UK Proposes Six Year Prison Sentences for Online Posts Against Religion, Transgender

[jimnyc]

Wow. So if I am in the UK, and I own a similar website, and it has a lot of volume - and I post as I do - passionately about things I believe in, or disagree in - I am risking jail time for speaking about the negative things I disagree with? Yikes! Between the trannies and the sickening disease islam, I would be getting back to back to back 6 year sentences left and right!!

Your thoughts, Drummond ? I know you're about freedom, but have to live under this type of umbrella.

---

UK Proposes Six Year Prison Sentences for Online Posts Against Religion, Transgender

People promoting “hostility” towards a religion or the transgendered online could get much harsher sentences, of up to six years in jail, especial if they have a large online audience according to new proposals.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has drafted changes to public order offences, including anyone perceived as targeting online a “protected characteristics” including “race; sex; disability; age; sexual orientation; religion or belief; pregnancy and maternity; and gender reassignment.”

The most severe punishments will be handed to those “in a position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred,” such as political leaders or figureheads and anyone whose offences are “persistent.”

If an “offender was a member of, or was associated with, a group promoting hostility based on race or religion,” their sentence will also be harsher.

The Sentencing Council believes that the use of social media, YouTube, and other “websites” to stir hatred is a growing problem – despite the number of prosecutions remain relatively low.

“Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some offences,” the Sentencing Council said.

“However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences,” they continue.

Rest - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05/10/six-years-in-jail-proposed-for-online-hatred-of-religion-or-gender/

[Drummond]

Wow. So if I am in the UK, and I own a similar website, and it has a lot of volume - and I post as I do - passionately about things I believe in, or disagree in - I am risking jail time for speaking about the negative things I disagree with? Yikes! Between the trannies and the sickening disease islam, I would be getting back to back to back 6 year sentences left and right!!

Your thoughts, @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) ? I know you're about freedom, but have to live under this type of umbrella.

---

UK Proposes Six Year Prison Sentences for Online Posts Against Religion, Transgender

People promoting “hostility” towards a religion or the transgendered online could get much harsher sentences, of up to six years in jail, especial if they have a large online audience according to new proposals.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has drafted changes to public order offences, including anyone perceived as targeting online a “protected characteristics” including “race; sex; disability; age; sexual orientation; religion or belief; pregnancy and maternity; and gender reassignment.”

The most severe punishments will be handed to those “in a position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred,” such as political leaders or figureheads and anyone whose offences are “persistent.”

If an “offender was a member of, or was associated with, a group promoting hostility based on race or religion,” their sentence will also be harsher.

The Sentencing Council believes that the use of social media, YouTube, and other “websites” to stir hatred is a growing problem – despite the number of prosecutions remain relatively low.

“Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some offences,” the Sentencing Council said.

“However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences,” they continue.

Rest - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05/10/six-years-in-jail-proposed-for-online-hatred-of-religion-or-gender/

Well .. it's amazing to consider how malleable people can be. I am used to this sort of environment, and just think (or feel, anyway) that it's 'normal'.

What is 'interesting' is that we have all this, under our CONSERVATIVE Government ... and that said Government considers that what it's doing is a vote-winning strategy.

Of course, the real fault comes from our Socialists. We've had many of their Governments, and all of this controlling trend started with them. You see ... the biggest danger that comes from Socialist rule is that people are persuaded of their point of view, sufficiently to think that laws of this nature can be needed, and are to be preferred. Once Socialists have gained power for long enough, the very thinking of the people who vote is altered. So, the rot sets in, and so today, Conservatives - who want to be elected, after all ! - have to be a part of the process.

People here consider laws such as these 'hatethink' ones to be necessary for the sake of civilising attitudes. They're considered the mark of a decent society !! Consequently, if you disagree, you're uncivilised, intolerant, etc ...

That's the key. Convince people of the need for such laws on grounds of human decency, and the vast majority will applaud them.

In a nutshell: say what you want. Just expect to take the consequences afterwards, if you do.

... and part of why I like to post here is that this forum comes from a society where I feel REAL freedom !!

