It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
All healthy societies are authoritarian.
The core of the right-wing belief structure, ladies and gentlemen.
Thanks UK for being so blatantly honest.
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: UKTruth
Ok then burning copies of the Koran should be illegal as that can incure violence.
Any anti immigrant and Muslim speech or actions should be outlaws for the same reasons
Off colour jokes should be banned as they could offend someone to the point of violence
Ect ect ect
Now you have a huge mess.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
All healthy societies are authoritarian.
The core of the right-wing belief structure, ladies and gentlemen.
Thanks UK for being so blatantly honest.
What do you think laws are? Name me a healthy society that has no laws.
You liberals get so triggered by the word and turn it into something it's not.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
All healthy societies are authoritarian.
The core of the right-wing belief structure, ladies and gentlemen.
Thanks UK for being so blatantly honest.
What do you think laws are? Name me a healthy society that has no laws.
You liberals get so triggered by the word and turn it into something it's not.
Of course laws are authoritarian. As is every government.
Which is why the current tactic of the Right pretending that it wants "smaller government" or "greater individual freedom" is so absurd. You want to keep people from burning a colored piece of cloth. Must have complete control, yah?
You wingers get so triggered when anyone states the obvious facts.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth
No, we do not agree that all healthy societies are authoritarian. There you go again.
You see a flag as a symbol. Others see that burning that flag as a symbol. Why are you allowed your symbol and others aren't?
And please, stop the generic wide sweeping nonsense about what you think "liberals" think and do; it's logically obnoxious.
I've never met a non-patriotic American liberal, on the contrary, most of those who call themselves liberals are far more educated regarding our Constitution and what it actually says than the "average" wingnut.
Are you talking about the UK here? Labour? Who? Can you be specific and talk about real people rather than the convenient caricatures you're espousing here?
Also, I notice that you very rarely use British standard spelling in your posts ... do you consciously switch between British and American English? Odd that.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth
So, the government should ban all freedom of speech if it leads to (or could lead to) violence???
That would be "healthy" in your estimation? "Jawohl."
Again, who are you talking about when you refer to "liberals" ... you called me one, and I am patently not.
I think you're confused about what "liberals" are in the US.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth
The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."
You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?
Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?
Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.
It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: UKTruth
So because you don’t like it you want it banned?
That is a slippery slope my friend.
A slope you might have the high ground on but when it starts rolling down it can quickly escalate.
Better to let it be and don’t start the ban wars.
I mean who draws the line at what is appropriate free speech? The government and government is not only inherently corrupt but changes in a republic or democracy.
One decade you may have a Trump banning things you don’t like, next decade you might end up with a Democrat banning stuff you do or like. Better to not put the means in place for them to do it in the first place!
Im not comeing at this from a left or right positition here, just trying to stop the process of rolling down a slippery slope like the UK has.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth
The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."
You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?
Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?
Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.
It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.
By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.
Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth
The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."
You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?
Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?
Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.
It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.
By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.
Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.
I utterly disagree. The "safest bet of all" mirrors the balancing act of the American (and English) systems of republican democracy in which the government is limited by the rights of the People and vice-versa in a balance that insures, as much as possible, the most freedom for the greatest number.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth
The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."
You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?
Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?
Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.
It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.
By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.
Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.
I utterly disagree. The "safest bet of all" mirrors the balancing act of the American (and English) systems of republican democracy in which the government is limited by the rights of the People and vice-versa in a balance that insures, as much as possible, the most freedom for the greatest number.
"The most freedom for the greatest number" - i can't argue with that. This statement represents what I would call a healthy society. However, there will be still be laws and still restrictions imposed by others on what you can do individually. Even with perfect balance you will still be subject to the authority of law, which is precisely what I mean by "All healthy societies are authoritarian". I was not speaking to the extent of that authority.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth
The fact that (in the US particularly) there are limitations on "free speech" doesn't prove that "all healthy societies are authoritarian."
You're suggesting a slippery slope when you're talking about banning your own pet peeve "dangerous speech" eh?
Who will decide, in your authoritarian paradise, what activities are "planned or designed" to create violence?
Screaming in someone else's face is assault. It's already covered under our laws; no need for new ones.
It's a safe bet that any society will "swing" between government and individual control ----> aka, history.
By the authority of law you can not say whatever you want in any healthy society. That is just a fact.
Individual control? Never has happened and never will happen in a healthy society. Your control will always be limited by law and rightly so.
You will always be told how you can and can not behave in society by others. That is the safest bet of all.
I utterly disagree. The "safest bet of all" mirrors the balancing act of the American (and English) systems of republican democracy in which the government is limited by the rights of the People and vice-versa in a balance that insures, as much as possible, the most freedom for the greatest number.
"The most freedom for the greatest number" - i can't argue with that. This statement represents what I would call a healthy society. However, there will be still be laws and still restrictions imposed by others on what you can do individually. Even with perfect balance you will still be subject to the authority of law, which is precisely what I mean by "All healthy societies are authoritarian". I was not speaking to the extent of that authority.
Can't disagree with any of that either. I guess we just like to argue, LOL.
originally posted by: woodwardjnr
American flag made in China, hardly represents the land mass of the USA which politicians and corporations have no problem burning and polluting, so the water is no longer safe to drink, but yeah get back to a piece of material being burned