Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 190

Thread: Is it time to put a muzzle on free speech? page 12

  1. #111
    Picaro's Avatar
    Picaro is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    S.E Queensland
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by kenn View Post
    Jefferson didn't write the constitution or the Bill of Rights
    Agreed...but he was heavily involved with its content. If I'd named some obscure governor or commiteemen, I think most readers wouldnt grasp the reference.


    edit: Geewhizz, I had the opportunity to say " grok the reference " and I missed it.
    Last edited by Picaro; 09-15-2012 at 08:05 PM.

  2. #112
    Grok's Avatar
    Grok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    LakeRidge Golf Course
    Posts
    3,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Nady View Post
    Actually, I'm not asking for anything.


    I am amazed at how many here don't understand the First Amendment regarding freedom of speech ~ it isn't about having the God given right to speak out, it's about having the American government's promise not to prosecute for that speech. Not all countries have that protection~ this one didn't before the Revolutionary War. The right to speak without fear of prosecution.
    Freedom is speech is a natural right.

    The video below is to help you understand the different kinds of rights.


  3. #113
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Picaro View Post
    Which creator are you alluding to ? Mother Nature aka Evolution....or maybe the aliens that inserted their dna into primates....certainly not Allah....
    Oh, you must be referring to that capitalist exploitative pseudo christian creation creator of the middle US.

    Expand your mind a little please.
    That would be this Creator:

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
    The one that's in the Declaration of Independence. I'm not being snarky or trying to proselytize, I'm using the actual words. Just seemed a little more accurate that way.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  4. #114
    Wildrose's Avatar
    Wildrose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Calgary Alberta
    Posts
    1,233
    I don't want the government censoring what I say. I believe in Paleo and Primal living. That's not CW... does that mean the government gets to tell me to shut my trap? Yeah, NO.

    Speaking about this video, I agree that it's just a lame excuse to cause trouble and the timing is highly suspicious. The internet is for porn and douchebaggery. Everyone knows that.

  5. #115
    Urban Forager's Avatar
    Urban Forager is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaohinon View Post
    As much as it pains me to do this, I have to side with the conservatoids on this one. Muslims don't have a right to go batshit over terrible movies any more than I have a right to kill Nickelback because their music offends my soul.

    Logically, I don't see how there can be any such things as "dangerous free speech." Speech is just speech no matter how offensive or vitriolic it might be. If anything bad happens as a result, it just comes down to stupid humans doing stupid things they know they shouldn't do.

    That said, I think storming an embassy is a totally legitimate response to decades of being bombed and occupied by the west. They still have every right to be pissed about that, and I can see how a hate film could have been the final spark on that fuse.

    I mean, I feel for Christopher Steven's family. But if the shoe were on the other foot, I wouldn't think twice about stringing up some shit claiming to be my "ambassador." We are the enemy and will be treated as such until we GTFO out of their countries.
    Finally a little context. I realize the OP was focusing on free speech but to limit this discussion to a question of free speech is to seriously misunderstand the situation. Has the US declared war with Pakistan and Yemen? Well, drone attacks are being launched on these countries in our name (not to mention other military actions that are taking place all over the region) add to that economic stresses brought on by global corporate capitalism and you can bet reactions will be unpredictable. This video was not viewed in a void.

  6. #116
    Quarry's Avatar
    Quarry is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Forager View Post
    add to that economic stresses brought on by global corporate capitalism This video was not viewed in a void.
    What do you mean? Western society should not be apologising for creating civilised society with sophisicated business and industry. No tone, what do you mean?

  7. #117
    Grok's Avatar
    Grok is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    LakeRidge Golf Course
    Posts
    3,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Forager View Post
    add to that economic stresses brought on by global corporate capitalism
    What?! Capitalism brings prosperity, not economic stresses.

    Economic stresses come from statism. Corporatism is statism because the state is what defines the corporation. All corporations are therefore fascist.

    The state also enforces the laws which give corporations their power. If you are against corporations, then you must be against the state.

  8. #118
    anna5's Avatar
    anna5 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by Grok View Post
    What?! Capitalism brings prosperity, not economic stresses.

    Economic stresses come from statism. Corporatism is statism because the state is what defines the corporation. All corporations are therefore fascist.

    The state also enforces the laws which give corporations their power. If you are against corporations, then you must be against the state.
    And the difference between Teapartiers and anarchists is .... where?