[Gunny]

Wow. So if I am in the UK, and I own a similar website, and it has a lot of volume - and I post as I do - passionately about things I believe in, or disagree in - I am risking jail time for speaking about the negative things I disagree with? Yikes! Between the trannies and the sickening disease islam, I would be getting back to back to back 6 year sentences left and right!!

Your thoughts, @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287) ? I know you're about freedom, but have to live under this type of umbrella.

---

UK Proposes Six Year Prison Sentences for Online Posts Against Religion, Transgender

People promoting “hostility” towards a religion or the transgendered online could get much harsher sentences, of up to six years in jail, especial if they have a large online audience according to new proposals.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has drafted changes to public order offences, including anyone perceived as targeting online a “protected characteristics” including “race; sex; disability; age; sexual orientation; religion or belief; pregnancy and maternity; and gender reassignment.”

The most severe punishments will be handed to those “in a position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred,” such as political leaders or figureheads and anyone whose offences are “persistent.”

If an “offender was a member of, or was associated with, a group promoting hostility based on race or religion,” their sentence will also be harsher.

The Sentencing Council believes that the use of social media, YouTube, and other “websites” to stir hatred is a growing problem – despite the number of prosecutions remain relatively low.

“Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some offences,” the Sentencing Council said.

“However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences,” they continue.

Rest - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05/10/six-years-in-jail-proposed-for-online-hatred-of-religion-or-gender/That's what I said. Wow.

"Protected characteristic"? Why not just come right out and call it "anyone guilty of violating UNequal Rights ...":rolleyes: This is absurd. I doubt I could even visit the UK without being thrown in jail for offending someone.

Ridiculous.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Wow. So if I am in the UK, and I own a similar website, and it has a lot of volume - and I post as I do - passionately about things I believe in, or disagree in - I am risking jail time for speaking about the negative things I disagree with? Yikes! Between the trannies and the sickening disease islam, I would be getting back to back to back 6 year sentences left and right!!

Your thoughts, Drummond ? I know you're about freedom, but have to live under this type of umbrella.

---

UK Proposes Six Year Prison Sentences for Online Posts Against Religion, Transgender

People promoting “hostility” towards a religion or the transgendered online could get much harsher sentences, of up to six years in jail, especial if they have a large online audience according to new proposals.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has drafted changes to public order offences, including anyone perceived as targeting online a “protected characteristics” including “race; sex; disability; age; sexual orientation; religion or belief; pregnancy and maternity; and gender reassignment.”

The most severe punishments will be handed to those “in a position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred,” such as political leaders or figureheads and anyone whose offences are “persistent.”

If an “offender was a member of, or was associated with, a group promoting hostility based on race or religion,” their sentence will also be harsher.

The Sentencing Council believes that the use of social media, YouTube, and other “websites” to stir hatred is a growing problem – despite the number of prosecutions remain relatively low.

“Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some offences,” the Sentencing Council said.

“However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences,” they continue.

Rest - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05/10/six-years-in-jail-proposed-for-online-hatred-of-religion-or-gender/

1.

People promoting “hostility” towards a religion or the transgendered online could get much harsher sentences, of up to six years in jail, especial if they have a large online audience according to new proposals.

+++ Except Islam will be exempt!
New handy punishments to limit spread of information and people acting upon that information.-Tyr

2.

The most severe punishments will be handed to those “in a position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred,” such as political leaders or figureheads and anyone whose offences are “persistent.”

+++ Except Islam will be exempt.
Stiffer punishments for people that may have more influence and thus may start a movement against the Muslims.--Tyr

3.

If an “offender was a member of, or was associated with, a group promoting hostility based on race or religion,” their sentence will also be harsher.

+++ Except Islam will be exempt.,
They have always been exempt, and that status will not be assaulted by this new control of their enemies. -Tyr

4.

