why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

You should look into the depth of that ignore pit. It's kinda shallow.

I wonder where it gets that from?

Try not letting your negative emotions guide you. I'm a stranger you've never met.

I might be a bit smarter than you - but is that a crime?

Haha, nah, not really. I'm just a bit better at not getting personally involved in a debate.

Usually, that is.

If I get out of the dreaded ignore pit - I'll consider having a debate about freedom of expression with you, but as of right now, I really can't be bothered. It's too easy to research by yourself.

Maybe Jemy or Pib will educate you - as they seem much more invested in "facts" as you call them.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'd be curious how you'd come up with lack of free expression in Denmark.

How about the fact that in Denmark, child names must be chosen from an approved list? We do just fine without that bit of enlightened limitation.

Originally Posted by dteowner
How about the fact that in Denmark, child names must be chosen from an approved list? We do just fine without that bit of enlightened limitation.

AFAIK - your various states have different rules against all sorts of names, including numbers or for purposes of fraud.

So - that goes both ways.

Do you seriously think our rules are in place to curtail freedom - or could there possibly be other reasons? Like protecting the children, for instance.

Let's try and be serious, now.

Are you not the nation where saying fuck on TV is a big no-no? Please

Originally Posted by dteowner
How about the fact that in Denmark, child names must be chosen from an approved list? We do just fine without that bit of enlightened limitation.

Not to mention the case of Jersild v. Denmark, which I doubt Dart is aware enough to know of, among other things.

Because he's, well, kind of an arrogant idiot.

Originally Posted by dteowner
How about the fact that in Denmark, child names must be chosen from an approved list? We do just fine without that bit of enlightened limitation.

Second time I have seen this recently. Did this come from Fox news?

Nipplegate

Originally Posted by JemyM
Nipplegate

Hehe, a classic

The horror of Janet's nipple.

Land of the free and the brave indeed!

Children, please behave yourselves; you sound like 2 squabbling 4 year olds!!

My apologies, Corwin. I tend to treat bigoted trolls poorly. I don't see the point of treating "people" undeserving of respect with said respect, but I'll leave the little ones alone for now.

Let them have at it please Corwin, reading this tanty has cured my Monday morning blues!

Originally Posted by JemyM
Second time I have seen this recently. Did this come from Fox news?

Yahoo news mirror of an AP story, originally. But, by all means, rather than address the unfortunate truth please do attempt to blindly discredit the source that wasn't actually the source. Well done, perfesser.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Dominant group of immigrants use an ethnic group of natives that their own forefathers suppressed as a symbolic representation of themselves in an argument to be allowed the right to defend the land that they stole from that ethnic group. That makes perfect sense, from a certain point of view.

Very impressive, with lots of syllables, and yet completely ignores the point in favor of empty snark. I believe the point would best be summed up with that old saw- something about history and ignoring and repeating… I don't think it comes in Latin, but I bet it's in a textbook somewhere.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Hehe, a classic

The horror of Janet's nipple.

Land of the free and the brave indeed!

Oh we're certainly sexual prudes over here. I'm sure JemyM could find a chapter or two in his textbooks that might clue you into the historical basis for that attitude. Of course, one might also give some thought to the fact that the best y'all have for "freedom of expression" is the ability to show titties on TV. Since the entire basis of your point is that titties should be no big deal, congratulations! You've supported your argument with something that even you think is utterly blase. *golf clap*

Originally Posted by dteowner
Oh we're certainly sexual prudes over here. I'm sure JemyM could find a chapter or two in his textbooks that might clue you into the historical basis for that attitude. Of course, one might also give some thought to the fact that the best y'all have for "freedom of expression" is the ability to show titties on TV. Since the entire basis of your point is that titties should be no big deal, congratulations! You've supported your argument with something that even you think is utterly blase. *golf clap*

What an interesting imaginary scenario

No, I don't think it's the best we have by itself. It's just an example.

The reason we're "superior" in terms of freedom of expression - is that we're less restricted in terms of what we can say in public and on national television.

Doesn't mean there are no limits.

Goes without saying.

I just found it amusing that it was brought up as an example of how "our countries" have things that could be the target of criticism.

Oh, I understand that people in America have no idea what Scandinavia is like. You probably have to visit for an extended period to realise just how far ahead of you we are in so many ways.

Now, don't get me wrong, we have a shit-ton of flaws - and I never blame the "people" of any country. There are always reasons for flaws.

We're all human beings - so we're all the same, really. But a country can change all the same, and I actually do think American culture is extremely relevant to the problems in America.

