Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A total riff from Seaward's post.

Are we busy talking about letting people say stuff I disagree with? Oh my, were are we going, world...

Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to say something that other people don't like, any advice?".
Very strange.

Why do we Americans allow people to say whatever they want, especially if it makes someone feel uncomfortable or makes them angry.

Shouldn't the government license certain topics for discussion and outlaw others?

...look there's a thread that looks like a baited rat trap.

I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

But free speech is free. Regardless of the content as long as you're not committing libel

I like it that way

TheGateway wrote:I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

But free speech is free. Regardless of the content as long as you're not committing libel

I like it that way

The only reason to have free speech is to protect offensive speech. If it's not offensive then no one would complain about it.

Why should we facilitate offensiveness?

It's actually one of the defining features of "free America" that everyone looks up to, that whole image of standing up on a soap box and being able to voice your opinions.

As I take interest in socioeconomic policies, I can tell you that this is basically a "socio" extension of the "economic" capitalist free market model with all it's specifics. Not technically, but practically, very much so. I mean, most real-world examples see these as parallels. If the rules of what the people and the businesses can do abide by the same principles, result is happier and more coherent country. Apparently

Edit: ninja post
We facilitate potential offensiveness because by doing so we diminish greater societal harms that may come about by not having that freedom. In other words, having more freedom is a benefit we reap from sacrificing the potential for there to be minor wrongdoing.

biccat wrote:A total riff from Seaward's post.

Are we busy talking about letting people say stuff I disagree with? Oh my, were are we going, world...

Yeah, Americans are weird. "I'm going to say something that other people don't like, any advice?".
Very strange.

Why do we Americans allow people to say whatever they want, especially if it makes someone feel uncomfortable or makes them angry.

Shouldn't the government license certain topics for discussion and outlaw others?

Same in Europe bic.

I was arguing about Religion at a mates party in Santa Cruz. I mentioned that the USA has way more creationists and asked him why he thought that might be. He said "in America we are free to believe in any Religions we want!"

As if that isn't the case in Western Europe.

If your question is intended to bait Europeans it fails, because we are as free (arguably more) to say and believe in whatever we like.

There aren't many Iranians on here though.. so you don't really occupy the high ground.

biccat wrote:

TheGateway wrote:I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

But free speech is free. Regardless of the content as long as you're not committing libel

I like it that way

The only reason to have free speech is to protect offensive speech. If it's not offensive then no one would complain about it.

Why should we facilitate offensiveness?

Your position offends me, by your definition it would be banned.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:

TheGateway wrote:I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

But free speech is free. Regardless of the content as long as you're not committing libel

I like it that way

The only reason to have free speech is to protect offensive speech. If it's not offensive then no one would complain about it.

Why should we facilitate offensiveness?

Your position offends me, by your definition it would be banned.

That. Opinions on free speech are opinions that fall under the "free speech" debate

He has a point though mel.. it's kinda like protecting the rights of minorities, because majorities don't NEED ptotecting.

You could argue that freedom of speech only needs protecting for wacky people, because if the overwhelming majority of people agree with what you say, it's protected by default!

mattyrm wrote:He has a point though mel.. it's kinda like protecting the rights of minorities, because majorities don't NEED ptotecting.

You could argue that freedom of speech only needs protecting for wacky people, because if the overwhelming majority of people agree with what you say, it's protected by default!

You could argue that, sure, but you'd be missing one of the fundamental points of the First Amendment.

Or, to put it another way: are you sure you want government to have an unrestricted ability to determine what they can fine or imprison you for saying?

Melissia wrote:Your position offends me, by your definition it would be banned.

Unfortunately, your position results in a paradox. If we accept my position, my position would be banned. If we don't accept my position, then it could become law.

mattyrm wrote: Same in Europe bic.

I was arguing about Religion at a mates party in Santa Cruz. I mentioned that the USA has way more creationists and asked him why he thought that might be. He said "in America we are free to believe in any Religions we want!"

Exactly, lets get rid of any separation between church and state while we're at it. If the state wants to ban a religious belief or institute a mandatory religious belief (say Atheism, setting the religiousness of this position aside for the moment), it should be able to.

mattyrm wrote: If your question is intended to bait Europeans it fails, because we are as free (arguably more) to say and believe in whatever we like.

Exactly.

Well, unless you want to wear religiously mandated apparel, talk about the Holocaust being a myth, sell Nazi memorabilia, insult someone's religious beliefs, etc.

If speech is free why do we have phone bills!?!?

I am curious (morbid curiosity) on what biccat's intention is as well. Is someone actually going to claim that speech needs restriction based on (X) reason?, what depths will we see this thread spiral down to. With posting history of the OP clear to me, I will take the bait anyways.

I live near northern Idaho where there is plenty of holdovers from a neo nazi compound some years ago. With Martin Luther King Day approaching the christian separatists are gearing up for their local protest of the celebration. There has been protests over artwork on display (a sculpture of Ganesha) and some upset folks over the play "Rent" due to some of the characters being homosexuals. The MLK protest happens yearly in the Coeur d'Alene area resulting in the tourist towns embarrassment and displeasure. Despite the majority being in disagreement with the protests the separatists speech is protected by law no matter how much we disagree with it.

Is something like that along the lines of debate you are looking to talk about biccat? Where the lines are drawn and can we move them without eroding our freedom, who decides where the line is, is it a slippery slope etc. While I would love to see these bigots wiped from the earth or silenced, detailing who can say what based on a sliding scale of morals is not possible for long term discourse. Not that the group of separatists are looking for discourse, but they should not be restricted from it based on a majority of the people disagreeing with their ideology.

I will check this thread for its progress or degradation later! I have some writing to do and some wood to split.


Edit: (note really)Too funny, in the time it took me to type this and make my wife some coffee, this thread took off.

