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.

 

Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

page: 31
35
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

How does the concept of the "natural man" relate to rights though? We probably both agree on everything except the definition of what a right is. I thought I cleared this up in my definition of "right" earlier, but obviously there is still confusion.


I am talking about innate rights, these would be things we share with other animals in nature, hence the natural man in his perfect state of nature. Things we share with other animals that I would consider innate (self evident), first and foremost would be the right to life (without life other rights don't matter), the right to seek food to sustain that life. the right to seek protection from nature to sustain that life.



If nature has not given man dominion over other animals, why are you stating you have a right to kill and then eat animals according to nature itself? Can humans survive without eating other animals? Yes, they can. (I am NOT a vegetarian or a vegan btw, I am playing devil's advocate) In this example of yours, are there other options to explore for food that don't involve killing and eating another sentient creature? If an advanced alien race landed on earth tomorrow and started hunting humans, would you feel they are morally justified (even if you do complain and resist their attempts) in doing so?


Just because there are other options for food does not negate mans ability to self determine how he feeds himself to sustain his life, much like a bear may eat berries but that doesn't remove the option of eating me if he determines I look tasty.

Moral justification is a subjective point of view and nature makes no moral judgments (at least not the I know of) so yes, if your alien scenario came about, I would consider them a part of the natural order, I may not like it, but my likes or dislikes are irrelevant in the natural order (same as if the bear wanted to eat me), and again, them trying to eat me does not negate my right to life (self defense).


Hmm, do you really believe the state of nature on planet Earth is perfect? In what sense, a reasonable, moral or fair sense? You should be very careful about the argument at the end this last paragraph of your reply. You are advocating that if I am a homeless person with no food or money, I am within my right to break into a home, kill the family pet and then eat it (assuming the homeless guy likes that type of meat) because if I didn't, my survival would be threatened.


There may be some ares in a deep jungle somewhere that a perfect state of nature can exist, but for the most part, most areas are under some form of social contract.

I'm not arguing that at all (your homeless scenario) the homeless person is under a social contract (whether they are aware of it or not) that does not allow what you put forth. So he would be breaking that contract and would suffer (presumably) the consequences of the act.


So then why do we humans even consider morality as a worthy topic of discussion, and worth taking seriously before we do things? Is it possible that humans are not strictly a part of nature in the way you are presenting them to be? If so, why include human and animal in an example about rights?


Humans for the most part are under some form of social contract, so we then feel or see the need to apply morality to our actions, these applied moralities are presumably applied in order to have a peaceful society.

It seems that you are mixing humans under a social contract with humans in a prefect state of nature.

Humans under a social contract are bound by the contract, the terms of the contract may limit, and even make the practicing of innate rights unlawful, that does not negate the existence of those rights, they are just suppressed through force.

Humans in a perfect state of nature are under no contract and are answerable to no one but themselves, or the bears trying to eat them.




posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Agreed, and I already expressed to the OP that there are consequences to words, I think I made my case.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. Overall, it seems reasonable.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I have followed your participation in the thread. It didn't need clearing up.

You were the one asking that I explain my posts. I was clarifying that it was an offshoot regarding the phrase "words have power" because the OP insists in saying that it means people are attributing supernatural power to words.

It got jumbled with people having power over others and you jumped in there, somewhere, and said that people have the power to act or not to act. I think we all agree but that wasn't what was being discussed.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

Yeah, but you asked me to weigh on on your what if.

That is all I was doing.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LockNLoad

Moral judgment is relative.

The OP says that there should not be consequences.


That's false. I said that there are no consequences.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


it is always, and always will be, the duty of the offended to get over their feelings before they start beating people to death.


Not once did you say in the OP that speech had no consequences.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

And where did I say there should not be consequences?

I've said many times there are no consequences.
edit on 22-4-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Alex Jones
Consequences indeed


Jones’ case is emblematic of our current age of “alternative facts,” echoing the surge of fake news that occurred around the time of the 2016 election. One of the most prominent disseminators of said fake news was a man named Paul Horner, whose past experiences include tricking the internet into thinking he was the famed anonymous street artist Banksy.

“There’s nothing you can’t write about now that people won’t believe,” Horner, who considered himself a satirical writer in the vein of The Onion, told The Washington Post. “I can write the craziest thing about Trump, and people will believe it. I wrote a lot of crazy anti-Muslim stuff — like about Trump wanting to put badges on Muslims, or not allowing them in the airport, or making them stand in their own line — and people went along with it!”


VERY FAKE NEWS amplified. Just like the holy books. Causes trouble. There are consequences to words. That's why it is said to be mightier than the sword.

No matter what you say.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

The responsibility of the public is not to shut him down, but to question his work in light of these new admissions.
It's fantastical how you lot are trying to spin away the Alex Jones catastrophe. He is a "performance artist." And many readers here are his audience.

Supporters of his were fooled into taking him seriously.


]The label “artwork” does not make Jones’ statements any less dangerous or vitriolic. And as Linzy noted, the next question we should probably ask is: What does this teach us about Jones’ audience — including our president?



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Seriously! Jones has just been BUSTED for spreading the stupid "alternative news".
I would have expected this site to go ballistic with rage knowing that all this time you thought he was for real.

*smh*



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


It is never the duty of the writer or publisher to weigh in advance the future possibility of violent reprisal for writing or speaking—it is always, and always will be, the duty of the offended to get over their feelings before they start beating people to death.

LesMis


Nope.

So much nope.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Alex Jones Says He’s A Performance Artist. Surprisingly, Actual Performance Artists Agree. The article. Very thorough with lots of sourcing and evidence. Alex is a phony. Always has been.


Scroll down the page to a tidy little video telling you the actual facts if you can't be bothered to read. Or if anyone reading knows how to embed a video that's not you-tube, please feel free to paste it here.
Link To Video
The vid is just over a minute long.
edit on 4/22/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: the usual cleanup --- ought to be expected by now! lol



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
And where did I say there should not be consequences?

I've said many times there are no consequences.

You have said that there should not be consequences brought forth by the listeners.

You have said that there is no physical force exerted by words or that words don't interact with matter but not that there are no "consequences" from the words themselves, using that particular word. At least not that I recall.



edit on 22-4-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm not sure what Alex jones has to do with anything, but try bringing a pen to a sword fight and see how well you fair.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Yes I've said numerous times people should not censor others, but not once did I say there should be no consequence to words.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

edit on 4/22/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: meh. dead horse kick.



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


In no alternate reality is a spoken word a justification for violence, unless you hold your own feelings above the sanctity of life.




Hitler would be proud. Just saying.


Hitler was one of the worse censors that ever existed. You would make him proud.
edit on 22-4-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Censoring would be a consequence.

ETA: As would violence or legal action directed at the speaker.


edit on 22-4-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

That isn't the case, and I've already explained why many times. It would be pointless to go back and argue it again. The point is, I never claimed what you said I claimed.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 28  29  30    32 >>

log in

join