On the issue of Free Speech

[guerilla]

If we do not have rights then why do we have a bill of rights?

I would define rights for you but then you would pick a word within the definition and say what does that mean and so forth.

Just define it then. What is a right?

Like I said, most people can't define what rights are. Instead, they attack the person asking for a definition. Kinda proves my point.

Don't take the cowards way out, and say you would do it, but you're afraid of the consequences if you do.

shut the fuck up Aristotle

Why are you guys threatened by a guy on a forum asking questions and asking you to define your terms?

 

[guerilla]

What are you compensating for dude?

I'm not the one posting pics of feces online. What are you compensating for? Or unable to compensate for?

 

[Russ86]

I'm not the one posting pics of feces online. What are you compensating for? Or unable to compensate for?

Define compensate.

 

[guerilla]

Define compensate.

lol. At least that an honest question, and better than acting like a retard throwing your shit at the screen.

No one has any rights, and if anyone disagrees, explain what a right is and how we have it (positive proof). Otherwise ...

 

[geomark]

What I am saying is that very few people know anything about words, or law or ideas and yet they freely express themselves using the same regardless.

I think you and Isaac Asimov are on the same page.

 

[mimoza3]

You get to say whatever I allow you to say in my home. If you say, "I'm gonna rape your woman and slit your kids' throats," I will show you the door and tell you to never return.*

The roles are - and should be - reversed if I am in your home. This touches upon the reasons private property ensures peace.

I'm 100% with you on this one, in your home you define the limits of what you want to hear, if it is the direct expression of potential violence then I would assume it should not only ends in polite removal...

This also applies to internet forums, founders and moderators create a forum for specific needs and wants, they can force limits on the community, especially if they feel that a remark is of no value to the topic of the thread or forum, WF "shooting the shit" however does not seem to be one such place.

 

[mimoza3]

If free speech is directly contributing to the spread of hatred and condemnation of religion which only heightens tensions and hostility against one another in an already war-ridden world, should we still allow the ignorant to speak their mind ruin things for the rest of society who remains tolerant?

It is my opinion that free speech should not be limited, any type of it.
free speech is not "just" an American thing, it is universal, it is a basic human right, and was not thought of if it was not for hundreds of years of constant oppression - by kings, warlords and organized religion.

One should not be afraid of different, even radical, thoughts simply because it might shatter his own. To keep challenging your own perceptions and base of ideas is a good thing, "why do I think the world is round?", "why are all men created equal?" are questions people should answer for themselves.

"We" have no right to "allow" or "permit" someone to express his thought, nor should we censor it for fear we can not demolish the argument with our own convictions. Of course that there is danger in lazy and uneducated people listening to only one sided versions of the truth - and that it is important for society to encourage serious and honest debate, not slander anyone who dares to speak out of conformity.

 

[clyde]

I still don't know why Guerilla said we have no rights though.

I don't like getting into the details but we at least have the right to own a property?

 

[mimoza3]

This is what I am getting at.

As far as free speech, it's nonsense. Just like most rights. I challenge anyone here to tell me what a "right" is.

The person who controls property, controls how much speech is created relative to that property. It's not about rights, its about the whim of the property owner.

WF has liberal language and subject policies because Jon wants it to be so. The minute he changes his mind, everyone will comply or GTFO.

Actually you make many good points, and in the process show that you are not afraid to speak your mind, which is not conformed to the majority of the forum.

It seems clear that you attack and mock the so called liberties because you think that they are not held, or given, in the way they should be or as stated - and there is a degree of truth to that. However the individual freedom of any person to speak his mind without fear of physical harm or imprisonment is not exclusively American (even thought the founding fathers of the USA are the champions of it, because they suffered so much from the lack of it).

The freedom to speak naturally follows other basic freedoms, just as men are born free and can not be used as slaves because their owner decides he is above them they are free to speak and to move etc. - once again this is more of an aspiration then a reality, many places in the world have none of that, and you will find that in the last 400 years the idea that a person can speak his mind cost many good people their lives and careers, however you must agree that Galileo and Darwin both were able to publish their opinions on a different scale.

As for these "liberties" in a private internet forum, of course it is the choice of the owners to decide how much freedom to extend to members, and that is exactly why I ended the post the way I did.

 

[lukep]

I still don't know why Guerilla said we have no rights though.

I don't like getting into the details but we at least have the right to own a property?

Srsly?

Property ownership is the most transparent example I know of our LACK of freedom.

Try not paying your taxes or owning property someplace that is desireable to your government and you'll quickly see how much you really own that property.

 

[Russ86]

Srsly?

Property ownership is the most transparent example I know of our LACK of freedom.

Try not paying your taxes or owning property someplace that is desireable to your government and you'll quickly see how much you really own that property.

Have to agree here. If you think you truly 'own' the land you buy, you better think again.

 

[geomark]

Srsly?

Property ownership is the most transparent example I know of our LACK of freedom.

Try not paying your taxes or owning property someplace that is desireable to your government and you'll quickly see how much you really own that property.

Owning real property (immovable property like land) is a bit of a trap if you think it is really yours. Any government whim can take it away from you or eliminate your ability to use it. You can pay your taxes like a good little citizen and then the local government can pass an ordinance that wipes you out, like Santa Monica rent control back in the days when I owned rental property in SoCal. Since you can't move it you are screwed. The only property that is really yours is property that is portable and the government doesn't know about.

 

[jonas33h]

Srsly?

Property ownership is the most transparent example I know of our LACK of freedom.