"Well, unless you want to wear religiously mandated apparel, talk about the Holocaust being a myth, sell Nazi memorabilia, insult someone's religious beliefs, etc."

In Canada they ban hate speech, in the US it is your right to do what you want.

If you want to sell Nazi stuff, while I may disagree with you vehemently you still have the right to do that.

America was formed by religious fanatics who felt like there were too many religious freedoms in Europe, so they wanted their own stricter state.
The idea that you are "freer" than Europe is laughable. Europe invented democracy, we've been doing it much longer than you, and we're better at it.

biccat wrote:
The only reason to have free speech is to protect offensive speech. If it's not offensive then no one would complain about it.

Why should we facilitate offensiveness?

There are many kinds of offensive speech that we don't facilitate.

Yawn,

Please try to troll less obviously

America was formed by people who wanted the ability to practice their own religion without being persecuted for it.

TheGateway wrote:
America was formed by people who wanted the ability to practice their own religion without being persecuted for it.

Many people would consider the Puritans to be fanatics.

Joey wrote:America was formed by religious fanatics who felt like there were too many religious freedoms in Europe, so they wanted their own stricter state.
The idea that you are "freer" than Europe is laughable. Europe invented democracy, we've been doing it much longer than you, and we're better at it.

QFT.
not because I actually think what you say is the truth, I just want this statement to go unedited. A pillar of excellence in scholarship and education.

Do you guys really not get that this thread is actually about guns?

Rented Tritium wrote:Do you guys really not get that this thread is actually about guns?

I thought it was about biccat looking to practice his trolling.

See, I thought it was him thinking I cried in a corner because some Euros don't like guns, rather than just seeing an opportunity to start my first 5+ page thread.

mattyrm wrote:He has a point though mel.. it's kinda like protecting the rights of minorities, because majorities don't NEED ptotecting.

You could argue that freedom of speech only needs protecting for wacky people, because if the overwhelming majority of people agree with what you say, it's protected by default!

Wise words from mattyrm!

Joey wrote:America was formed by religious fanatics who felt like there were too many religious freedoms in Europe, so they wanted their own stricter state.
The idea that you are "freer" than Europe is laughable. Europe invented democracy, we've been doing it much longer than you, and we're better at it.

I lolled. Seriously.

You do know that the United States separated from England when it was ruled by a monarch, right? The French Revolution didn't happen until more than a decade after the American revolution. The only claim Europe has to democracy is that it was invented and practiced in Rome and Greece...before being violently thrown down by your ancestors who then instituted widespread slavery and aristocracy.

So...good for you.

J-Roc77 wrote:I live near northern Idaho where there is plenty of holdovers from a neo nazi compound some years ago. With Martin Luther King Day approaching the christian separatists are gearing up for their local protest of the celebration. There has been protests over artwork on display (a sculpture of Ganesha) and some upset folks over the play "Rent" due to some of the characters being homosexuals. The MLK protest happens yearly in the Coeur d'Alene area resulting in the tourist towns embarrassment and displeasure. Despite the majority being in disagreement with the protests the separatists speech is protected by law no matter how much we disagree with it.

Right, anti-gay speech, racism, bigotry, OWS protestors, all these types of speech are offensive to a majority of the local populace, so why should they be allowed to continue?

Rented Tritium wrote:Do you guys really not get that this thread is actually about guns?

No, it's not. It's a serious debate as to why we should allow some people to have what they consider "rights" when these rights certainly aren't universal. China imprisons people for speaking against the government and they're a booming economy. Why not follow their model?

biccat wrote:
The only claim Europe has to democracy is that it was invented and practiced in Rome and Greece...before being violently thrown down by your ancestors who then instituted widespread slavery and aristocracy.

When was it that America allowed women to vote?

When was it that it allowed all black people to vote?

I also chuckled a bit at calling Athens (What I assume you mean by "Greece.") democratic. By modern , colloquial, standards it wasn't. I mean, its possible for free and fair elections to means "Only adult, male, veterans can participate." but I doubt many people believe that.

Women's sufferage
France 1944
Greece 1952
Italy 1946
UK 1918 (31 years)
US 1920

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
The only claim Europe has to democracy is that it was invented and practiced in Rome and Greece...before being violently thrown down by your ancestors who then instituted widespread slavery and aristocracy.

When was it that America allowed women to vote?

Well, 1776 if you want to be precise. Alternatively 1861.

dogma wrote:When was it that it allowed all black people to vote?

We don't allow all black people to vote.

edit: we also don't allow all white people to vote. Or all Asians, Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans, etc.

dogma wrote:I also chuckled a bit at calling Athens (What I assume you mean by "Greece.") democratic. By modern , colloquial, standards it wasn't. I mean, its possible for free and fair elections to means "Only adult, male, veterans can participate." but I doubt many people believe that.

You should read the post I responded to.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:When was it that it allowed all black people to vote?

We don't allow all black people to vote.

Ruh roh, dogma didn't word it perfectly!

biccat wrote:
Well, 1776 if you want to be precise. Alternatively 1861.

Have you not read the 14th Amendment?

biccat wrote:
We don't allow all black people to vote.

Right, trolling practice.

When did we allow all black citizens who have not committed felonies to vote?

biccat wrote:
You should read the post I responded to.

I did, but thought your response was worse for its implied claim to scholarly accuracy.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Well, 1776 if you want to be precise. Alternatively 1861.

Have you not read the 14th Amendment?

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of state sovereignty?

dogma wrote:When did we allow all black citizens who have not committed felonies to vote?

1776 again.

I'm certainly not trolling.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Your position offends me, by your definition it would be banned.

Unfortunately, your position results in a paradox. If we accept my position, my position would be banned. If we don't accept my position, then it could become law.

Exactly