and obscenity laws aren't objective.

Then cite any such law and quote the bit YOU think is subjective.

Why was the statement " all white cops are racist" not hate speech ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION.

Because there's a modicum of truth to that. Many (white) US cops are racist
And any DA would have a very hard time convincing a jury that (white) cops suffered mental harm because of it (the statement)

But in any country with anti hate-speech laws, any cop, could sue the person.

Umm yeah I do like. " HIS NASAL BONE WAS DISPLACED 7 MM FROM ANATOMIC POSITION.
OR
The fracture in his nasal bone was fractured along a line measuring 4 mm.

That's NOT quantifying the HARM that such an injury inflicted
If you think that you can quantitatively judge the amount of harm received from an injury, you should be able to put a value on it
That's actually what "quantitative" means

....nothing was rebutted by the us state department.

You said:

Authoritarian regimes are often " civilized".

Your examples for this were Cuba, China (LOL), Vietnam and Saudi Arabia. And all were rebutted by the US State Departments web pages detailing the many human rights violations in those countries, up to and including torture

You are quite the authoritarian aren't you jaeger, being in love with so many authoritarian regimes, with so many humans rights violations ?
I guess you just don't care for human rights.