First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Free Speech and Higher Education
17117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17
It's funny you are pro-life but are totally against the idea of anyone hindering free speech.

They stem from the same concept, you want to control someone else's decisions.
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

descloud wrote:

It's funny you are pro-life but are totally against the idea of anyone hindering free speech.

They stem from the same concept, you want to control someone else's decisions.


19757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

slendercookieman wrote:



Not in the United States, the amendment which allows for free speech is located in the section called, "The Bill of Rights". So, factually, speech is a right. You also forget that all of those leaders seriously cracked down upon free speech, which to was what I can assume is your opinion, to keep the common populous from questioning the actions of the government. Which is ironic because that is the primary purpose of free speech; to keep the government in line through discussion among the people.

I would argue argue that the problem in modern times is that there was, with the popularization of the internet and social media, a decrease in confronting opinions that were heard. That, along with a growing egotism within the whole of our culture, creates a perfect storm. For one, people now are only used to hearing certain opinions and thus have no understanding of opposite points of view, and also that people believe that they are always right and are unwilling to admit when they are wrong. Furthermore, people are growing ignorant over what is fact and what is opinion. This is because the institutions that are supposed to be leading us out of ignorance and into free thought and tolerance, have stopped and sometimes promote intolerance to other ideals.

(A bit off topic, but everything can become a form of power if people perceive it to be. Also, words are only a form of power if people are willing to listen, otherwise they fade away. If you look back at the examples you gave, you will realize there was more to them gaining power than just shouting really loud into a crowd of people.)

...but that's just my opinion :/


Free speech is a privilege earned even in the United States. In this case it was earned by a revolt against the British Empire and kept both by the Bill of Rights and the various leaders that came after the founding fathers. And to boot it was an amendment , which meant it wasn't originally considered that is very telling right there.

Though I suppose I have to somewhat agree with your point about the popularisation of the internet and social media.

As for your point of my example of leaders. Yes there was more then shouting loudly into a crowd in their rise to power but a 600 foot tall Redwood begins as a seed.
27657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/17

Ranwolf wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


Can we make it past the first page before you start hurling abuse at people. K thanks.

Popularity isn't the only deciding factor and you know that.


That wasn't abuse, it was bluntness.

Regardless Popularity isn't the only deciding factor true . But it is the baseline factor upon which all other factors hinge. Popular figures get put in charge, and from there right and wrong, permissible things , and so forth are decided.


A very small but ruthless group can cause a genocide on the populace. As far a speech is concerned they can cause great harm like you say or can be very beneficial. The lines are aren't always clearly defined. Sometimes you'll get a frog in a boiling pot scenario.
19757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

MysticGon wrote:


A very small but ruthless group can cause a genocide on the populace. As far a speech is concerned they can cause great harm like you say or can be very beneficial. The lines are aren't always clearly defined. Sometimes you'll get a frog in a boiling pot scenario.


All very true things but in the end we have to decide if the risk is worth the reward. I personally do not like risk, if you mess up well some very nasty and unforeseen consequences can be the result . That is just my opinion on the matter though.
27657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Online
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/2/17

Ranwolf wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


A very small but ruthless group can cause a genocide on the populace. As far a speech is concerned they can cause great harm like you say or can be very beneficial. The lines are aren't always clearly defined. Sometimes you'll get a frog in a boiling pot scenario.


All very true things but in the end we have to decide if the risk is worth the reward. I personally do not like risk, if you mess up well some very nasty and unforeseen consequences can be the result . That is just my opinion on the matter though.


I can respect that. The whole "give me liberty or give me death" that's so big in America shows people but a pretty high premium on freedom. Even risking their safety for it. Though it's kind of not fair if a vocal minority causes enough nation war that kills people that didn't want any part of it. Being silent doesn't guarantee safety.
25640 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

octorockandroll wrote:


descloud wrote:

It's funny you are pro-life but are totally against the idea of anyone hindering free speech.

They stem from the same concept, you want to control someone else's decisions.




Demonstrating a lack of logical thought processes once again. Obviously, we are controlling decisions regardless. Either you are prevented from speaking/aborting, or someone else is prevented from stopping you. That's the point of a system of laws. Otherwise, we have anarchy, which isn't pretty.

The question is what the laws should achieve, not "muh free will". In this case, protecting free speech is meant to prevent political discourse from becoming opposing paramilitary units of brownshirts battling it out for the ability to communicate their ideologies, which is the shit we're headed toward once again in history (I suppose it never stopped happening across most of the world).

Unmasking, arresting, and perhaps killing Antifas would be a good move at this stage. No one should feel comfortable and safe with the idea of masking up to sow terror in political opponents, as if the mask protects them and they will not be killed for that action. Imagine if the Sturmabteilung were simply killed, it could have possibly saved the lives of millions.
345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CGS DIVISION 03
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

Ranwolf wrote:


slendercookieman wrote:



Not in the United States, the amendment which allows for free speech is located in the section called, "The Bill of Rights". So, factually, speech is a right. You also forget that all of those leaders seriously cracked down upon free speech, which to was what I can assume is your opinion, to keep the common populous from questioning the actions of the government. Which is ironic because that is the primary purpose of free speech; to keep the government in line through discussion among the people.

I would argue argue that the problem in modern times is that there was, with the popularization of the internet and social media, a decrease in confronting opinions that were heard. That, along with a growing egotism within the whole of our culture, creates a perfect storm. For one, people now are only used to hearing certain opinions and thus have no understanding of opposite points of view, and also that people believe that they are always right and are unwilling to admit when they are wrong. Furthermore, people are growing ignorant over what is fact and what is opinion. This is because the institutions that are supposed to be leading us out of ignorance and into free thought and tolerance, have stopped and sometimes promote intolerance to other ideals.

(A bit off topic, but everything can become a form of power if people perceive it to be. Also, words are only a form of power if people are willing to listen, otherwise they fade away. If you look back at the examples you gave, you will realize there was more to them gaining power than just shouting really loud into a crowd of people.)

...but that's just my opinion :/


Free speech is a privilege earned even in the United States. In this case it was earned by a revolt against the British Empire and kept both by the Bill of Rights and the various leaders that came after the founding fathers. And to boot it was an amendment , which meant it wasn't originally considered that is very telling right there.

Though I suppose I have to somewhat agree with your point about the popularisation of the internet and social media.

As for your point of my example of leaders. Yes there was more then shouting loudly into a crowd in their rise to power but a 600 foot tall Redwood begins as a seed.


Ehh, you realize the Revolutionary War was fought because the Colonies thought that their rights were being impeded upon, right? Though, I get your argument saying that it was an "after thought"...but not really correct their either. The founding fathers wanted to replace the Articles of Confederation because it was terrible, and the Constitutions was their solution. Thus, the founding father's main objective was to get a new system of government in place. The reason the Bill of Rights exists (which I think stresses the importance of it) is that the people, and in turn their states, would not ratify the Constitution unless individual rights were protected by it, which included free speech.

Also, I guess I wasn't very clear in my last statement, what I was trying to say, to put it in your terms, is that the "seed" of the Redwood is disparity. Wither it be social, economic, or political disparity, that's where it always begins. Though, I would say that speech is the water that allows it to grow and the weed that steals it's nutrients; you forget that speech can be used to condemn, not only to promote. Also, as I previously stated, many of the examples you listed prohibited speech as to stop people from questioning the government which could have prevented genocide.

:/
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

Kavalion wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


descloud wrote:

It's funny you are pro-life but are totally against the idea of anyone hindering free speech.

They stem from the same concept, you want to control someone else's decisions.




Demonstrating a lack of logical thought processes once again. Obviously, we are controlling decisions regardless. Either you are prevented from speaking/aborting, or someone else is prevented from stopping you. That's the point of a system of laws. Otherwise, we have anarchy, which isn't pretty.

The question is what the laws should achieve, not "muh free will". In this case, protecting free speech is meant to prevent political discourse from becoming opposing paramilitary units of brownshirts battling it out for the ability to communicate their ideologies, which is the shit we're headed toward once again in history (I suppose it never stopped happening across most of the world).

Unmasking, arresting, and perhaps killing Antifas would be a good move at this stage. No one should feel comfortable and safe with the idea of masking up to sow terror in political opponents, as if the mask protects them and they will not be killed for that action. Imagine if the Sturmabteilung were simply killed, it could have possibly saved the lives of millions.


You may want to rethink that whole "lack of logical thinking" crap since you're saying that having someone's actions not be controlled is the same as controlling their actions.

I would also suggest maybe not advocating for the killing of people you don't like if you want to be taken seriously when discussing civil rights and freedoms. Oh and it probably breaks a few of the forum rules as well.
345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CGS DIVISION 03
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

descloud wrote:

It's funny you are pro-life but are totally against the idea of anyone hindering free speech.

They stem from the same concept, you want to control someone else's decisions.


I don't think you understand the principles behind pro-life. People who are pro-life believe that life begins at conception, which in all fairness as biological backing, and so by aborting the fetus, you are essentially killing a child. Thus, you are controlling someone else's life and by extent their decisions.

...just thought I should clear that up, you can disagree with the founding principle (life begins at conception) , but some people do believe in that principle. So, by understanding how they think, you can understand how they hold both views simultaneously.

:/
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

slendercookieman wrote:


descloud wrote:

It's funny you are pro-life but are totally against the idea of anyone hindering free speech.

They stem from the same concept, you want to control someone else's decisions.


I don't think you understand the principles behind pro-life. People who are pro-life believe that life begins at conception, which in all fairness as biological backing, and so by aborting the fetus, you are essentially killing a child. Thus, you are controlling someone else's life and by extent their decisions.

...just thought I should clear that up, you can disagree with the founding principle (life begins at conception) , but some people do believe in that principle. So, by understanding how they think, you can understand how they hold both views simultaneously.

:/


I personally am not exactly pro-life but I do think that at conception a life is created but at the same time I do think in some circumstances abortion is the best option.

For example: 1. Not being able to support your family.
2. You were raped (not sure if allowed to use that word, please let me know) and you didn't want to have a baby.
345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CGS DIVISION 03
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

Paradise_ wrote:


I personally am not exactly pro-life but I do think that at conception a life is created but at the same time I do think in some circumstances abortion is the best option.

For example: 1. Not being able to support your family.
2. You were raped (not sure if allowed to use that word, please let me know) and you didn't want to have a baby.


Well, the counter argument would be to send the child to an orphanage or have someone adopt the child immediately after birth, so eh?

Also, a circumstance that I hear a lot is that it should be allowed if the mother's life is in danger, which I think has more substance than your first, but I digress.

(Why wouldn't you be allowed to?)

:/
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

slendercookieman wrote:


Paradise_ wrote:


I personally am not exactly pro-life but I do think that at conception a life is created but at the same time I do think in some circumstances abortion is the best option.

For example: 1. Not being able to support your family.
2. You were raped (not sure if allowed to use that word, please let me know) and you didn't want to have a baby.


Well, the counter argument would be to send the child to an orphanage or have someone adopt the child immediately after birth, so eh?

Also, a circumstance that I hear a lot is that it should be allowed if the mother's life is in danger, which I think has more substance than your first, but I digress.

(Why wouldn't you be allowed to?)

:/


Ehh this particular topic is a very iffy issue. I'm open minded but I do have a core belief about it (while also being flexible with it).

For the counter argument: that's a great alternative.
For the other circumstance: That should be added to my list. (I do also agree that it has more 'substance' than my first two.)

"(Why wouldn't you be allowed to?)"
What do you mean by this exactly? Are you asking why not with the other circumstance or why not be able to abort a child?
345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / CGS DIVISION 03
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

Paradise_ wrote:

"(Why wouldn't you be allowed to?)"
What do you mean by this exactly? Are you asking why not with the other circumstance or why not be able to abort a child?


No, that was about you asking if you could use the word "rape" or not.
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

slendercookieman wrote:


Paradise_ wrote:

"(Why wouldn't you be allowed to?)"
What do you mean by this exactly? Are you asking why not with the other circumstance or why not be able to abort a child?


No, that was about you asking if you could use the word "rape" or not.


I wasn't sure if the Mods would like it/allow me to use it. I guess I mostly asked because it's not a word I use a lot because of what it means.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.