Simple question. I'm indifferent and sort of torn on it.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2015/In-Mexico-fearful-families-hunt-for-remains-after-victims-vanish-in-hands-of-police/id-d0445309eb704eb6a4bed1fdd246db1b

TELOLOAPAN, Mexico (AP) — Carlos Sanchez and his family had nearly completed the harrowing drive, hurtling along a dark and dangerous highway out of the mountains to a hospital when they collided with a state police truck parked across the highway lights out.

Before they knew what was happening, they were dragged from the car by uniformed police. Sanchez's wife, sister and cousin were loaded into the back of a police patrol truck. They would not see Sanchez, who hours earlier had been shot three times outside his home in Teloloapan, until they arrived at a walled compound in the mountains.

They had been kidnapped by police.
In April 2013, Sanchez and his cousin Armando de la Cruz Salinas became two more of Mexico's nearly 26,000 recorded disappearances since 2007. The abduction of 43 students from a rural teachers' college in the southern Mexico city of Iguala on Sept. 26, 2014, by local police drew attention to a remarkable fact of life in Mexico: Police are responsible for many disappearances.

Mexico's deputy attorney general for human rights, Eber Betanzos, told The Associated Press in August that municipal police had participated in scores of abductions around Iguala during the term of Mayor Jose Luis Abarca, who faces charges in the case of the 43 students.

Members of the extended Sanchez family agreed to speak about their missing on condition of anonymity. They wanted to tell the story of the violence that surrounds them like the air they breathe, and of police responsibility for many of what are now called "the other disappeared." But they are deathly scared of the captors and cops who still live among them and operate with impunity, returning at times to abuse or threaten those who might talk.
Sanchez, a 36-year-old taco vendor and father of three, had just returned home with his wife from the grocery store on the evening of April 2, 2013, when a white car pulled up. Two young men got out and confronted him. They tried to force him into the car, but he resisted, and they shot him three times before fleeing.

At the hospital in Teloloapan, a city of 55,000 high in the mountains of Guerrero's Tierra Caliente, staff bandaged Sanchez's wounds, gave him oxygen and an IV, but told his family there was no surgeon to operate. They said he had to go to Iguala for surgery and wrote a letter to that effect to ensure his passage through three military and police checkpoints on the highway between the two cities.

But the ambulance would only agree to carry Sanchez with an armed escort. Soldiers refused to provide one.

So after a private clinic in Teloloapan also refused Sanchez care, his cousin, Armando, volunteered to drive. They were en route to the hospital in Iguala when they fell into the hands of police.

At the abductors' compound, lit only by cellphone lights, the family quickly realized they were not alone. There were 15 to 20 other people sitting on the floor of a room blindfolded and tied at the wrists and ankles.

The police took their shoes, belts and anything of value, and pulled their shirts over their heads to obscure their vision, but the cellphone light shone through the thin material and so they saw when Sanchez was dragged in. He was naked except for the bandages, his paper hospital gown lost along the way.

They were surrounded by 10 to 15 men armed with rifles, most wearing the same dark state police uniform.

One kidnapper approached Sanchez with a notebook. He asked his name, where he was from, how many children he had, what he did. Sanchez answered every question. They beat him anyway, kicking and punching.
The man accused Sanchez of stealing horses from a ranch in Teloloapan. He said he had been to that ranch only to sell tacos to the masons who were building stables. He rattled off his list of taco varieties.

About six men pounced on Sanchez kicking him furiously. When they paused, he turned his face toward his wife, breathed deeply and said the name of his youngest son, Santiago. Then he closed his eyes.

The gunmen stuffed the taco vendor into an army green sleeping bag and carried him outside. The others heard his body land in the back of a truck. His cousin, Armando, was beaten too, and then led out of the house; he was never seen again. The two women were released after 10 days.

After news of the 43 disappeared students ignited the national firestorm, a neighbor who was searching for her son told the Sanchez family that relatives were gathering at a church in Iguala to file reports with federal authorities and give DNA samples.

They agreed to join hundreds of other families putting names on a list, many of whom also revealed stories of police taking their loved ones.

The families organized to go into the hills around Iguala to search for bodies of the disappeared. Over many weeks and months, government crews dug up the remains of at least 104 people from unmarked graves found by the families, only 13 of which have been identified by DNA and telltale bits of clothing — or by other articles.

In January, the Sanchez family was told that the gravediggers had unearthed a green sleeping bag with a skeleton inside. Next to it, they found an IV and an oxygen tube.

I mean fuck no wonder they want to come here

Holy shit everyone in this thread should kill themselves

Please leave the United States for once in your life and get a sense of what the rest of the world is like

Not really relevant since we're talking about an American constitutional right.

You know how evil Germany is? How everyone from Bavaria to Berlin is horribly oppressed because neo-nazi rallies are discontinued and you're not allowed to march down the streets stating how Jews are the most evil beings on earth and how we're running the banks?

Those groups should be able to perform whatever rallies and speeches they please no matter the content. I've already stated once in this thread how the German standard of censorship is unlawful and a clear violation of natural rights. Oh boy but let me guess. Are you going to tell me that they shouldn't be able to have those rallies because the content offends you or you disagree with it. Well guess what? The world does not revolve around you or whatever groups are offended by, what they subjectively define as, "hate" speeches of certain organizations. I'd love to hear any other arguments you have other than you finding it offensive or disagreeable. The First Amendment doesn't have some special little hidden clause about the nature of speech for you to use at your convenience and censor what you find offensive.

Because most people's biggest complaint is that they go a bit too far in censoring their video games.

Not really sure what relevance this has

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 08:29:09 PM

Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 08:28:04 PM

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 08:27:23 PM

Still waiting for that compelling argument of the century. Ready to say something actually relevant to the discussion at hand yet?

So you don't read, then

Apparently neither do you

Oof, comeback of the century right there

I don't read what, lad? That you're still trying to get an argument out of me despite the fact that my entire position is, "you're all reactionaries, none of this is as inflated as you think it is, and you sound just as stupid as the people you mock"?

Objecting to restrictions on free speech is far from being a "reactionary," though that is quite a nice buzz word; you use it like you just discovered it. Objecting to the restriction of a natural and universal right is called common sense. If you don't take strife from ANY erosion of free speech or thought thereof you should probably just move to North Korea.

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 08:22:55 PM

Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 08:19:46 PM

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 07:47:33 PM

Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 07:33:47 PM

ITT: Reactionaries

Oh wise one why don't you enlighten us with your masterful argumentative skills and wisdom like you did in this thread? Please I'm begging you to try and argue your case again and inevitably just stop replying because you're wrong.

Lol, yeah

That's why I stopped responding, kiddo

Because I'm wrong, and not because the opposing answer is always "NUH UH UR A DUMMY"

Free speech and other slippery slope arguments on this topic are nothing more than fear mongering against some imagined "other side". Hell, this thread is fully of people that use the term 'SJW' unironically, you really think it's worth my time to argue with you people?

So come on then

Educate us with your oh so wise and enlightening knowledge.

I just partially did after prefacing why I wasn't going into detail.

You can be a pedant all you want, fam, I won't stop you - doesn't change the fact that getting up in arms about "muh freeze peach" is just reactionary shit and you sound as silly as the people who make emails and send them to old ladies about evil liberal professors getting wittily destroyed by Albert Einstein.

Still waiting for that compelling argument of the century. Ready to say something actually relevant to the discussion at hand yet?

ITT: Reactionaries

Oh wise one why don't you enlighten us with your masterful argumentative skills and wisdom like you did in this thread? Please I'm begging you to try and argue your case again and inevitably just stop replying because you're wrong.

Literally just read Luci's review

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:53:12 PM

The balancing with other human rights, national security, public safety and necessity in a democratic nation to protect the very principles that make up the foundations of our society are among the more commonly cited ones.

Speech, no matter how hateful, doesn't encroach on any of those things though. You can't say you're protecting the foundations of democracy and society while simultaneously disregarding and violating those very foundations by censoring and prosecuting certain sects of society that you find to be offensive or hateful.

Speech itself does not do any of those things, no.

And you can rightfully persecute them when they have commited those acts or given further evidence outside of speech on committing those acts.

But it is very capable of spreading such hateful and ultimately dangerous ideas that can and likely will result in people acting on them.

Now this is a slippery slope

The balancing with other human rights, national security, public safety and necessity in a democratic nation to protect the very principles that make up the foundations of our society are among the more commonly cited ones.

Speech, no matter how hateful, doesn't encroach on any of those things though. You can't say you're protecting the foundations of democracy and society while simultaneously disregarding and violating those very foundations by censoring and prosecuting certain sects of society that you find to be offensive or hateful.

Charlie Countryman was his best film actually

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 01:01:57 PM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AM

Quote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AM

Pretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.

Such as?

Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.

I personally don't think the state should be able to limit free speech in either case.

I tend to disagree, but that's your opinion.

I suppose it's easy to think such in a post-Nazi era Europe but limiting free speech is one of the few cases where the slippery slope fallacy is anything but a fallacy. Sure we can tell X group that they can't preach ethnic cleansing but once one sect of free speech is broken where does that lead? When does the majority start deciding, by vote, what people can and can't say based on what "offends" them? When are people not allowed to criticize their government?

did someone say

EXCEPTIONALISM
X
C
E
P
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
S
M

>not Tabasco or Tapatio

Also

Fried eggs over easy  > scrambled

Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 22, 2015, 01:55:56 PM

They hated us long before bombs even existed.

Elaborate.

The Crusades

It's just the perpetual conflict of two contrasting sects of the Abrahamic religions. Muslims say the Christian prophet is a heretic and vice versa.