“However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences,” they continue

+++ Except Islam will be exempt.,
Yes extremely useful to further crack down on the few Brits that may stand up against Islam.
THIS IS FURTHER PROTECTION OF THE MUSLIMS-AS UNTOUCHABLE.-Tyr

[darin]

UK is in need of a revolution.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Speech police, thought police, further erosion of freedoms... visiting Europe was on my bucket list, but it isn't anymore. I wouldn't spend a dime of my tourism money in a police state place like that... no offense @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)

So... according to these enlightened European NAZIS, the rest of the world is just a bunch of uncouth barbarians? Freedom of speech "uncivilized?" My opinion of homos comes purely from the natural reaction of a heterosexual to the thought of what those perverts actually do to each other, its disgusting, it's perverted, mother nature tells me that. I wasn't taught that, it's preprogrammed right into my DNA, and I can't "SAY" that in Europe?

And these VIOLENT, BLOOD THIRSTY muslims, I see the INSANE KILLING these people do, all in the name of their RELIGION, because their BOOK tells them to, because everyone else is an INFIDEL, and where ever these cave men accumulate in sufficient numbers, they impose their Sharia Law by FORCE, and their STONE AGE subjugation of women, etc, and I can't SAY anything about that, I can't say I DON'T LIKE IT?

I'm sorry Europe, but the direction you're headed and what you're doing with this thought and speech police state is WORSE than whatever it is you think you need to police. You are putting zippers on people's mouths and limiting what they can think. You are attempting social engineering on a massive scale, dumbing down a population, stifling freedom of thought and speech, and I find it absolutely DISGUSTING. I wouldn't step foot in Europe now, not under any circumstances.

[Gunny]

Speech police, thought police, further erosion of freedoms... visiting Europe was on my bucket list, but it isn't anymore. I wouldn't spend a dime of my tourism money in a police state place like that... no offense @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)

So... according to these enlightened European NAZIS, the rest of the world is just a bunch of uncouth barbarians? Freedom of speech "uncivilized?" My opinion of homos comes purely from the natural reaction of a heterosexual to the thought of what those perverts actually do to each other, its disgusting, it's perverted, mother nature tells me that. I wasn't taught that, it's preprogrammed right into my DNA, and I can't "SAY" that in Europe?

And these VIOLENT, BLOOD THIRSTY muslims, I see the INSANE KILLING these people do, all in the name of their RELIGION, because their BOOK tells them to, because everyone else is an INFIDEL, and where ever these cave men accumulate in sufficient numbers, they impose their Sharia Law by FORCE, and their STONE AGE subjugation of women, etc, and I can't SAY anything about that, I can't say I DON'T LIKE IT?

I'm sorry Europe, but the direction you're headed and what you're doing with this thought and speech police state is WORSE than whatever it is you think you need to police. You are putting zippers on people's mouths and limiting what they can think. You are attempting social engineering on a massive scale, dumbing down a population, stifling freedom of thought and speech, and I find it absolutely DISGUSTING. I wouldn't step foot in Europe now, not under any circumstances.They're no different than the political correctness in the US. They've just had longer to legislate their "stick your head in the sand" attitudes. We're getting there.

Look at all the people (lefties) a few months back protesting in CA wanting to take way freedom of speech from anyone not agreeing with their leftist agenda. Our future.

The mindset is just stupid. "We can all get along and peacefully coexist". Yeah, except one side has no intention to and doesn't want to. You'd think of all people the Brits would have learned from appeasing Hitler how the story turns out.

[revelarts]

Well .. it's amazing to consider how malleable people can be. I am used to this sort of environment, and just think (or feel, anyway) that it's 'normal'....

sad to say it's the "Boiling Frogs" analogy in action.

The same type of thing is happening here, just more slowly.
And many conservatives are more 'tolerant' of "modern" ideology and feel traditionally conservative ideas should NOT be expressed directly in the public sphere. Much less be allowed to be practiced in public or on jobs.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

They're no different than the political correctness in the US.

I say FUCK political correctness too. I go out of my way to be UNpolitically correct.

It's the DEMOCRATS that try and head society in this NAZI direction.

The only way they'll stop me from thinking or saying what I want is when I'm DEAD.

[Gunny]

I say FUCK political correctness too. I go out of my way to be UNpolitically correct.

