Does anyone feel that Sikhs are in obloquy?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just so we understand each other...

Hypocrisy is claiming to do (or that one should do) one thing,
and then actually doing something else.

In which case I would like you to point out where someone said that
in support of free speech its not ok to criticize people for holding and
espousing views that you don't agree with?

I for one have arg ing nonsense and would realise it if you re read the thread
properly instead of skimming it.

Being hypocritical is professing virtues or feelings one does not have.

When you claim that someone should not be inconvenienced/ intimidated because of something they said and then inconvenience/ intimidate someone because of something they said, you are being hypocritical.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Being hypocritical is professing virtues or feelings one does not have.

When you claim that someone should not be inconvenienced/ intimidated because of something they said and then inconvenience/ intimidate someone because of something they said, you are being hypocritical.

you are not reading what I am saying.

Stop attacking a straw man of my position because I will win with trivial ease.

Read my last post, carefully.

Originally posted by googlefudge
you are not reading what I am saying.

Stop attacking a straw man of my position because I will win with trivial ease.

Read my last post, carefully.

I read you loud and clear.

By the way, you are legally allowed to be a hypocrite as well.

Originally posted by tomtom232
I read you loud and clear.

By the way, you are legally allowed to be a hypocrite as well.

Yes, however I am not.

You also allowed to claim things without evidence...

Doesn't mean you get to be right.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes, however I am not.

You also allowed to claim things without evidence...

Doesn't mean you get to be right.

I have evidence. You're just in denial.


Edit: Just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it more or less wrong than something that is legal. If you support freedom of expression then you should support when somebody expresses that they don't support it even if you disagree with them. You don't harangue them.

This is what you believe... yet you lack this virtue. You say someone is free to express themselves and shouldn't have a lawsuit filed against them because it inconveniences them yet you attack rv when he expresses his belief that they should be allowed to file a lawsuit.

Originally posted by tomtom232
The exchange ran out of being ok when certain persons derailed the OP and instead attacked rv's opinion. It wasn't in violation of any rights but it was certainly hypocritical.

It seems you either do not understand what the word "hypocritical" means or you have your tongue in cheek as you use it 'unconventionally'.

Originally posted by josephw
I don't think it promotes hatred. Why would you think I do?

Because I asked you if you thought the joke had promoted "hatred" of Sikhs? And you said it had. And then when I asked you how you figure it promoted "hatred", you said you didn't think it promotes hatred.

Originally posted by tomtom232
If you support freedom of expression then you should support when somebody [b]expresses that they don't support it even if you disagree with them. You don't harangue them.

This is what you believe... yet you lack this virtue. You say someone is free to express themselves and shouldn't have a lawsuit filed against them because it inconveniences them ...[text shortened]... attack rv when he expresses his belief that they should be allowed to file a lawsuit.[/b]

But I do support rvsakhadeo's freedom of expression. Clearly. I just don't agree with him when he expresses support, as he does in this case, for the curtailment of someone else's freedom of expression and, as we can see from many of his other comments on this topic, an undermining of the right to free speech in general.

Originally posted by FMF
Because I asked you if you thought the joke had promoted "hatred" of Sikhs? And you said it had. And then when I asked you how you figure it promoted "hatred", you said you didn't think it promotes hatred.

Slithering, twisting and turning.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Filling a lawsuit is not equivalent to free expression. Not even close.

If I call you names, then you can simply ignore me.

If I file a lawsuit against you then suddenly you get served with official documents and
instructions to appear in court.
Possibly if its a libel case with admonitions not to talk about the subject of the suit due
to the .

Perhaps you should read the whole thread before you jump to conclusions about hypocrisy...

To be clear, when I supported the right of Sikhs to file a lawsuit, I was referring just to the filing. The court should throw these type of cases out of court before they have got anywhere.

