Denkverbot

venus wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

venus wrote:

Ziher neprijatelj onima koji prvo jurišaju na druge sa šrafcigerom.

Zdravorazumski, prvo počistiti svoju sobu (i sebe) i tek onda gledati što treba napraviti u svijetu.

čuj, lik tvrdi da žene imaju podsvjesnu želju da ih muškarci dominiraju. ekipa kek žabaca kojima je on mesija je odma to shvatila da je nasilje prema ženama normalno jer to žene žele podsvjesno.

Paaa   to je vrlo simpatična teza i ima istine u njoj. 

Kekovci seru kvake.

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

gnječ, reputacija ni vlasnistvo osobe,  i zoto je podložno bilokakovin napadima.
slandere i libeler, poglavlje 7, knjige defending the undefendeble, prečitoj, imo samo 2 stranice.

ajde jebote čitaj:

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour
and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.

The Court considers that a person’s reputation, even if that person
is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or
her personal identity and psychological integrity and therefore also
falls within the scope of his or her “private life”. Article 8 therefore
applies.28

In order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a
manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life.29

https://www.mediadefence.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/MLDI.IPI%20defamation%20manual.English.pdf

ma znun jo to, nego ti govorin kako je to pizdarija. ugljed se sastoji od mišljenja drugih ljudi. zakonski štititi ugljed znoči utjecati na mišljenje drugih ljudi. to je nemoguće, i proizvodi suprotan efekt.

evo ti vrhunac poglavlja: 

Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact. Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized to meet the public’s demand for accurate scurrilous information. The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation.

ako ne želiš čitati, evo ti poslušoj:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

ovdje se ne radi o mišljenju nego o optužbi, accusation. accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

čekoj, di to?

a drugo, pa ča?

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

Inače sam veliki protivnik slušalica (radije solidne nearfield monitore blizu glave, ne više od metra do ušiju), ali Staxove elektrostatike ne bih odbio. Zapravo, bilo kakve elektrostatske slušalice ne bih odbio.

ne zun zoč. 
nika nis mogu imati normalno postavljen namještaj zbog auspuhov od iza, svako malo mi se neko obroti, vunka projde auto..jebeš ti to. slušalice, pa taman i one od mobitela. dobro, ne od mobitela.

Stavi čarapu u auspuh i nabavi subwoofer. Ili još bolje dva. Po jedan za svaki kanal. Dobiješ bolji duboki bas i čistiji gornji bas i srednjotonsko područje. Visoki ostanu manje više netaknuti.

aben wrote:

venus wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

venus wrote:

Nikad dosta Jordana!

J.Peterson is a lifestyle guru for men and boys who feel displaced by a world where white male privilege is under attack.

Ziher neprijatelj onima koji prvo jurišaju na druge sa šrafcigerom.

Zdravorazumski, prvo počistiti svoju sobu (i sebe) i tek onda gledati što treba napraviti u svijetu.

nis sigur jesi li ubrala njegov clean the room argumenat, 

to nemo veze is licemjerjen, jel tako?

kic wrote:

aben wrote:

kic wrote:

aben wrote:

kic wrote:
"porez na profit je kazna za uspješne. Ne bi ga potpuno ukidao, jer je potreban vjetar u leđa proizvođačima. Previše se baziramo na tercijalnom. Taj porez služi i za obuzdati kanibalizam kapitalizma, jer država dio tog novca vrati onima na kojima su se poduzetnici "nahranili". Da imamo etično poduzetništvo i da se ne baziramo toliko na tercijali, porez na profit bi bio nepotreban."

kažem tipu da porez na profit treba ukinut, inače do sad je sve dobro rekao ali..

ki ti je to?

pitoj ga, ako se more išnjin govoriti, jesu li poduzetnici poboljšali ili pogoršali živote onih nad kima su se hronili, i ako su poboljšali, zoč bi tribali vraćati šolde.

ma neki na fejsu, nešto komentirao pametno, i ja ga pitam sve ok ali kako opravdava da bi ostavio porez na dobit, i odgovori ovo

go easy on him

"Poduzetnici nisu poboljšali ništa. Jedino je ta populacija u RH lošija i manje kvalitetna od političara."

eto šta mi je na kraju odgovorio, prvo je 15 točaka razveo kako bi sve promijenio nabolje, i onda ovak..

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

ajde jebote čitaj:

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour
and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.