It's the DEMOCRATS that try and head society in this NAZI direction.

The only way they'll stop me from thinking or saying what I want is when I'm DEAD.Like I said, my European vacation has been cancelled :laugh: I'm not going to be told what to say or think. Here or there.

[darin]

At least in the USA we can escape a little bit. We have some choices.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

[Gunny]

At least in the USA we can escape a little bit. We have some choices.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/Some of the states don't surprise me. Texas does. I'm surprised it isn't darker. We have a license, fee or tax for just about everything. We DON'T have a state income tax. But we also have restrictions on just about everything right down to water usage.

Doesn't matter if you're paying for it, you can only use water when they say you can. My idea long ago was stop importing Yankees for their money and overpopulating our aquifer. THAT would work.

[revelarts]

Like I said, my European vacation has been cancelled :laugh: I'm not going to be told what to say or think. Here or there.

People can't go to parts of Europe, or the Middle East... or China and express themselves freely.
Freedom is shrinking in the world, Far Left Secularist, far Right religious Muslims... total state secular Chinese.

big brother totalitarianism takes many forms.
That's one reason why I harp so much on the ORIGINAL constitutional freedoms and boundaries in every area. Against the left and the right's insistence that the Feds/CiC/Congress -have to do something- in areas they have ZERO constitutional authority in.
Because In each case like this in the UK or elsewhere, the problem is based in the gov't having/assuming authority over areas that it ... in the U.S.'s case... does not.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of assembly (without permits BTW), Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from Gov't spying, from gov't searches (not even TSA), trial by jury, freedom of the press, freedom of religion (even at work), etc etc..

The line should be pressed ALL the WAY back to original constitutional levels.
Our federal system was set up to block tyranny and totalitarianism, secular or religious.
It's not really meant to address many of the current left-right disagreements.
Those were meant to be played out socially or locally.






SaveSave

[Gunny]

People can't go to parts of Europe, or the Middle East... or China and express themselves freely.
Freedom is shrinking in the world, Far Left Secularist, far Right religious Muslims... total state secular Chinese.

big brother totalitarianism takes many forms.
That's one reason why I harp so much on the ORIGINAL constitutional freedoms and boundaries in every area. Against the left and the right's insistence that the Feds/CiC/Congress -have to do something- in areas they have ZERO constitutional authority in.
Because In each case like this in the UK or elsewhere, the problem is based in the gov't having/assuming authority over areas that it ... in the U.S.'s case... does not.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of assembly (without permits BTW), Freedom to bear arms, Freedom from Gov't spying, from gov't searches (not even TSA), trial by jury, freedom of the press, freedom of religion (even at work), etc etc..

The line should be pressed ALL the WAY back to original constitutional levels.
Our federal system was set up to block tyranny and totalitarianism, secular or religious.
It's not really meant to address many of the current left-right disagreements.
Those were meant to be played out socially or locally.






SaveSave
I don't disagree with your ideal. Where I disagree with you more often than not is your refusal to temper it with reality/current day situation. I'm a Constitutionalist. I'm also a pragmatist. Maybe it's different education and training. I'm trained to make the best of a shitty situation and move forward, not bitch about what's done and isn't likely to be undone.

I express my ideals. I keep them separate from the World I have to deal with every day because it isn't going away.

[revelarts]

I don't disagree with your ideal. Where I disagree with you more often than not is your refusal to temper it with reality/current day situation. I'm a Constitutionalist. I'm also a pragmatist. Maybe it's different education and training. I'm trained to make the best of a shitty situation and move forward, not bitch about what's done and isn't likely to be undone.

I express my ideals. I keep them separate from the World I have to deal with every day because it isn't going away.

I can understand that,
And i guess my take it on is that there were a lot of things that seemed, pragmatically speaking, unlikely to be undone.
slavery is example A.
Been a part of human existence since written history. If people hadn't been 'Idealist' and decided Not to just make the best of the crap situation, it'd still be here legally.
Women Voting, 5 day work week, heck the founding of the nation itself was because people decided not to make the best of the King.
The left, sadly, has pushed for things that 40 years ago seemed impossible like legal Homosexual marriage. They made abortion legal across the U.S.. Against the majority and all odds.