  9. #119
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Nady View Post
    It's always been the backbone of our freedoms, but I doubt the founding fathers ever imagined anyone's opinions would move beyond our shores. I think the original idea was to give the people of the USA the right to criticize our government without fearing prosecution. How does that gives someone the right to spew their hatred of other people/countries over the WWW via youtube?

    We aren't one small nation in a big world anymore. Should there be consequences for those that hide behind our rights and use their words to cause death and distruction abroad? If this happened on our shores, I think these people would be charged with hate crimes.

    Can we discuss? I'd like to understand better, because right now, I'm just sick.
    U.S. Declaration of Independence
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..." only one of which is free speech.

    Your argument is typical of Americans today (so don't feel all alone in my criticism of your argument) who do not know their US History and the long line and in-depth philosophical thought (such as Aquinas to Locke up to Thomas Jefferson), that went into the Founding Fathers' reasoning when they penned the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

    Your argument implies you do not know the difference between the moral concept of Human Rights and Civil Rights since your argument is based upon a belief that rights evolved out of the values of the governed and government. That Rights belief is not only contrary to US historical thought it is also contrary to the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

    So what's the difference between Human Rights and Civil Rights? Human Rights are held to universal to all people and are grounded on a belief in what's called Moral Realism, the belief that morality is objective as opposed to relative (meta-ethical Moral Relativism) and simply based upon subjective values that are changeable.

    IOW Human Rights are objective facts not subject to change, and it should be the goal of humanity to discover - through reason - what these rights are and then apply them within the social structure. [as a side note, the concept of human rights necessity of an objective morality is also contrary to a materialistic philosophy. I can argue that point but it'd get this thread sidetracked]

    Civil Rights by contrast are changeable and open to subjective opinions/values. Believers in Human Rights should set as a goal to have Civil Rights mirror Human Rights as best as possibly can. The debate becomes: "What are these Human Rights?" The problem with knowing Human Rights (or objective morality) is that they don't lend themselves to objective scientific investigation... hence they are declared to be self-evident by reason alone.

    To use an example: By Civil Law/Rights African Americans were once banned from the same Human Rights claimed to be endowed to the rest of the people of that day -- slavery. Were their Human Rights being violated? If you believe in Human Rights then yeah. But if all there is are Civil Rights (and by the Civil rights standards of that day) then no their rights weren't being violated because the Pre-Civil War culture and the then acting government/governed didn't confer those same civil rights on to African Americans. Is that the world you want to live in, a world were rights are only conferred from a government bureaucracy? I don't.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  10. #120
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    932
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Urban Forager View Post
    Finally a little context......add to that economic stresses brought on by global corporate capitalism and you can bet reactions will be unpredictable. This video was not viewed in a void.
    There's more to economic stress than corporate capitalism. You're allowing yourself to hoodwinked by the political rhetoric you ascribe to. So take politics out of your thought process for a moment and look at the world economy through a bigger lens.

    Historians have described different ages such as the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, and the Industrial Age. You live in the Petroleum Age. The 20th Century's economy expansion boom was built upon crude oil being introduced into the economy as a cheap and abundant, highly dense energy source. Like everything else economies are an energy system. Basically, the volume of oil per capita is being constrained and is driving up the price of oil on the global market (central banks devaluing the currency is also contributing to the price rise). Bill Clinton gets credit for balancing the budget but he had a glut of oil that caused the price to fall to a low of $8 per barrel. With oil that cheap and abundant you can do a lot economic expansion and budget balancing.

    Rather than me going more in depth to make my point I'm going to give some source that lay out my argument.
    Chapter's 17a, 17b, and 17c are the most relevant but it's said that nobody should be able to get out of college with understand the Chris Martenson's The Crash Course. This is your future and what you should expect for the economy. He ties together the three Es, the economy, energy, and environment.
    The Crash Course | Peak Prosperity

    This independent documentary is a bit dated (2005) but overall very relevant
    The End of Suburbia - 52 minute documentary on peak oil - YouTube

    Dr. Richard Smalley: "Our Energy Challenge" (Part 1 of 7) - YouTube


    Seeing the World Through an Energy Lens by Mary Logan, University of Alaska.
    In this power point lecture Logan presents a "Big Picture" systems view of economics. Through the lecture she develops her argument and then presents her conclusions for her view of future living standards.
    Dr. Mary Logan - Whither Complexity?

    collapse of complex societies by dr. joseph tainter

    That's a lot of time invested to watch all that but if you are at all curious about an alternative view of the way the world works and what to expect in the 21th century it's worth the time.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •