Singapore coffee shop forced to remove anti-Danish sign
-
the owner of Samar(which seriously serves great cuisine) just put a notice on his front door.
how on earth did this thread deviate to the possibility of him making bombs in his property? -
Ask this nut call Libertarian.
-
It started with casefan saying:
Even if the shop is his property, he is bound by the law and morality. So, even if he turns it into a bomb making factory, it is alright since it is his shop and he should be allowed to do anything with it? By putting up that anti-Danes sign, he is guilty of racism.
Seriously i also think this thread has gone too far -
Putting up the sign may cause a drop in revenue too (Danish customers cannot contribute to your profits anymore) yet the shopkeeper still chose to put it up.Originally posted by Libertarian:Yes they can publish rubbish in their newspaper but they will not do it because of market forces. Imagine if Straits times starts to publish crap in their newspaper then very soon nobody will buy their newspaper and their business will suffer. A private business is out there to maximise profit and putting in any dribble they like will certainly not help them to maximise profit. -
That's why i think the shopkeeper is doing a very stupid thingOriginally posted by SilverPal:Putting up the sign may cause a drop in revenue too (Danish customers cannot contribute to your profits anymore) yet the shopkeeper still chose to put it up. -
Yet he went ahead and do it. Now, tell me this, is this sign a sufficient reason for Danish and non muslims around the world to riot, call for the extermination of the entire muslim world and bomb his shop?Originally posted by Libertarian:That's why i think the shopkeeper is doing a very stupid thing -
No its just a sign, a piece of paper with words written on it. Non muslims shouldnt bomb his shop.Originally posted by SilverPal:Yet he went ahead and do it. Now, tell me this, is this sign a sufficient reason for Danish and non muslims around the world to riot, call for the extermination of the entire muslim world and bomb his shop? -
Had the Danes been fanatics, they might just bomnb the shop because their dignity have been insulted.
-
If the danes bombed his shop then what they did is right or wrong?Originally posted by Salman:Had the Danes been fanatics, they might just bomnb the shop because their dignity have been insulted. -
You are getting the idea Libertarian.
Down with fanatism! Then there will be liberty! No bombs in basements. -
There will be liberty when people are allowed to do whatever they want provided that they dont harm anyone right?
-
The whole issue with the sign simply sounds like the southern USA before the Civil Rights Act where African Americans were banned from entering places because of their skin color.
No argument about that.It's pure fucking discrimination however you want to look at it.Policy pissing contests will not draw that fact away.
This is a civilised society, if you cannot deal with your issues in a proper way and have to set up a sign that is so backward in representation, then you are no better than the monkeys in the PRC who burn and damage Japanese shops last year in a riot.
40 years of nation-building, and no sense of the melting pot got into his head?
Freedom of speech does not extend the right to discriminate another person/s based on nationality, religion or race.So tit-for-tat basically only shows your weakness and inability to articulate your displeasure in a more effective and less grating manner. -
the problem here is that you're giving mankind way too much credit about not doing harm, which part of human history do you not understand. we need policing otherwise anarchy will rule. people doing what they want and not do harm are usually not synonymous. thank you for your faith in mankind, unfortunately, it is misplaced.Originally posted by Libertarian:There will be liberty when people are allowed to do whatever they want provided that they dont harm anyone right?
the bigot who puts up racists materials and literature does no one any harm so long he doesn't physically attacked someone. but others who come across his ideas and materials often enough may be convinced that somehow not all human bleed red.
hitler was harmless when he started standing up for the poverty striken germans and infusing the idea of the pure aryan race. hate preaching imams were saying what they were allowed to and not doing any harm when they began indoctrinating muslims youths that killing is justified.
i, like the next libertarian enjoy personal freedoms and respect individual's rights. however we need moral absolutes to keep us in check. -
the others who come across his ideas and materials and execute his ideas shall be punished not the one that come up with the idea. If the one that come up with the idea is punished this means that thought is wrong. Physical iniatiation of force is where i draw the line between right and wrong.
-
Business in united states before the Civil Rights Act were forced by the state government to not serve black immigrants. Originally the business protested against it as by not serving black people they are making less profit.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The whole issue with the sign simply sounds like the southern USA before the Civil Rights Act where African Americans were banned from entering places because of their skin color.
No argument about that.It's pure fucking discrimination however you want to look at it.Policy pissing contests will not draw that fact away.
This is a civilised society, if you cannot deal with your issues in a proper way and have to set up a sign that is so backward in representation, then you are no better than the monkeys in the PRC who burn and damage Japanese shops last year in a riot.
40 years of nation-building, and no sense of the melting pot got into his head?
Freedom of speech does not extend the right to discriminate another person/s based on nationality, religion or race.So tit-for-tat basically only shows your weakness and inability to articulate your displeasure in a more effective and less grating manner.
putting a sign in a shop is different from attacking individuals and private property.
Firstly i do not support racism but i think that people should be able to belive what they want to belive unless they caused harm to others. -
The sign at Samar is racism.
-
i agree it's racism and i will not support it, i will also not support the persecution of a person that has not initiated force against others. I do not support the persecution of this man does not mean that i support racism.
-
Like posting offensive cartoons of mohammud in a Danish newspaper?Originally posted by Libertarian:There will be liberty when people are allowed to do whatever they want provided that they dont harm anyone right? -
Glad to see that your point of view is objective and sensible. If only everyone was like that.Originally posted by Libertarian:i agree it's racism and i will not support it, i will also not support the persecution of a person that has not initiated force against others. I do not support the persecution of this man does not mean that i support racism.
The point I'm trying to make is that according to you stand, the Danish newspaper can publish anything they like, including offensive cartoons of mohhammud, Jesus or the holocaust. After all its their newspaper and its their profits that get hurt.
There can be NO justification whatsoever for threatening, attacking or killing any person(s) for whatever reason. Of course offended parties can use international diplomatic pressure to force a statement or apology from the relevant government or parties. Legal recourse is also encouraged.