Is this Pat Condell's daughter?-s'rsly, the girl defends herself well- ?

Wait...Thought the issue at hand before the "bash joedirt" back and fourth and the other 2 obamamysamaya mama guys was the shitty title because of gwiz's, "pre-occupation with having some intercourse with a girl for the first time" was on the chopping block??.... Lost ya here, I'm ognna frkna frkna.....mmmmmpphrumph!

Your video, Pat Condell - Is Satan a Catholic?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Once again I am in awe and admiration of Pat Condell's caustic rhetoric and accurate nailed'em-ness.

And so I say in internetspeak: MOAR!!

See the difference? How far back the causality chain do you want to go, when blaming a speaker for the actions of his audience?
Now, what sort of speech would you like to ban, which leads to violence? offensive remarks?

if I attack someone physically, but I defend myself in court by saying "well, the other guy said nasty things about my family", should i go free?

How about if i had been offended by something else?

e.g. "Well, your honor, the guy's a jew, what else could i have done?"



[edit] very apropos article about the muhammad drawing. Clearly, the Muslims should now feel very embarassed about the whole misunderstanding.
>> ^longde:
...The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do...

Well, @longde, I've yet to see anyone commit murder or violence in the name of atheism.

Shouting "fire" is indeed a restriction on free speech and one a agree with, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Pat Condell's right to say what he says, Geert Wilders' right to spout his hate speech, the religious nut's right to say his gibberish. Not whether or not you can cry wolf. There is a big difference between punishing someone for falsely crying alarm and bringing panic (where's the police on fox news with their fear mongering) and saying an opinion.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do.

I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

>> ^gwiz665:
Then, pray, how do atheists have blood on their hands?
My point is that public places should be just that - public. There you have the right to speak, to express yourself. In newspapers, on youtube, on videosift, all of these public forums should be allowed to express themselves (as much as the owners of those places will allow). In your home and on your property you can decide if people may speak, but you cannot decide anywhere else. There is no contradiction there.
If you define a secure and safe community as a community that cowers in the face of threats, then yes, it does indeed trump that. If you mean that a secure and safe community is just your home, then no, it does not trump that - you can't barge in to someone elses property and say whatever you want. Freedom of speech does not apply there, it applies in public places, in news outlets, on the internet, and on your own property for you. You can say whatever you want in your home, no one is going to censor that as long as we have freedom of speech. Just as we have freedom of thought.
>> ^longde:
When did I blame athiests for what religious folks did? You want to make athiests seem bloodless, and that is not true.
"I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say. "
Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.
"Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point."
So fuck me and my family. OK, I get it.

Then, pray, how do atheists have blood on their hands?

My point is that public places should be just that - public. There you have the right to speak, to express yourself. In newspapers, on youtube, on videosift, all of these public forums should be allowed to express themselves (as much as the owners of those places will allow). In your home and on your property you can decide if people may speak, but you cannot decide anywhere else. There is no contradiction there.

If you define a secure and safe community as a community that cowers in the face of threats, then yes, it does indeed trump that. If you mean that a secure and safe community is just your home, then no, it does not trump that - you can't barge in to someone elses property and say whatever you want. Freedom of speech does not apply there, it applies in public places, in news outlets, on the internet, and on your own property for you. You can say whatever you want in your home, no one is going to censor that as long as we have freedom of speech. Just as we have freedom of thought.

>> ^longde:
When did I blame athiests for what religious folks did? You want to make athiests seem bloodless, and that is not true.
"I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say. "
Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.
"Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point."
So fuck me and my family. OK, I get it.

When did I blame athiests for what religious folks did? You want to make athiests seem bloodless, and that is not true.

"I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say. "

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself.

"Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point."

So fuck me and my family. OK, I get it.

>> ^gwiz665:
So, you want to blame atheists for the actions of religious people, because we tell them they are wrong? That logic is not sound.
Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point. It really shouldn't come to that though. I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say.
You're right I don't feel threatened by extremists in my country, because my country is the most atheistic in the whole damn world. Overall win!
If you fear that someone might attack you because of what Pat Condell or anyone else says, it's that someones fault - they are in effect terrorists, terrorising you into submission for fear of breaking your safety.
Condell is not to blame for that, the people who react violently to him are.
You seem to want to smear atheists with the blood of someone else - that dog won't hunt! You can't blame people who stand up for your own right to express yourself for the fact that other people want to opress you.
>> ^longde:
You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.
Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-bay-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.
>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

So, you want to blame atheists for the actions of religious people, because we tell them they are wrong? That logic is not sound.