My general take is, work for the best and prepare for the worse.
So I won't be a part of MAKING it worse or settling for (voting for) the ever lowering status quo.

the bar is always the constitution. moves toward it, small or large, is what want to see.
Rather than settle for softer versions of new-normal totalitarianism over harsher ones.

[Gunny]

I can understand that,
And i guess my take it on is that there were a lot of things that seemed, pragmatically speaking, unlikely to be undone.
slavery is example A.
Been a part of human existence since written history. If people hadn't been 'Idealist' and decided Not to just make the best of the crap situation, it'd still be here legally.
Women Voting, 5 day work week, heck the founding of the nation itself was because people decided not to make the best of the King.
The left, sadly, has pushed for things that 40 years ago seemed impossible like legal Homosexual marriage. They made abortion legal across the U.S.. Against the majority and all odds.

My general take is, work for the best and prepare for the worse.
So I won't be a part of MAKING it worse or settling for (voting for) the ever lowering status quo.

the bar is always the constitution. moves toward it, small or large, is what want to see.
Rather than settle for softer versions of new-normal totalitarianism over harsher ones.Slavery was going to die on its own due to mechanization. How we got picked out of the litter to be the poster child for slavery beats me. It STILL exists in places. Russia still had legal slavery after our civil war ended.

Women voting was going to happen on its own. No special legislation was required. I rarely got to work a 5-day work week, even as a civilian. That's a dream.

Now compare your first comment with this one. You said we should basically reset to the original Constitution. None of the aforementioned changes are Rights granted by the original Constitution.

Racism still exists, it's NOT one-sided, and you can legislate it death and it's STILL going to exist. When the Marine said you're deploying for 6 months or going to the field, or pulling drill instructor duty, you can forget that 5 day, 8 hours a day work week. When Weber electric says we're working 4 10s and 2 8s, or we're staying all night to finish this job if we have to, you either work or go home unemployed.

I think women's equality is a bunch of hooey. I've always considered girls my equals and burn their bra's or not, I treat them like ladies unless they prove they deserve otherwise just as I was taught. Anyone that thinks or acts otherwise needs to deal with their own behavior, not legislate mine. My wives and/or GFs ALWYAs got vote and their votes more often than not overrode mine :laugh:

[High_Plains_Drifter]

far Right religious Muslims...
Why do you call them "far right?"

[Gunny]

Why do you call them "far right?"Technically, by definition, they. Far-right, ultra-conservative religious zealots. You have to think in terms of the word's actual definition rather than the current political use/definition of the word. They're about as rigid and unmoving as it gets. Their brains are still stuck in the 7th century.

That IS a 100% conservative value. Completely stagnant. None of us are 100% conservative. We're just called that because stacked against the loony left, a tie-dyed tee shirt is conservative.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Technically, by definition, they. Far-right, ultra-conservative religious zealots. You have to think in terms of the word's actual definition rather than the current political use/definition of the word. They're about as rigid and unmoving as it gets. Their brains are still stuck in the 7th century.

That IS a 100% conservative value. Completely stagnant. None of us are 100% conservative. We're just called that because stacked against the loony left, a tie-dyed tee shirt is conservative.
Bull shit.

[Gunny]

Bull shit.Wrong. I am correct. Neither the term "conservative" nor "liberal" are accurate to political groups in the US. Notice I NEVER use the term "liberal". There are ZERO leftwingnuts that are actual liberals according to the definition, or what was called a "liberal" when I was younger and called a liberal.

"Conservative is the same". People who call themselves conservative now would have had to be Democrats back in the 60s and 70s. George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter shifted the entire party further left and pulled it out from under our feet. Reagan filled the void and we went form "liberal" one day to "conservative the next.

People like Reid, Pelosi and Obama theurned the Democratic Party into a bunch of fascists. There is nothing liberal about them.