The Court considers that a person’s reputation, even if that person
is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or
her personal identity and psychological integrity and therefore also
falls within the scope of his or her “private life”. Article 8 therefore
applies.28

In order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a
manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life.29

https://www.mediadefence.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/MLDI.IPI%20defamation%20manual.English.pdf

ma znun jo to, nego ti govorin kako je to pizdarija. ugljed se sastoji od mišljenja drugih ljudi. zakonski štititi ugljed znoči utjecati na mišljenje drugih ljudi. to je nemoguće, i proizvodi suprotan efekt.

evo ti vrhunac poglavlja: 

Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact. Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized to meet the public’s demand for accurate scurrilous information. The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation.

ako ne želiš čitati, evo ti poslušoj:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

ovdje se ne radi o mišljenju nego o optužbi, accusation. accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

čekoj, di to?

a drugo, pa ča?

ne pravi se mutav jebote. pratio si sve.

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

ajde jebote čitaj:

Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour
and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.

The Court considers that a person’s reputation, even if that person
is criticised in the context of a public debate, forms part of his or
her personal identity and psychological integrity and therefore also
falls within the scope of his or her “private life”. Article 8 therefore
applies.28

In order for Article 8 to come into play, the attack on personal honour and reputation must attain a certain level of gravity and in a
manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life.29

https://www.mediadefence.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/MLDI.IPI%20defamation%20manual.English.pdf

ma znun jo to, nego ti govorin kako je to pizdarija. ugljed se sastoji od mišljenja drugih ljudi. zakonski štititi ugljed znoči utjecati na mišljenje drugih ljudi. to je nemoguće, i proizvodi suprotan efekt.

evo ti vrhunac poglavlja: 

Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact. Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized to meet the public’s demand for accurate scurrilous information. The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation.

ako ne želiš čitati, evo ti poslušoj:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

ovdje se ne radi o mišljenju nego o optužbi, accusation. accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

čekoj, di to?

a drugo, pa ča?

ne pravi se mutav jebote. pratio si sve.

• Govor mržnje je javni govor, izrečen u javnom prostoru ili proširen u javni prostor putem medija, internetskih platformi ili društvenih mreža.
  
• Govor mržnje je govor koji za cilj ima napasti, ocrniti, obezvrijediti, dehumanizirati, demonizirati, obespraviti, zastrašiti ili nahuškati na neku osobu ili skupinu ljudi..
  

Legendovich wrote:Gnječo jel energija uništiva ili jel svemir beskonacan..?

venus wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

ma znun jo to, nego ti govorin kako je to pizdarija. ugljed se sastoji od mišljenja drugih ljudi. zakonski štititi ugljed znoči utjecati na mišljenje drugih ljudi. to je nemoguće, i proizvodi suprotan efekt.

evo ti vrhunac poglavlja: 

Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact. Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized to meet the public’s demand for accurate scurrilous information. The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation.

ako ne želiš čitati, evo ti poslušoj:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

ovdje se ne radi o mišljenju nego o optužbi, accusation. accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

čekoj, di to?

a drugo, pa ča?

ne pravi se mutav jebote. pratio si sve.

Glumac 


A propos tematike:

https://www.kucaljudskihprava.hr/2018/11/28/kako-prepoznati-govor-mrznje-i-reagirati-na-njega/

• Govor mržnje je javni govor, izrečen u javnom prostoru ili proširen u javni prostor putem medija, internetskih platformi ili društvenih mreža.
  
• Govor mržnje je govor koji za cilj ima napasti, ocrniti, obezvrijediti, dehumanizirati, demonizirati, obespraviti, zastrašiti ili nahuškati na neku osobu ili skupinu ljudi..
  
  

venus wrote:

aben wrote:

venus wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

venus wrote:

Nikad dosta Jordana!

J.Peterson is a lifestyle guru for men and boys who feel displaced by a world where white male privilege is under attack.

Ziher neprijatelj onima koji prvo jurišaju na druge sa šrafcigerom.

Zdravorazumski, prvo počistiti svoju sobu (i sebe) i tek onda gledati što treba napraviti u svijetu.

nis sigur jesi li ubrala njegov clean the room argumenat, 

to nemo veze is licemjerjen, jel tako?

Ubrala sam, posloženost donosi jasnoću je samo jedan od iznesenih argumenata.

Zašto bi imalo veze sa licemjerjem, objasni..

Gnječ wrote:

Legendovich wrote:Gnječo jel energija uništiva ili jel svemir beskonacan..?

za svemir se nezna još ali dokazano je da je ljudska glupost beskonačna. količina energije  u svemiru se nikad ne mijenja može jedino prijeći iz jednog oblika u drugi.

Gnječ wrote:

Legendovich wrote:Gnječo jel energija uništiva ili jel svemir beskonacan..?

za svemir se nezna još ali dokazano je da je ljudska glupost beskonačna. količina energije  u svemiru se nikad ne mijenja može jedino prijeći iz jednog oblika u drugi.

venus wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

ma znun jo to, nego ti govorin kako je to pizdarija. ugljed se sastoji od mišljenja drugih ljudi. zakonski štititi ugljed znoči utjecati na mišljenje drugih ljudi. to je nemoguće, i proizvodi suprotan efekt.

evo ti vrhunac poglavlja: 

Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact. Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized to meet the public’s demand for accurate scurrilous information. The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation.

ako ne želiš čitati, evo ti poslušoj:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s

ovdje se ne radi o mišljenju nego o optužbi, accusation. accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

čekoj, di to?

a drugo, pa ča?

ne pravi se mutav jebote. pratio si sve.

