Shootings and explosions in Paris

[Martinus]

I would say that generally any event where admission is open to the general public (even if you need a ticket to enter) is a public event. Private events would be events by invitation only.

[Eddie Teach]

Really?    You have that much trouble with comprehending English?  Re-read what i wrote and see if it applies to what you said, or who you are.  in other words, could I logically have said the same to someone else posting the same nonsense you did?

I suspect you wouldn't have used the term "Eastern European authoritarian worldviews" if you had been talking to someone who wasn't an Eastern European.

[Zanza]

I would say that generally any event where admission is open to the general public (even if you need a ticket to enter) is a public event. Private events would be events by invitation only.

With regards to limitations of freedom of expression, that definition is not helpful though.

[crazy canuck]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.

I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values.  Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.

Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.

Ad hom.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.

Really?  Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.

I think he is covering for the fact he missed the distinction between human rights and political rights 

[crazy canuck]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe "public" doesn't mean what I think it means in this context due to me not being a native speaker. Public to me is the public space, i.e. on the street like a demonstration or so. Private means it is within a privately owned premise, i.e. a football stadium. So a football game would be a private event.

Yes, i was wondering if the German equivalent had a more restrictive usage.

The definition given here is how I have understood the term :

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-event/

Yeah, the football game is a bad example in the Common law tradition because it is a match which is generally open to the public in the sense that anyone in the public can buy a ticket to attend.  A private event is one that is not generally open to the public and one must have some form of special status to attend like being a member or being specially invited.

[Martinus]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.

I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values.  Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.

Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.

Ad hom.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.

Really?  Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.

I think he is covering for the fact he missed the distinction between human rights and political rights 

Is "he" grumbler or I?   

[crazy canuck]

I will reiterate - freedom of speech and expression are not universal human rights, they are civil/political rights. They are meant for participants in the public life of the polity, allowing them to exchange ideas. Someone who is not a member of the polity can have these rights restricted as the polity sees fit.

Moreover, limiting the right of expressing views that directly attack the fundamental principles of the polity (such as, for example, expressing totalitarian or fundamentalist views in a polity built around the principles of pluralism) is not just the right, but the duty of the polity. One of the most misguided ideas of certain portions of modern left is that one should tolerate intolerance.

I'm sorta wondering why you think you get to establish which rights are human rights and which are civil rights. Your Eastern European authoritarian worldviews are not really compatible with Western values.  Maybe you should sit this one out and learn a little bit about what the West values and how it sees individual rights before you start spouting here about what is and isn't a civil or human right and what those rights are "meant" to do.

Ah, typical grumbler, only capable of spouting ad homs.

Ad hom.  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The irony, of course, is that your response is itself an ad hom, while mine was not.

Really?  Your post was nothing but an ad hom - it included nothing but insults against my character, ethnicity and culture of origin.

I think he is covering for the fact he missed the distinction between human rights and political rights 

Is "he" grumbler or I?   

Grumbles

[Malthus]

When Americans say something like "you are in our prayers" or "we are praying for you" in response to a tragedy, they do not mean that they are literally asking God to come down from heaven to solve your problems - any more than someone saying "bless you" after a sneeze literally thinks that you require a blessing because you sneezed.

All it means, basically, is that "you have our sympathies" as expressed by someone who takes religious idiom for granted.

I really don't think one and two are really comparable. I know if I say "I'm praying for you" due to some tragedy, I will literally pray for them. I don't think I am unusual in that.

Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?

If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.

[Valmy]

Yeah when people say 'I will keep you in my prayers' I know they are just being polite.

My grandmother, who really did pray to grant me divine assistance, would pray first and then let me know later on what she had asked for. But even some Euros had that Grandmother.

[Ed Anger]

Now euros, if a southerner says "bless your heart", it's a polite way to tell you to fuck off.

#y'all

[Duque de Bragança]

Latest news about the Saint-Denis police operation.

French police conducted a pre-dawn raid on an apartment in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis on Wednesday following a tip-off that suspected Paris attacks mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud might be at the location, according to chief prosecutor François Molins.

http://www.france24.com/en/20151117-live-france-pounds-raqqa-investigation-europe-belgium

So the "Belgian" Abdelhamid Abaaoud was not there, according to the last reports.
Seems it was another cell planning attacks in La Défense Business district, home also of major shopping centre, or another shopping centre in Aubervilliers to the N.E of Paris, just outside the "périphérique extérieur" ring road.

French investigators said Tuesday that they were looking for a second suspect in the attacks after video footage confirmed that there were three men in a car used during the shootings at bars and restaurants in the city.

Still two hunted terrorists.

[jimmy olsen]

Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?

If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.

Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.

[crazy canuck]

Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?

If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.

Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.

On what basis do you think God chooses those who will get divine aid and those that can just suffer.

[Valmy]

Are you literally asking God to solve their problems? And do you expect him to do so?

If so, I think you are rather unusual in that respect. Most Americans I know are willing to use the terminology, but have no such expectations.

Sometimes I'm specific, sometimes a more general "look out for so and so". You can't have expectations of God, all you can do is hope.

On what basis do you think God chooses those who will get divine aid and those that can just suffer.

By if enough people send up their pray power of course.

[jimmy olsen]

I don't claim to be able to understand his plan.