First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Respect for the law
71250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Missouri
Offline
Posted 2/11/12
Thank you. that was the most logical, least opinionated answer I've received since I posted my question. Although I still believe people should try to show some manners when dealing with a political leader in public, even if we don't have to, it still would show that we have some sense of civility in this country left. Especially toward foreigner countries.
44 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 2/11/12
Every single generation has claimed that etiquette and politeness was so much better back when "we were younger". The United States was founded on the principle of freedom of speech and of expression, so anyone can say anything. The ability to insult or dislike anyone is one of the things that the US was built on. Having manners is all good and well, and maybe people are acting a bit ruder in the 21st century than before, but since literally the ancient Greeks people have had false nostalgia, and the belief that manners are being worn away. As for the Japanese, their society is a hierarchical system that has existed for centuries. They're different, but a lot of the way they act is traditional, and is not necessarily a good template to compare the US to. Anyone can believe anything.
71250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Missouri
Offline
Posted 2/11/12
Your correct the first amendment gives us the freedom of speech however freedom that wasn't earned but rather given should not be abused. You can insult anyone, but should you. Is it really okay? People here can pick their nose or wear a hat in a restaurant, but do that in Europe or Asia or even someplace closer like Canada and its severely looked down upon.
As for Japan I don't think we should change our government to theirs or even go to their extreme form of etiquette, but it would be nice if everyone showed a bit of politeness towards other people. Taking the good aspects of another's culture and incorporating it into our society is what can help build an even better country.
7534 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Studying at home.
Offline
Posted 2/11/12
I break the law all the time. o.o I always forget to turn on my headlights when i drive...
1078 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Shinagawa
Offline
Posted 2/11/12
What you need to remember is that laws are nothing more than written words by humans just like yourself... Why would their words be worth anything more than your own? What gives them the right to tell you what's right and wrong? Prefixes, such as "president" or "officer"? Also made up words by humans, and they give them no right to control others.

You don't have to respect the president. You are free!
Posted 2/11/12 , edited 2/11/12

Spiderssoul wrote:

I only used Otaku to generally describe anime lovers, if your a casual watcher than fine, and I only meant people should show some manners when addressing the president in public.


Hey you're right while I'm at it I should thank him for signing the NDAA scrubbing those American traitors off the face of the Earth wow what a sight that would be.. ..
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 2/11/12
I don't really know how the law works in the USA. In my opinion, you should be able to not like the president/ prime minister / leader of your country. After all, a lot of leaders deserve to be met with contempt. But so far I haven't seen anything bad Obama has done so I don't get why all the americans hate him.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 2/14/12

GrateSaiyaman wrote:

To badmouth the president or any members of congress was called "sedition" and you could get tossed into jail for such things years ago.

Fortunately they got rid of those laws before Nixon was president.

When I was a kid, about the time Nixon was president, I was taught that we should have respect for our elders and statesmen. I didn't understand the workings of Watergate, I was about 11, and I didn't understand why people said terrible things about President Nixon.
I always asked people why . . . I was told to shut-up a lot.

After I got older and had my own personal "Watergate moment" . . . I started questioning people why politics is the way it is and why should I respect anyone in office . . . I ignore people telling me to shut up and ask them for a REAL answer.

I also decided that if I do not disagree with someone on some things I should think about whether I need to pull my head out of my ass or not . . . in other-words make sure that my opinion is genuine.

I guess I'm trying to say respecting the law is a good thing but respecting authority isn't . . . ultimately law is nothing without authority and if the authorities are a bunch of assholes, we should make sure they know that, at the very least.

Generally I tend to think the right-wingers are bigger assholes . . . but (no pun) they all seem to be assholes...

People say that about me too . . .


I think 'Sedition' goes beyond 'Bad mouthing'.

If I say: 'Prime Minister Harper is an evil 'true-believer' and a dick to boot', Then I'm saying nothing worse that the sorts of statements made about Prime Minister MacDonald. And the later had the skills to weld together a country out a handful of British possessions during a decade spent, as far as I can tell, in an alcoholic haze. Most of us can't successfully negotiate stairs in that state let alone drive a car. He negotiated our original constitution and drove a railway from sea to sea.

However if I say to someone in a position to harm the interests of my nation. "You should betray your nation because it sucks." THEN I am committing sedition.

There is an argument about Jack Parizeau. He, the then premier of Quebec, wrote to francophone members of the the Canadian military encouraging them to discard their vows and form the nucleus of a Quebec military should the then impending referendum on separation be won by the 'Yes' side. Some would argue that act, was sedition.

Which is treason. For which, even in Canada, you can still be "hung by the neck until dead". ( think it would be hanging... since we haven't actually executed anyone since... at least the 70's... I'm not sure.)

As far as I know charges were never pressed. Granted it would have been a political bomb had some national official tried to press them but...




51455 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Missouri, United...
Offline
Posted 2/14/12
I don't believe there is one, and I would actually be surprised if there was one since being forced to respect the president would be counter to what the founding fathers wanted since they didn't want a tyrannical government, and a law like that would support a tyrannical government. Our goverment certainly is flawed, but that is one of the few things that most people believe in.
41651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/14/12
I don't think it's that bad. I mean, you do have the right to freedom of speech.

TBH, I don't particularly like the president, nor do I hate him.
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 2/14/12
I respect the law for most part.
97974 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Online
Posted 2/14/12
If the impending individual health mandate via Obamacare gets funded and becomes reality forcing all of us to buy health insurance account government edict instead of individual choice, then my contempt for L'Enfant Terrible (aka our current POTUS) will rise exponentially. This man is a very clever, devious individual. Even with 2008 elections empowering the House of Representatives with the ability to prevent further erosion of many of our freedoms via this administration those frightened puppies are whimpering instead of growling. Their not doing their job at all. We, the US of A, are on the brink of becoming run like a European country. I feel we are living in a post-Constitutional soft tyranny, a Mark Levin descriptor of governance running amok, currently.

If L'Enfant Terrible is voted in for another 4 year term in 2012 I'm almost 100% positive the US populace will experience what amounts to an economic depression. Taxes will mushroom. Incentive to succeed in the private sector will diminish, possibly become extinct. The real producers will move their money away from here to a safer climate and foreign investment in this country will leave once they realize the reckless fiscal spending by our government won't abate. The only future safe havens here, economically, will be in the positions of power and influence: lobbyist for the capitalistic cronies L'Enfant Terrible sponsors, government employment with an extremely high GS rating, member or relative of the ruling class elite.

This supposed jobs bill L'Enfant Terrible is trying to foist upon the populace is nothing more than a phenomenal tax hike to finance another spending binge. None of the proposed revenues will be used to lower our debt or fund any of his lavish promises; rather, it will be pissed away on spending and/or reimbursing the billionaire backers that put L'Enfant Terrible back in the White House. The quality of life as we know it will go from present tense to past. The pleasant memories will be of the time before the Great Debt bubble bursting, not after. And should you feel L'Enfant Terrible inherited much of this debt from Mr. Bush (let no blank check go unsigned 2001-2008) do recall Mr. Obama has tripled down on Bush's spending proclivities in just the last 3 years.

I used to maintain a fantasy about both Bill and Hillary Clinton spending the rest of their natural lives in orange jump suits (means felony committed status when in jail, while green jumper confers misdemeanor only) serving a life term at the Federal holding pens in Atchison, Kansas for all their excesses. Lately, my disdain for zealots who intend our country great harm for their personal gain has been refocused on our current President. This man has not kept his word on anything. He does the direct opposite. Listen to his 2008 campaign rhetoric, then compare his 3 year results. This man will not take personal responsibility for anything, it's always some straw man or Bush who is at fault. I wish those gutless/guileless wimps that make up the establishment aspect of the Republican Party would develop a backbone and stand up for us (ha!). This fiscal mess since 2009 is his. Lately, my fantasy has been to rewrite Death Note and have our current President's name be 1 of the entries chosen.
5447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / Tacoma, WA. wind...
Offline
Posted 2/15/12

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I think 'Sedition' goes beyond 'Bad mouthing'.

However if I say to someone in a position to harm the interests of my nation. "You should betray your nation because it sucks." THEN I am committing sedition.


I would have to agree with that . . . but people used to be a bit more touchy about things.

There was a time just in the past few years when public opinion was it's own punishment. During the war in Iraq, for example, if you spoke out against it you were vilified as unpatriotic.

During the Vietnam era if you would protest against the war you thought of as a snotty-nosed hippie...

During the 1990's if you were against gun control you were thought of as radical anti-government nut.

There were rumors at all of those times that someone in government would make laws that would prohibit those kinds of protests...

You even see it now with the Occupy movement...

BUT I think that kind of emphasizes what I was saying about respecting law but not authority . . . civil disobedience as Gandhi and M.L.King demonstrated can be as simple as going someplace and not doing anything at all . . . sometimes just talking about it.
75432 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 2/15/12

GrateSaiyaman [link url="/forumtopic-750544/respect-for-the-law?fpid=39177509" title="View quoted po

st"]wrote
:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I think 'Sedition' goes beyond 'Bad mouthing'.

However if I say to someone in a position to harm the interests of my nation. "You should betray your nation because it sucks." THEN I am committing sedition.


I would have to agree with that . . . but people used to be a bit more touchy about things.

There was a time just in the past few years when public opinion was it's own punishment. During the war in Iraq, for example, if you spoke out against it you were vilified as unpatriotic.

During the Vietnam era if you would protest against the war you thought of as a snotty-nosed hippie...

During the 1990's if you were against gun control you were thought of as radical anti-government nut.

There were rumors at all of those times that someone in government would make laws that would prohibit those kinds of protests...

You even see it now with the Occupy movement...

BUT I think that kind of emphasizes what I was saying about respecting law but not authority . . . civil disobedience as Gandhi and M.L.King demonstrated can be as simple as going someplace and not doing anything at all . . . sometimes just talking about it.

No argument here. Though to be fair some of what you talk about is... not government oppression but societal pressure. Canadian Society in general, for example, is very anti-gun. Which sets a tough row to hoe for gun owners and sympathizers. Our current government is paying lip service to going against the grain in this regard. It's the media, general public, and opposition parties who generate the anti-gun outcry right now.

And that example and similar ones take us beyond 'respect for the office of our head of government'. hmmm... I wonder if that's an advantage of constitutional monarcy? The governor general and through him, the Queen, are basically walking talking flags that few people have a political stake in showing disrespect to. Our prime minister is just another schmoe with a temp job and the taxpayer's sign his cheques.

We can vilify him all we like.


Sorry I ramble. but if you're under no obligation to zip your mouth for legal authority you're under even less obligation when the problem is that many of your fellow citizens don't like what you have to say.
Posted 2/15/12
Instead of going through a bunch of quotes, I want to briefly say that I really enjoy reading the above three posts...

To comment, if we're going to start getting into social pressure, then EVERYTHING goes out the window. In fact, if we're going to compare de facto vs. de jure law, more than half of everything would go out the window, too!

When it comes to how the people around you can and will punish you for going against the grain, if you aren't willing to give up your ability to think and act independently, folks can and will give you a hell of a bad time. Plus the worst part is, it's practically impossible to keep up. Like with the things GrateSaiyaman mentioned, and similar issues -- public opinion can change dramatically within a week, even within a couple of days. Plus the naturally delusional nature of human crowds allows people to believe that this new radically changed opinion has 'always been true.' So an opinion you held a month ago could be fine then, but worthy of getting your arse kicked by some yahoos today.

Now, I do strongly appreciate politeness. For one, a bit of courtesy makes an incisive critique much more effective. Like with the above post from bemused_Bohemian, it was incisive but indicative of thought...thus it would not alienate someone with a more moderate opinion, while "Obama Sucks!" would just annoy anyone except people who already held that viewpoint.

That said, people who go against the grain are infinitely valuable to society, even if they aren't appreciated at the time. My reasons for this view are pretty similar to those mentioned by papagolfwhiskey, so I won't reiterate.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.