Try not paying your taxes or owning property someplace that is desireable to your government and you'll quickly see how much you really own that property.

you are arguing two different things, you have rights, what you are saying is that they can easily be stripped from you but none the less you do have the right as long as you obey the laws to keep those rights.

 

[jonas33h]

Just define it then. What is a right?

Like I said, most people can't define what rights are. Instead, they attack the person asking for a definition. Kinda proves my point.

Don't take the cowards way out, and say you would do it, but you're afraid of the consequences if you do.


Why are you guys threatened by a guy on a forum asking questions and asking you to define your terms?

I wasn't attacking you, I was simply saying I don't feel like getting into a meaningless argument with a fucking retard who doesn't know how to look up a definition of a word or when the definition is presented to you you simply say well what does that mean. Take you metaphysical shit and go fuck yourself because it gets the same results. I can't help it that you think you are all deep and shit because you have the ability to ask. . . . Why or what?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

I think what Guerilla is pointing out is valid, although I think the way he is pointing it out is semantically incorrect. Here is my take on it.

We do have rights. However, those rights are not inalienable, despite the fact that most people assume so.

We only have the rights that our owners give to us. They can also take those rights away whenever they feel like it, so a right is not necessarily permanent, and therefore may or may not last your entire life, and those rights may not be there for your children.

We only have the rights that our government allows us to have, and they use violence to enforce our limited rights. The Government can also use violence in a way that violates the very rights we have supposedly been given (see Anwar Al-Awlaki).

Therefore I think his point is simply that what we think our rights are, is not what many think they really are. I just think he wasn't clear, because in my opinion there is no such thing as inalienable rights despite what Governments might tell people. He can agree or disagree of course, after all, that is his right (Thanks Jon).

 

[-joe-]

Srsly?

Property ownership is the most transparent example I know of our LACK of freedom.

Try not paying your taxes or owning property someplace that is desireable to your government and you'll quickly see how much you really own that property.

Not sure I totally agree. Say I own a small blue widget. I keep it in my possession at all times, however there's always the possibility someone may mug me and steal it.

Despite this possibility, I would still say I own it.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

Not sure I totally agree. Say I own a small blue widget. I keep it in my possession at all times, however there's always the possibility someone may mug me and steal it.

Despite this possibility, I would still say I own it.

Until the Government tells you that you no longer own it by confiscating it through taxation, making possession of blue widgets illegal, or any other number of ways that your rights may be altered.

 

[guerilla]

I still don't know why Guerilla said we have no rights though.

I don't like getting into the details but we at least have the right to own a property?

What I asked was a very serious question, just as my question to Mattseh was serious and sincere.

What is a right?

Still, no one can define what a right is, so I cannot fathom why people keep insisting they exist. Atheists wouldn't let a Christian get away with saying God exists without some proof. I am basically asking for the same standard of proof that an Atheist asks for God.

What is a right? Define it.

 

[guerilla]

The freedom to speak naturally follows other basic freedoms, just as men are born free and can not be used as slaves because their owner decides he is above them they are free to speak and to move etc.

Ok, this is a very abstract way of not answering the questions. Do we have rights yes or no? What is a right?

I think you're substituting the word freedom for right here.

We do have rights. However, those rights are not inalienable, despite the fact that most people assume so.

The question AGAIN ignored is, "What is a right"?

We only have the rights that our owners give to us. They can also take those rights away whenever they feel like it, so a right is not necessarily permanent, and therefore may or may not last your entire life, and those rights may not be there for your children.

We only have the rights that our government allows us to have, and they use violence to enforce our limited rights. The Government can also use violence in a way that violates the very rights we have supposedly been given (see Anwar Al-Awlaki).

Therefore I think his point is simply that what we think our rights are, is not what many think they really are. I just think he wasn't clear, because in my opinion there is no such thing as inalienable rights despite what Governments might tell people. He can agree or disagree of course, after all, that is his right (Thanks Jon).

This is striking closest to what I believe the truth to be. So-called rights are really privileges or entitlements, and they vary upon who is providing them. There is no universal "right" to anything.

Not sure I totally agree. Say I own a small blue widget. I keep it in my possession at all times, however there's always the possibility someone may mug me and steal it.

Despite this possibility, I would still say I own it.

There is the old saying, "possession is 9/10ths of the law"

 

[guerilla]

I wasn't attacking you, I was simply saying I don't feel like getting into a meaningless argument with a fucking retard who doesn't know how to look up a definition of a word or when the definition is presented to you you simply say well what does that mean.

Then why did you post? No one asked you to post. You chose to post, to tell me you didn't want to discuss.

This is an open discussion, people can come and go. Not every idiot who comes along has to tell the group "I DONT FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING".

Also, I am not a fucking retard. I'm actually fairly bright. I would say that you're the one behaving in a manner not consistent with intelligence.

Take you metaphysical shit and go fuck yourself because it gets the same results. I can't help it that you think you are all deep and shit because you have the ability to ask. . . . Why or what?

That you don't like thinking, is probably a good reason for you to avoid threads that involve thinking, and go back to looking at boobies and being poor or whatever it is you do each day.

That you react so negatively to what other people are peacefully discussing seems to me some sort of indicator that you're probably a bit emotionally unstable, and possibly really unhappy. Happy people don't tend to act the way you are.

Not sure what your posts were supposed to gain you, but I don't think they hit the mark. You just end up looking like a total idiot trying to shit where other people are eating. Maybe that was your goal. To come off as an anti-social peasant. If so, congrats.