Jump to content

Peter89

Platinum Member
  • Content count

    1,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Peter89

  1. the difference is that I am not calling all muslims violent. I am stating the majority do not support the same freedom of speech the rest of Australia does. I would be happy to be proven wrong but I am yet to see any actions that would show the rest of Australia that muslims are serious about defending freedom of speech and putting such laws ABOVE their own religion. also it is important to state that just because I commend one group doesn't mean its isolated. There are definitely enough Christians within this country that don't understand freedom of speech as well but in my daily life I haven't seen that to be common. In the end, you guys can disagree with the director all day long. Call him whatever you want and claim whatever punishments should happen. However, if you assualt someone in Victoria ( cant be sure about other state laws on provocation) over a religious comment, you will end up in jail.
  2. let me ask the question what will society do as a whole if.... lets say interest rates rise to 15% is a violent riot acceptable then? if not what are your solutions and i agree i no way or form should religion result in violence - it is contradiction of any religious belief! People would not riot of interest rates increased to 15%. Firstly such things is nearly impossible happen over night. Over 5 years, maybe however people would slowly change their spending habits. Secondly, if it did happen over night, it would be due to the collapse of the entire EU financial sector. If that happened, people would be more worried about having jobs rather then what interest rates happened to be. Plus, even did that did happen, I doubt rates would rise that much. Interest rates in the past have been as high as 23%. People were not rioting. They were not pleased but they weren't violent and destroying stuff. In the end, rioting because interest rates increase is unacceptable behavior. Nor is it effective. Silent marches and no work days usually are more effective at changing policies. You are basically asking when is rioting acceptable. If the government refused to call an election. If the government rigged an election. Rioting is acceptable when a change of government is required and supported by the majority of people yet the government refuses to do it. Apart from that and maybe the obvious restrictions of basic resources ( food, water), there isn't many acceptable reason to riot. Insulting someones religion is not an acceptable reason to riot. South Park didn't censor anything, it was comedy central. Violence is not an acceptable response at all. That being said it should not be up to the majority of a religious community to risk their wellbeing attempting to reign back those who are irrational and violent, these riots were condemned by all who weren't participating. So no one here reserves the right to condemn the Islamic community as a whole, same would apply to all communities. It's one thing to be against political correctness, it's another to be a primitive bigot, this notion applies to all regardless of faith or creed It doesn't matter if you think the movie director is a bigot, he is still allowed to express his views. I will say it for a third time, the reason the i will condemn the muslim community is because they are the SILENT majority. To codemn violence is easy, to SUPPORT freedom of speech is hard. This is what the muslim community is not doing and this is the issue. It is because the silent majority of muslims do not believe freedom of speech is above religion unlike the majority of the Australians and western populations. Thus, ideologically opposed to the foundations that western society is built upon.
  3. Let's not make this a religious debate. The debate this whether violence is accepted response to insulting a religion.
  4. If you assault me because I insulted your religion in Victoria you would go to jail for assault. Provocation is no longer a legal defense to assulat. Violence is not an acceptable response to a disagreement of ideas. If you refuse to accept this you are living in the wrong country. Being offended doesn't give you special rights. You can insult me as much as you like all I would do is defend your right say it and probably insult you back. I would never assault someone first.
  5. It's pretty obviously you have an agenda; it's no wonder people aren't taking you seriously. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Go to an R&B club and start calling everyone 'nigger'. It's legal, go on, do it. The creator of the video has been named in America and pretty much has to live his life looking over his shoulder. Is it really worth it? Before you start going off about how he should have the right do be disrespectful blah blah, why should he? You expect muslims to hold freedom of speech laws higher than their founding beliefs. It would be the same if someone abused your family. Technically they should get away with it, but you're not going to let it stand. Exactly. In western culture freedom of speech should above all else. My agenda is defending the basic laws of what western culture is based upon. I never claimed it was a good idea, I stated he is legally allowed to state his own opinions and reactions are not his problem. I would never claim such things in public because all too often some muslims with murder a person over such a minor thing. Remember the Danish cartoon issue? some of the cartoonists got murdered by extremists. At the end of the day, if you can't stand up and defend the director for expressing his own opinion why live in Australia? There are a few countries in this world that will kill you if you insult islam, probably best go live there. If you think rioting, violence and attacking police is ACCEPTABLE behavior over a f**king movie, you need to grow up. Civilized people don't do that. People might do it in poor, uneducated third world nations but not here.
  6. i was more so responding to you saying that no freedom of speech cases would ever lose, and this is one of the times it did.. And i said that earlier, you're right, he did not explicitly tell people to riot, but he obviously knew what he was doing was wrong and would stir up controversy, as he misled the cast and is the head of an anti islam group, so one would assume he would know about sharia law and the repercussions of him doing something like that.. it's not black and white, you're dead right about that.. but people (americans as well) have now died and this guy is at the centre of it.. It will be interesting to see what comes of the court case if it ever gets that far.. IMO he didn't do anything wrong. He has a right to express his views whether or not other people agree with them. The problem isn't with the movie. It is with the muslims reacting to the movie. It is clearly their choice to murder and riot due to a movie. They need to grow up and act like civilized people. Not that will happen. In the end, the director proved what I have been saying for years. Muslims can not take any criticism and this violence just proves how far from civilized people they really are.
  7. http://en.wikipedia....denburg_v._Ohio ""advocat[ing] ... the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and "voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Not even closely related. The movie does not call for any violence or even actions towards other people. It just tells a story of muhammad that he believes is true. You can't claim he had the intention to cause a riot if the material created does not suggest others to riot. They are rioting due to their personal disagreements with the movie not in support with the movie.
  8. Like i said before. there is a HUGE difference between the condemnation of violence and defending freedom of speech. The "mainstream" muslims are not standing up and defending the director of the movie for legally allowing express his own views. The silent majority is the issue. I don't give a shit what people do, as long as its within the law and not an attempt to restrict my own person freedoms. Trust me, there is enough religious people in this country that will attempt to restrict basic freedoms as much as they can. it is not legal to incite violence, which is exactly what the maker of this movie intended.. no he didn't. people reacted violently because they are a bunch of extreme f**kheads. that it THEIR problem. not his. he is LEGALLY ALLOWED to say what he believes. If he believes muhammad is a good person, that is fine. if he believes muhammad is a child f**ker, that is also perfect legal. You can legally be a nazi in america. As long as you DO NOT ACT upon your beliefs, you are allowed to express them. This is that most fundamental basics of freedom of speech laws. "I might not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it." In the US, any speech/act that incites violence can be decreed by courts to be illegal bro.. http://edition.cnn.c....html?hpt=hp_c3 The guy that made it is the head of an Anti-Islamic group in the US He misled the actors in it knowing that they very well may protest in being involved with something like this Im sure he knew that the showing off Muhammed like this would be taken very badly by Muslims worldwide.. Did he set out and say he was making this film so that people rioted?? No.. Did he do it knowing that muslims would get all shitty about it? You would have to assume so.. aah i see, you're a dick that is unable to maintain a mature conversation with someone that has differing views to yourself.. too easy bro The reactions are only because muslims are over sensitive retards. In America, he is legally allowed to insult islam, just like in Australia. He is also legally allowed to draw muhammad doing whatever they hell he feels like. They can go to court over whatever they call the law he broke but every single time freedom of speech has gone to the supreme court, the supreme court has uphold the constitution. It is a long legal process but I would never bet against freedom of speech laws in America. They are set in stone and crystal clear.
  9. Like i said before. there is a HUGE difference between the condemnation of violence and defending freedom of speech. The "mainstream" muslims are not standing up and defending the director of the movie for legally allowing express his own views. The silent majority is the issue. I don't give a shit what people do, as long as its within the law and not an attempt to restrict my own person freedoms. Trust me, there is enough religious people in this country that will attempt to restrict basic freedoms as much as they can. it is not legal to incite violence, which is exactly what the maker of this movie intended.. no he didn't. people reacted violently because they are a bunch of extreme f**kheads. that it THEIR problem. not his. he is LEGALLY ALLOWED to say what he believes. If he believes muhammad is a good person, that is fine. if he believes muhammad is a child f**ker, that is also perfect legal. You can legally be a nazi in america. As long as you DO NOT ACT upon your beliefs, you are allowed to express them. This is that most fundamental basics of freedom of speech laws. "I might not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it."
  10. I don't think you have read half the posts in here..regardless of whether everyone is hating on muslims as a whole or not (i don't agree you should tarnish them all with the same brush), the fact that these people (regardless of religion) think they can go and start a f*king shit fight in the middle of the CBD just because they took offense to a video that was created obviously to take the piss, is bullshit. What happens if we all got the shits because someone took the piss out of what we believe in? Do we go and riot about it? You see images of young kids holding up signs like behead those who don't believe in what they believe in..what sort of pathetic propaganda is that? As if they have any idea what is going on. They don't have the right to go and injure police officers who are just doing there job, nor do they have the right to create havic and riot and cause damage. Being passionate about what you believe in, and causing a shit fight and being against anyone that doesn't follow or doesn't have the same beliefs as you are 2 very different things. its the main difference between civilized and barbaric people.
  11. Like i said before. there is a HUGE difference between the condemnation of violence and defending freedom of speech. The "mainstream" muslims are not standing up and defending the director of the movie for legally allowing express his own views. The silent majority is the issue. I don't give a shit what people do, as long as its within the law and not an attempt to restrict my own person freedoms. Trust me, there is enough religious people in this country that will attempt to restrict basic freedoms as much as they can.
  12. GET f**kED. Atheists stand up for FREEDOM. Unlike the vast maority of the religious which will with every turn attempt to restrict my freedom. Be that christians, jews or muslims. Anti-science with anti-evolotion bullshit trying to get forced into schools. State fund religious education within state schools. Anti free speech attacks. Claiming "offense" and "respect" towards their religion. Anti abortion attacks. Attempting to law Sharia courts within Australia. Attacks on gay rights. Gambling Alcohol Strippers. Religion is about control and forcible control of others. It has little care of freedom. I wont be quite till the day a religious person has NO SAY over the choices within my life. Till that day comes, expect atheists to be defending their rights loudly. If you want to live within your own little religious shell, be my guest but don't attempt to use the law to restrict my life.
  13. Well, you can do something about that. Get "mainstream" muslims to actually defend freedom of speech. Until that happens, islam is ideologically opposed to the west. People in Australia have the right to express their views, no matter their views, without the fear of violence from other individuals. People have the right to practice religion AS LONG as such practices follow within current laws. People don't have any protections on "respect" or "offense". Calls for such changes to the laws are just clear attempts to remove our freedom of expression. This is my fundamental issue with islam. I am well aware only a small percentage of muslims within the west are extreme enough to claim the killing of people over drawings however it is the mainstream that turn their backs to the real issue that clearly shows to me that muslims don't support freedom. I want to see the "mainstream" muslims to stand up and say, who gives a f**k about that stupid movie. If you don't like the content, don't watch it. then again, i wont hold me breath waiting for such actions.
  14. f**k respect. There is no laws on respect only the protection of our freedom of expression/speech. When I insult and attack Christians, they get annoyed, they will disagree with my points of view but they won't try to murder me. This is Australia not Saudi Arabia. I can draw whatever the f**k I want. Be that Jesus f**king himself or Muhammad. Civilized people attack each other with words.
  15. Suspension Arms Thread