Radical Islam IS ultra-conservative. By definition. I didn't creat the word, but words DO mean things regardless their misuse.

[revelarts]

Slavery was going to die on its own due to mechanization.
It STILL exists in places. Russia still had legal slavery after our civil war ended.
so if Russia still had it after the civil war and it still exists TODAY then mechanization did not cause it to die.
right?


Women voting was going to happen on its own. No special legislation was required.
c'mon,
People had been working up stream to get the female right vote for almost 100 years.
How "was going to happen on it's own"?!



I rarely got to work a 5-day work week, even as a civilian. That's a dream.
you RARELY got it so you did get it sometimes. many people do Gunny. it's not a dream.



Now compare your first comment with this one. You said we should basically reset to the original Constitution. None of the aforementioned changes are Rights granted by the original Constitution.Freedom is a right protected in the constitution to all the inhabitants of the states.
Redress of grievances, brought it to apply to all human beings, rather than to just white males land owners over 22.

But concerning the 5-day work-week you're right. it's not in the constitution at all. nothing even close.
But it is something that seemed unlikely to ever happen. that many people did and still do "put up with".




Racism still exists, it's NOT one-sided... I never said anything about racism.



When the Marine said you're deploying for 6 months or going to the field, or pulling drill instructor duty, you can forget that 5 day, 8 hours a day work week.never sad anything about military life. practically lose all your rights there.


When Weber electric says we're working 4 10s and 2 8s, or we're staying all night to finish this job if we have to, you either work or go home unemployed. Unions have gone to crap haven't they?



I think women's equality is a bunch of hooey. I've always considered girls my equals and burn their bra's or not, I treat them like ladies unless they prove they deserve otherwise just as I was taught. Anyone that thinks or acts otherwise needs to deal with their own behavior, not legislate mine. My wives and/or GFs ALWYAs got vote and their votes more often than not overrode mine :laugh:

my wife cancels my votes nearly every election, i know what you're saying.




SaveSave

[Gunny]

so if Russia still had it after the civil war and it still exists TODAY then mechanization did not cause it to die.
right?

c'mon,
People had been working up stream to get the female right vote for almost 100 years.
How "was going to happen on it's own"?!


you RARELY got it so you did get it sometimes. many people do Gunny. it's not a dream.

Freedom is a right protected in the constitution to all the inhabitants of the states.
Redress of grievances, brought it to apply to all human beings, rather than to just white males land owners over 22.

But concerning the 5-day work-week you're right. it's not in the constitution at all. nothing even close.
But it is something that seemed unlikely to ever happen. that many people did and still do "put up with".


I never said anything about racism.

never sad anything about military life. practically lose all your rights there.
Unions have gone to crap haven't they?



my wife cancels my votes nearly every election, i know what you're saying.




SaveSave
Mechanization would have killed slavery in the South. No brainer. Keeping gasoline in an engine, the oil changed and the belts changes is a LOT cheaper than feeding, clothing and housing slaves. Southerners already referred to it as a necessary evil, so it isn't like a better plan would take a lot of selling. And just like today, once the wealthy Southerners mechanized and declared slavery barbaric, it would have been legislated out eventually.

Preferable to the alternative we got. Americans killing Americans. Not for slavery, but for money. It was about the money. Destroying slavery would take away the South's economic and political power; which, the industrial North wanted so they could jack up the tariffs and force Americans to buy their goods. The South's economy was based on trade with Europe and they wanted no part of high trade tariffs. Kinda the same bullshit going on now with US steel.

[revelarts]

Mechanization would have killed slavery in the South. No brainer. Keeping gasoline in an engine, the oil changed and the belts changes is a LOT cheaper than feeding, clothing and housing slaves. Southerners already referred to it as a necessary evil, so it isn't like a better plan would take a lot of selling. And just like today, once the wealthy Southerners mechanized and declared slavery barbaric, it would have been legislated out eventually.

Preferable to the alternative we got. Americans killing Americans. Not for slavery, but for money. It was about the money. Destroying slavery would take away the South's economic and political power; which, the industrial North wanted so they could jack up the tariffs and force Americans to buy their goods. The South's economy was based on trade with Europe and they wanted no part of high trade tariffs. Kinda the same bullshit going on now with US steel.