Glumac 


A propos tematike:

https://www.kucaljudskihprava.hr/2018/11/28/kako-prepoznati-govor-mrznje-i-reagirati-na-njega/

• Govor mržnje je javni govor, izrečen u javnom prostoru ili proširen u javni prostor putem medija, internetskih platformi ili društvenih mreža.
  
• Govor mržnje je govor koji za cilj ima napasti, ocrniti, obezvrijediti, dehumanizirati, demonizirati, obespraviti, zastrašiti ili nahuškati na neku osobu ili skupinu ljudi..
  

Legendovich wrote:

venus wrote:
Glumac 


A propos tematike:

https://www.kucaljudskihprava.hr/2018/11/28/kako-prepoznati-govor-mrznje-i-reagirati-na-njega/

• Govor mržnje je javni govor, izrečen u javnom prostoru ili proširen u javni prostor putem medija, internetskih platformi ili društvenih mreža.
  
• Govor mržnje je govor koji za cilj ima napasti, ocrniti, obezvrijediti, dehumanizirati, demonizirati, obespraviti, zastrašiti ili nahuškati na neku osobu ili skupinu ljudi..
  
  

svakodnevno na ovom forumu..od strane nekoliko "ljudi",koji valjda zele biti "glavni" na forumu..u nekoj normalnoj drzavi,bi bili ne maknuti definitivno sa mreze,nego optuzeni za prijetnje smrcu,ali hajde....

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

aben wrote:

Speare Shaker wrote:

Inače sam veliki protivnik slušalica (radije solidne nearfield monitore blizu glave, ne više od metra do ušiju), ali Staxove elektrostatike ne bih odbio. Zapravo, bilo kakve elektrostatske slušalice ne bih odbio.

ne zun zoč. 
nika nis mogu imati normalno postavljen namještaj zbog auspuhov od iza, svako malo mi se neko obroti, vunka projde auto..jebeš ti to. slušalice, pa taman i one od mobitela. dobro, ne od mobitela.

Stavi čarapu u auspuh i nabavi subwoofer. Ili još bolje dva. Po jedan za svaki kanal. Dobiješ bolji duboki bas i čistiji gornji bas i srednjotonsko područje. Visoki ostanu manje više netaknuti.

ni samo stvor sustava, neko i okoline. 
ka sun bi nabavi prve pro slušalice- bi mi ih je rashodovo jedin ton majstor iz kazališća- moro sun preslušati svu glazbu ponovno. toliko toga nis bi ču...

Legendovich wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Legendovich wrote:Gnječo jel energija uništiva ili jel svemir beskonacan..?

za svemir se nezna još ali dokazano je da je ljudska glupost beskonačna. količina energije  u svemiru se nikad ne mijenja može jedino prijeći iz jednog oblika u drugi.

E ovo nasem vilozovu Šejkeru ne ide u mozag....  THX na odgovoru

aben wrote:
a, ti si pratila? 
jel mi moreš linkati na ča čnječ misli ka govori accusation?

ma, jasno je ča je govor mržnje, jasna je zakonska regulativa, ali jo govorin o vridnosti govora mržnje i zakonske regulative; 
jesi prečitala poglavlje 7?

Legendovich wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Legendovich wrote:Gnječo jel energija uništiva ili jel svemir beskonacan..?

za svemir se nezna još ali dokazano je da je ljudska glupost beskonačna. količina energije  u svemiru se nikad ne mijenja može jedino prijeći iz jednog oblika u drugi.

E ovo nasem vilozovu Šejkeru ne ide u mozag....  THX na odgovoru

Gnječ wrote:

Legendovich wrote:Gnječo jel energija uništiva ili jel svemir beskonacan..?

za svemir se nezna još ali dokazano je da je ljudska glupost beskonačna. količina energije  u svemiru se nikad ne mijenja može jedino prijeći iz jednog oblika u drugi.

Gnječ wrote:

Legendovich wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

Legendovich wrote:Gnječo jel energija uništiva ili jel svemir beskonacan..?

za svemir se nezna još ali dokazano je da je ljudska glupost beskonačna. količina energije  u svemiru se nikad ne mijenja može jedino prijeći iz jednog oblika u drugi.

E ovo nasem vilozovu Šejkeru ne ide u mozag....  THX na odgovoru

šejkeru ne možeš  objasniti ni da ga jebeš.