    is SPL good? they sure do seem to make great quality stuff. Is it worth the extra $100? I don't think so. The current GKtech stuff is brilliant, it is reasonably priced and at the end of the day, suspension arms are one of the most common things to bend when you hit something. Id rather replace a $150 arm compared to a $280 arm. If you can afford to upgrade all the suspension arms with SPL, go for it but if you decide to spend the extra for SPL at the cost of another arm. That extra no doubt would be lost due to being forced to keep that standard arm.
  16. Toe arms hitting subframe :s

    ah. only an issue when the car is slammed. didn't picture it well enough. i wanted to keep my arms level so it wasn't an issue after I installed my subframe raisers.
  17. BC ERs 8/6kgs. front 8 compression, 10 rebound. rear 18 compression, 20 rebound. all from full hard, as the manual states all adjustments should be done from full hard.
  18. engine crane hire

    need to borrow an engine crane for 2 weeks. who has one? how much? prefer east side.
  19. engine crane hire

    let me know. would hate to buy one for a single job.
  20. Toe arms hitting subframe :s

    negatory, makes it worse how? removing the top rubber bushing from the subframe allows the suspension arms to be raised a good 20mm whilst keeping the same ride height. i had issues with my camber arms hitting the chassis. just took an angle grinder to the lip. however, ill check but haven't had issues with my rear toe arms.
  21. Looms

    I am thinking about swapping a s14 series 2 auto motor into my s14 series 1 manual. Will there be any issues with loom? I will be using the series 1 loom. ( i did search, nothing that useful turned up)
  22. Looms

    i decided i will just use my old series 1 intake manifold. will stop any possible issue.
  23. Looms

    anyone?
  24. is it possible to make a low mount T3 twin scroll manifold, with dual external gates? Yes can be done but I'll need the car in the workshop because I don't have a jig setup for it yet i live in vic. just thinking a head. probably ages away but i had liked the look of a gtx3071r 0.82 t3 twin scroll.
  25. is it possible to make a low mount T3 twin scroll manifold, with dual external gates?
×