One HUGE problem with your culture is how you're basically brought up to believe you're the "greatest nation in the world" - but you're apparently not taught to understand what greatness actually means.

It's like greatness, to you, is about power - especially military power. I guess it's not about actual freedom for everyone. Oh, that's right - everyone who is poor and suffering has the freedom to change that - because it's equal opportunity, right?

Yeah.

But you see, even the brighter Americans are subject to that indoctrination. It's like you're all born patriots, at least partially - and that makes you extremely dense when it comes to recognising flaws.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Oh we're certainly sexual prudes over here. I'm sure JemyM could find a chapter or two in his textbooks that might clue you into the historical basis for that attitude. Of course, one might also give some thought to the fact that the best y'all have for "freedom of expression" is the ability to show titties on TV. Since the entire basis of your point is that titties should be no big deal, congratulations! You've supported your argument with something that even you think is utterly blase. *golf clap*

Now explain how this is different from naming conventions.

A totalitarian society begins with the question "what shall be allowed, and why?". A free society begins with the question "what shall be denied, and why?". A discussion about whether or not something is a good use of a freedom is rooted in a misunderstanding what freedom actually is so I say your paragraph blatantly disqualifies you from a such discussion.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Very impressive, with lots of syllables, and yet completely ignores the point in favor of empty snark. I believe the point would best be summed up with that old saw- something about history and ignoring and repeating… I don't think it comes in Latin, but I bet it's in a textbook somewhere.

Can't say "do not ignore/repeat history" using a false symbol which in context becomes just absurd. And if we are to speak about history I would also mention that democratic systems from a revolution are extremely rare while totalitarian systems from a revolution are extremely common.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Oh we're certainly sexual prudes over here. I'm sure JemyM could find a chapter or two in his textbooks that might clue you into the historical basis for that attitude. Of course, one might also give some thought to the fact that the best y'all have for "freedom of expression" is the ability to show titties on TV. Since the entire basis of your point is that titties should be no big deal, congratulations! You've supported your argument with something that even you think is utterly blase. *golf clap*

Titties are more important than being able to speak your mind about issues - or in the case of Jersild, reporting what three racists said as part of an expose on the problem with, you know, racism in Denmark. ^_^

Originally Posted by JemyM
Can't say "do not ignore/repeat history" using a false symbol which in context becomes just absurd. And if we are to speak about history I would also mention that democratic systems from a revolution are extremely rare while totalitarian systems from a revolution are extremely common.

Boy, you're on a roll! More impressive textbook wisdom that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, nor the current tangent. Sounded extremely studious, though. I might have even stroked the beard I don't have once or twice. We had a special thread for Dattaswami wisdom; perhaps it's time to start one for JemyM impressive pronouncements.

History is full of situations where a government disarms a group of citizens/natives to quell dissent, promising greater safety, usually leading to rather nasty oppression of said group that no longer has any means to defend itself. The makeup of each group, which you find so terribly important, is utterly superfulous to the historical precedent. Check out China under Mao. Check out German Jews. Check out the American Indians that were pictured. Check out colonial Africa. Check out Darfur. Check out the Armenians. Check out Cambodia under Pol Pot. Need I continue, or can you find those chapters in your textbooks?

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
Titties are more important than being able to speak your mind about issues - or in the case of Jersild, reporting what three racists said as part of an expose on the problem with, you know, racism in Denmark. ^_^

Well now, I do like titties. Big fan.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Boy, you're on a roll! More impressive textbook wisdom that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic, nor the current tangent. Sounded extremely studious, though. I might have even stroked the beard I don't have once or twice. We had a special thread for Dattaswami wisdom; perhaps it's time to start one for JemyM impressive pronouncements.

History is full of situations where a government disarms a group of citizens/natives to quell dissent, promising greater safety, usually leading to rather nasty oppression of said group that no longer has any means to defend itself. The makeup of each group, which you find so terribly important, is utterly superfulous to the historical precedent. Check out China under Mao. Check out German Jews. Check out the American Indians that were pictured. Check out colonial Africa. Check out Darfur. Check out the Armenians. Check out Cambodia under Pol Pot. Need I continue, or can you find those chapters in your textbooks?

What about the Bolsheviks?

Many of the groups you mention were or were oppressed by groups who took up arms against the state, became the ruling class, then oppressed the people. The only societies who ever defended the rights of it's individuals regardless of association were states with constitutional human rights. Incidentally that's the kind of state revolutionaries of today do not want to have.