Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh I do defend free speech even if I don't like or agree with what the sound waves hitting my eardrum are telling me.

I also enjoy exercising my free speech, I just try not to be naive in think that I won't get punched for what my sound waves may be perceived as conveying.

I don't doubt it.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Totally agree, that's why I said earlier that their reactions are on them, but IMO it's naive to think your speech, art, publications may not have some negative reactions, especially if you are pushing the boundaries of the socially accepted mores of the social group/area.

a reply to: LockNLoad

I defend freedom to get violent even if I have no dog in the fight.

I understand that it may be illegal and oppressive government may try to debase the moral imperative of handing out a well deserved whoopin' for talking smack.

a reply to: daskakik

Ok... I'm not sure what you're trying to say, I don't think I ever stated that I didn't believe in literally fighting for what you believe in.

Could you please expand upon your thoughts?

I do not have time to read all 15 pages but I will in the next day or so, in the mean time here is my thoughts.

the first time I heard that particular set up was after the dixie chick fiasco during bush the younger, (by the way trashing someone that was a popular president with your fan base not the most savvy business choice) with the intent behind the phrase being we do not like what you said, you doubled down on it in Australia so we are going to get our point across by not buying your records anymore.

The phrase itself is clunky, and does not get the point across very well I will admit, and when nut jobs use it while beating someone to death over a difference of opinion... yea it probably needs to tossed in the garbage.

a reply to: LockNLoad

I was just playing off of your post. Should have included a quote.

The point is that defending speech to the OP might be no more important than defending, pride, respect, or any other thing to someone else.

People defending free speech don't have a moral high ground in proclaiming that what they are defending is any more important than someone's right to be offended.

a reply to: daskakik

Oh people are perfectly welcome to be offended, the rub is in how they express being offended.

2nd

a reply to: LockNLoad

They can go as far as killing you.

It still doesn't give defense of free speech any moral high ground.

a reply to: daskakik

They can, but as I said earlier we have laws that are designed to curb that kind of reaction, and for the most part they work. Just because some people will not follow the laws or allow themselves to become overly emotional about the words, does not invalidated free speech.

a reply to: LockNLoad

The Internet gives you the freedom from consequences if you remain anonymous.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you need to reread what I wrote. Your response is totally off; I am surprised because you are such a deep thinker-maybe again, overthinking. Time for bed.

I'm fairly certain you said that there are consequences of everything we say and do. I said there isn't. If you can tell me the cause and effect between words and consequences you may have a point.

Actually words do merit consequences according to law. Lying to a police officer is one. lying to a judge is another.
Calling soemone a racial epitat in the wrong neighborhood is another. point is words do have consequences.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
They can, but as I said earlier we have laws that are designed to curb that kind of reaction, and for the most part they work. Just because some people will not follow the laws or allow themselves to become overly emotional about the words, does not invalidated free speech.

That is why I said "oppressive government may try to debase the moral imperative of handing out a well deserved whoopin' for talking smack."

I'm not sure it has been validated beyond just being a positive human construct.

ETA: Just as an after thought, that post is written tongue-in-cheek but I actually do mean it. Just a little hyperbole on my part.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Or until your significant other find your browser history.

a reply to: LockNLoad

Uh oh LOL.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think you need to reread what I wrote. Your response is totally off; I am surprised because you are such a deep thinker-maybe again, overthinking. Time for bed.

I'm fairly certain you said that there are consequences of everything we say and do. I said there isn't. If you can tell me the cause and effect between words and consequences you may have a point.

Actually words do merit consequences according to law. Lying to a police officer is one. lying to a judge is another.
Calling soemone a racial epitat in the wrong neighborhood is another. point is words do have consequences.

That's the consequence of the law.

a reply to: LockNLoad

Or until your significant other find your browser history.

Well then you may not have a good relationship with your "Significant other". I have nothing to hide; she knows my habits inside out, and I hers. But even if some of my thoughts (she can read my ATS post's anytime) or browsing history were questionable to her; she wouldn't resort to violence over "fighting words"

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

LOL It's a generic joke, I'm single and don't have a SO to worry about.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

That's a perfect example.

Picture Joe Sixpack being verbally berated by his life parter, Brad, over a suspected affair. Joe figures he just can't take the constant accusations and innuendos and finally cold-cocks Brad. What else can he do, right?

That does not fit the description of the scenario I was setting up. My scenario had nothing to do with trying to suppress guilt and being verbally berated. Mine involved harassment, which usually takes the form of emotional abuse, especially in relationships.

Now lets put Joe in a police interrogation room where he is being repeatedly accused of a crime. Detective Doughnut constantly lies about having evidence and witnesses. Detective Doughnut even promises to personally see to it that Joe is raped in jail. Miraculously, Joe will find the self control necessary to not knock out Detective Doughnut's teeth.

Would you prosecute Joe for assaulting a police officer given the the event was placed into context with the full recording of EVERYTHING the officers had said while interrogating him?

Unfortunately for Joe, he probably won't have enough self control to demand a lawyer and keep his mouth shut, which is what Detective Doughnut is counting on.

If you think this example is comparable to the scenario I said when asking you about unjust harassment, then I suppose we should just stop discussing this issue when I am done with this reply.

In both cases, it's Joe's fault for allowing his emotions to override his common sense. He may have a tendency towards violence, but only if he thinks he can get away with it. He'll punch his life partner in the privacy of their home, but not a cop in a police station. In the first case Joe is using his emotions as an excuse. In the second case Joe is allowing himself to be manipulated by his emotions. Joe is just a bully and a coward, as is anyone who responds to words with violence. He is also emotionally immature, as he can be tricked into doing things against his best interests.

Yes, let's just forget to put either into context and rather just conclude that "violence in response to words is NEVER justifiable in ANY situation". Oh, you just did...

Are there cowards and bullies out there in the world? Yes. Should people refrain from telling the truth out of fear of these people? I guess that's a question we all have to answer for ourselves.

How did you reach that conclusion? What does anything in this last statement have to do with what I said and the rest of your reply?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No, people aren't born with rights like they are born with ears. Rights are ideas regarding duties, leniencies, and other behaviours we afford to fellow human beings through societal conduct.

And how do you achieve "societal conduct"?

By creating a society that honours and respects freedom of speech.

Are you really going to try argue with this post and the last one I made? It is irrefutable. Unless you can provide evidence of some type of ultimate human authority?

Or you could refer to the bible or quran as evidence that it is a God-given-right, which I really would not expect from somebody such as yourself...but at least you would then have something to refer to.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No, people aren't born with rights like they are born with ears. Rights are ideas regarding duties, leniencies, and other behaviours we afford to fellow human beings through societal conduct.

And how do you achieve "societal conduct"?

By creating a society that honours and respects freedom of speech.

Are you really going to try argue with this post and the last one I made? It is irrefutable. Unless you can provide evidence of some type of ultimate human authority?

Or you could refer to the bible or quran as evidence that it is a God-given-right, which I really would not expect from somebody such as yourself...but at least you would then have something to refer to.

It's not as if someone made them up out of thin air. Rights have existed in some form or another for millennia, having been refined over the generations with collective experimentation and debate. Rights such as the right of the king to bed the wife on her wedding night didn't work, and were rightfully tossed in the dustbin of history; but rights that did work, for instance free speech, have remained.

It's not irrefutable in the slightest. In fact it's nonsense.