So if Mechanization was better, why would/did destroying slavery cause the economic and political ruin?
Seems that war could have been avoided easily then especially if Mechanization was ready to replace slavery ANYWAY. Why didn't the south see it as an opportunity?

Or are maybe slavery just should have lasted a bit longer.... into the 1920s and 1930s so that all of the south could have gradually ended slavery in the fields and "retooled" the plantations into mechanization?
Ok sorry but I'm reminded again that you've already pointed out that there's still slavery TODAY. Seems to be an institution that people find "some use" for even now in the computer age.
So why would the south end ALL slavery, even if they did mechanize a large portion of the agricultural work. House keeping slaves would still be useful Right? Nannies? Home Maintenance workers, and maybe slaves working on and running the machinery. Home building, office building, warehouse work, factory work, mining, road building, as well as various office work and transportation work, day care, not to mention various white collar trade work, and etc etc then there's the darker side, with sex slavery and more. So I'm not sure WHY any of those things would just end on their own, mechanization wouldn't fill those gaps. Maybe transformed slavery into corporate slavery but If the institution was never challenged why would it fall out of use or "profit" in all areas? Some of that actually happened when parts of the south falsely imprisoned thousands of black men and put them to forced labor. Slavery 2.0. So I'm not sure why if slavery had remained legal why it would ever end if it were not challenged at some point.
The darker side of Human nature has never had a problem with it. And makes up excuses/justifications for the poor treatment of other people with ease.

[Drummond]

Speech police, thought police, further erosion of freedoms... visiting Europe was on my bucket list, but it isn't anymore. I wouldn't spend a dime of my tourism money in a police state place like that... no offense @Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=2287)

So... according to these enlightened European NAZIS, the rest of the world is just a bunch of uncouth barbarians? Freedom of speech "uncivilized?" My opinion of homos comes purely from the natural reaction of a heterosexual to the thought of what those perverts actually do to each other, its disgusting, it's perverted, mother nature tells me that. I wasn't taught that, it's preprogrammed right into my DNA, and I can't "SAY" that in Europe?

And these VIOLENT, BLOOD THIRSTY muslims, I see the INSANE KILLING these people do, all in the name of their RELIGION, because their BOOK tells them to, because everyone else is an INFIDEL, and where ever these cave men accumulate in sufficient numbers, they impose their Sharia Law by FORCE, and their STONE AGE subjugation of women, etc, and I can't SAY anything about that, I can't say I DON'T LIKE IT?

I'm sorry Europe, but the direction you're headed and what you're doing with this thought and speech police state is WORSE than whatever it is you think you need to police. You are putting zippers on people's mouths and limiting what they can think. You are attempting social engineering on a massive scale, dumbing down a population, stifling freedom of thought and speech, and I find it absolutely DISGUSTING. I wouldn't step foot in Europe now, not under any circumstances.

That's it, in a nutshell ....

We're told that the 'extreme' acts (terrorism) and teachings (pure extremism) has nothing to do with so-called 'real' Islam. The prevailing 'wisdom' everyone is supposed to buy into, is that terrorists cannot be in support of real, 'moderate' Islam, and so to publicly assert that terrorism is firmly allied to it, is insulting to the vast majority of Muslims out there. Ergo, it qualifies as 'hatespeech' if you offend that majority by saying that Islam is a religion that facilitates terrorism and savagery.

It's an illusion that our politicians insist we accept as real.

Next time the UK undergoes a terrorist attack, see how our media deal with it. If a BBC report, they'll never even initiate the word 'terrorist' themselves (.. just quote from other people if THEY say that's what they are). You'll hear them referred to as 'attackers' or 'bombers'. But not as terrorists ... the BBC considers that 'terrorism' is too emotive, too judgmental, a term to use.

Then read UK newspapers. The terrorists will be called 'extremists'. That's to differentiate between them, and the supposed 'real' Muslims.