Freedom of speech does trump your right to live in a "secure and safe community" if it comes to a point. It really shouldn't come to that though. I'm not saying people should have the right to say whatever they want whereever they want, but that in a public forum we should not seek to silence people who have something to say.

You're right I don't feel threatened by extremists in my country, because my country is the most atheistic in the whole damn world. Overall win!

If you fear that someone might attack you because of what Pat Condell or anyone else says, it's that someones fault - they are in effect terrorists, terrorising you into submission for fear of breaking your safety.

Condell is not to blame for that, the people who react violently to him are.

You seem to want to smear atheists with the blood of someone else - that dog won't hunt! You can't blame people who stand up for your own right to express yourself for the fact that other people want to opress you.

>> ^longde:
You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.
Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-bay-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.
>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

You're wrong. Freedom of speech does not trump my right to live in a secure and safe community. When people spread hate, and some decide to act on hate, they violate that safety. You dismiss this because you don't truly feel threatened by the extremists in your country.

Atheists have just as much blood on their hands as religious folks do. Their organizations, philosophies, and causes are just more fragmented. You make them sound like a circle of kum-buy-yah rationalists. I'm not buying that.

>> ^gwiz665:
See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.
>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

See, I don't think that at all. "Atheist extremitst" are not bad at all, they don't do anything to other people, there's a big god-damn difference. Equating religious extremism with atheistic extremism, if there is such a thing, is reprehensible - one is talk, the other largely does not talk, but acts. Funtamentalist christians or muslims should also have the right to spout their nonsense, that's the whole point of this video. We should not limit our freedom to express ourselves because some people are offended by it. I'm offended by the bible and just about every word that slips over a slithering preacher's lips, but that doesn't matter. Freedom of speech is the number one right we must have to have a free society. And freedom of speech is not just for some, it's for all.

>> ^longde:
Gwiz, I agree that the muslim extremists are just as reprehensible as the athiest extremists.

longde said; "It is obvious that Mr Condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message."

I see no "hate", I see someone with concern for future generations. He is not "hiding " behind free speech, he is using it whilst he still has the ability to do so. As for his "toxic" message, I hear no poison in his oratory, just frighteningly real concerns. If anyone truly believes that it is wrong to be defending our way of life, our increasingly limited freedoms, and our right to object to the way our culture is being bulldozed into submission, then Pat Condell is speaking directly to you when he says you don't deserve your freedom. And by the way, he does "stand to be physically harmed" for voicing his opinion. If more people, me included, had his courage to speak out, then maybe we would'nt be living under the threat of our whole way of life being systematically dismantled. He is also defending YOUR right to say; "Yada yada yada......" so carry on and voice your incisive "opinions" whilst the likes of Pat Condell fight for your right to be able to do so.

>> ^longde:
Yada yada yada......you obviously don't feel any threat from the hate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to allow it to fester unrestricted.
I want to see someone who stands to be physically harmed by bigots and hatemongers take the same 'principled' stance.
It is obvious that mr condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message.


I'd say the people who killed someone like Theo van Gogh are the ones spreading hate. I'd say the people who bury their children alive in the name of honor are the ones spreading hate. I'd say the people who throw acid in the face of uncovered female faces are the ones spreading hate.

I'm tired of that bullshit.

>> ^longde:
In defense of bigotry and hate speech......


In a free world, you are allowed to be a bigot and expound hate speech. The freedom extends to everyone, not just the politically correct or liberal minded people. Just because you are a bigot or hate monger, you right do not diminish.

The support is for freedom of speech, not the content of the speech.

Not sure why you're mythin about me being a "rabid atheist." I never wade into that subject, unless it is to point out that Pat Condell is a bigoted plapf of dookie. (Pat Condell is a clam; he's exactly as big as his mouth.)

Jonny had just blew a 100 amp fuse when I dared to tell a little joke about the Grateful Dead - the most over-rated band ever:

Q: What does a Grateful Dead fan say when the LSD wears off?
A: This band sucks.

Here's a good song for when you're feeling holy. (By Canadian leftist and guitarist/songwriter extraordinaire Bruce Cockburn -- pron. Coe-burn.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFkM_R3CZvI