By the same token, I do not believe that the courts are nearly strong enough on vexatious litigants. I would like to see a system of punitive damages where the court believes that some is gaming the system with no expectation of being able to win the lawsuit. The damages should be linked to the applicant's ability to pay and the time and distress caused to the recipient. Big corporation = big damages.

However, even in a world where this does not exist, I still favour allowing people to bring cases of this nature. Just get the courts to work quicker so that they can be thrown out ASAP.

In fact, I don't see how you could stop someone filing any lawsuit for anything. The key is to make the rejection process as quick as possible to avoid the kind of distress you have referred to.

Originally posted by josephw
Slithering, twisting and turning.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't think anybody has proposed taking Dhillon's right to file a lawsuit away. It's a red herring. The OP was pretty clear. So you think the joke has promoted "hatred" of Sikhs?

Originally posted by josephw
Only amongst the bigoted.

Originally posted by FMF
Really? Have you actually seen the gag about Romney? How do you figure it promotes "hatred"?

Originally posted by josephw
I don't think it promotes hatred. Why would you think I do?

Originally posted by FMF
Because I asked you if you thought the joke had promoted "hatred" of Sikhs? And you said it had. And then when I asked you how you figure it promoted "hatred", you said you didn't think it promotes hatred.

Originally posted by josephw
Slithering, twisting and turning.

How so?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
To be clear, when I supported the right of Sikhs to file a lawsuit, I was referring just to the filing. The court should throw these type of cases out of court before they have got anywhere.

By the same token, I do not believe that the courts are nearly strong enough on vexatious litigants. I would like to see a system of punitive damages where t ...[text shortened]... the rejection process as quick as possible to avoid the kind of distress you have referred to.

In the US at least, penalties can be exacted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Originally posted by Rank outsider
To be clear, when I supported the right of Sikhs to file a lawsuit, I was referring just to the filing. The court should throw these type of cases out of court before they have got anywhere.

By the same token, I do not believe that the courts are nearly strong enough on vexatious litigants. I would like to see a system of punitive damages where t ...[text shortened]... the rejection process as quick as possible to avoid the kind of distress you have referred to.

I think we largely agree with each other here, but I would phrase it differently.


I wouldn't say that the Sikh's have a 'right' to file a frivolous lawsuit.
If, as in your scenario, there is a penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits then you don't either.

You wouldn't claim that people have a right to libel someone, but the only mechanism for
stopping people from libelling someone is the potential penalty for doing so.


I don't think there is much that could practically done to actually prevent people filing frivolous
lawsuits, other than mocking and ridiculing those that do, making it socially and publicly unacceptable
(bad PR) and having the option for penalties imposed on those who file such suits.

However the fact that there is no physical bar to stop people from filing these suits doesn't mean
they have the right to file them.

In the same way that there is no physical bar to stop me going outside with a sledge hammer and
smashing everyone's car windows.... I don't have a right to do it, and there will likely be consequence's
for doing so.

These people are trying to restrict freedom of speech, they have no right to do so, and should face
consequences for trying. Whether those consequences are, or should be, legal or bad PR and being
ridiculed is a separate question.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think we largely agree with each other here, but I would phrase it differently.


I wouldn't say that the Sikh's have a 'right' to file a frivolous lawsuit.
If, as in your scenario, there is a penalty for filing frivolous lawsuits then you don't either.

You wouldn't claim that people have a right to libel someone, but the only mechanism for
st ...[text shortened]... ces are, or should be, legal or bad PR and being
ridiculed is a separate question.

Like Aaron Sorkin, your use of language was better and more careful than mine. Your analysis is, of course, correct, we might only differ on how to prevent the abuse of the system.

I have tried to turn my office into the Uk branch of the West Wing but, though we have the corridors, the banter still eludes us.


🙂

Originally posted by JS357
In the US at least, penalties can be exacted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation

Thanks for this. I am pretty sure we have this in the Uk. But it is rarely applied. I don't think the Sikh case would qualify, however silly it is.