And so, the terrorism continues, with Islam protected from real criticism .. in line with insisted-upon political correctness ....

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Wrong. I am correct. Neither the term "conservative" nor "liberal" are accurate to political groups in the US. Notice I NEVER use the term "liberal". There are ZERO leftwingnuts that are actual liberals according to the definition, or what was called a "liberal" when I was younger and called a liberal.

"Conservative is the same". People who call themselves conservative now would have had to be Democrats back in the 60s and 70s. George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter shifted the entire party further left and pulled it out from under our feet. Reagan filled the void and we went form "liberal" one day to "conservative the next.

People like Reid, Pelosi and Obama theurned the Democratic Party into a bunch of fascists. There is nothing liberal about them.

Radical Islam IS ultra-conservative. By definition. I didn't creat the word, but words DO mean things regardless their misuse.
No, you're not correct. You're actually arguing that the meaning of words changes.

I call myself a constitutional conservative, and I guarantee you, there is NOTHING even REMOTELY similar between the constitution or my conservativism to islam. Islam is a cult, muslims are ZEALOTS, they are extremists and they are fanatical. There is nothing conservative about that, and since the term "far right" has been attached to conservativism, then neither far right or conservative fit with islam.

[aboutime]

I know we've talked about this before. But it now appears to be getting TOO dangerous for you to stay there in the U.K.
At least you'd have a fighting chance to exercise your Freedom of Speech here in the U.S.A. without being worried about spending time in a prison for 3 meals of Fish and Chips every day:laugh:

Seriously. Here in the colonies. At least we have more control over our actions. BREXIT seems to be an afterthought there...with more stupidity, and hate yet to come for all of you.
GOD BLESS. Stay strong. You still have time to ESCAPE!:laugh:

[Gunny]

So if Mechanization was better, why would/did destroying slavery cause the economic and political ruin?
Seems that war could have been avoided easily then especially if Mechanization was ready to replace slavery ANYWAY. Why didn't the south see it as an opportunity?

Or are maybe slavery just should have lasted a bit longer.... into the 1920s and 1930s so that all of the south could have gradually ended slavery in the fields and "retooled" the plantations into mechanization?
Ok sorry but I'm reminded again that you've already pointed out that there's still slavery TODAY. Seems to be an institution that people find "some use" for even now in the computer age.
So why would the south end ALL slavery, even if they did mechanize a large portion of the agricultural work. House keeping slaves would still be useful Right? Nannies? Home Maintenance workers, and maybe slaves working on and running the machinery. Home building, office building, warehouse work, factory work, mining, road building, as well as various office work and transportation work, day care, not to mention various white collar trade work, and etc etc then there's the darker side, with sex slavery and more. So I'm not sure WHY any of those things would just end on their own, mechanization wouldn't fill those gaps. Maybe transformed slavery into corporate slavery but If the institution was never challenged why would it fall out of use or "profit" in all areas? Some of that actually happened when parts of the south falsely imprisoned thousands of black men and put them to forced labor. Slavery 2.0. So I'm not sure why if slavery had remained legal why it would ever end if it were not challenged at some point.
The darker side of Human nature has never had a problem with it. And makes up excuses/justifications for the poor treatment of other people with ease.you're putting the cart before the horse. Slavery was still the working engine for agriculture in the South when the US Civil War started. Mechanization was in its infancy. Taking away slavery alone hurt the south but it did not ruin it economically. An unlawful war waged by the United States as barbaric as any ruined the South. Kind of what happens when you burn a place to the ground and kill half its people.

Slavery would not have remained legal. It just didn't need a butcher job by power hungry and greedy Northern industrialists to make it happen. The media, especially Horace Greely had a big hand in it too. The whole war was fought for a lie. Leftwing revisionism doesn't change the facts.

Tell me ... what was the difference between a slave in the South, and a sweatshop employee in the North? Slaves got treated better.

Regardless, and back to the point. The Constitution includes slavery. You said you wanted a reset back to the original Constitution. So what you really want is teh original Constitution and to pick whatever changes to it you think is okay.

Me too. So did Obama.