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.

 

Free Speech Exists

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In your line of reasoning, those that would hold others accountable for the consequences of their speech, such as libel/slander, are equal to censors.



There are consequences to speech. When we speak, breath comes out of the mouth. When we write, we scratch ink onto paper. Those are the consequences. Your consequences, on the other hand, are products of magical thought.


But I give you credit for once again taking the chicken# way out.

At least you are consistent.

Also worth noting that you do not deny that you do not believe people are entitled to the product of their labor, if it comes from an act of free expression.




posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Political correct maddness is the cost.

Does not matter what people believe, as truth is a misnomer really.

More like shades of grey with perspective being the definitive factor.
edit on 25-4-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In your line of reasoning, those that would hold others accountable for the consequences of their speech, such as libel/slander, are equal to censors.



There are consequences to speech. When we speak, breath comes out of the mouth. When we write, we scratch ink onto paper. Those are the consequences. Your consequences, on the other hand, are products of magical thought.


But I give you credit for once again taking the chicken# way out.

At least you are consistent.

Also worth noting that you do not deny that you do not believe people are entitled to the product of their labor, if it comes from an act of free expression.



Sorry, but the so-called consequence of speech is exactly what I said it was. Anything that occurs afterwords is the consequence of something else.

You holding people accountable for the “consequence of their speech” is the consequence of your magical thinking and authoritarian stance on civil liberties, not the speech; and blaming the speech is a consequence of your superstition. That’s the chicken# way of thinking, by the way.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Interesting subject.

The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.

Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.

The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.

Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?


I think black American vernacular is an actual, legit dialect of English.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Sorry, but the so-called consequence of speech is exactly what I said it was. Anything that occurs afterwords is the consequence of something else.


Sure, I'm willing to bet we argue about that all day. But what you cannot claim it to be is censorship.



You holding people accountable for the “consequence of their speech” is the consequence of your magical thinking and authoritarian stance on civil liberties, not the speech; and blaming the speech is a consequence of your superstition. That’s the chicken# way of thinking, by the way.


Or protecting things like personal property rights, in regards to the product of one's freedom of expression.

Funny how you like to opine about authoritarianism and civil liberties, yet you claim no one has any rights to their personal property if that property is the product of freedom of expression.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.

The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.

Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?


I think black American vernacular is an actual, legit dialect of English.


I thought American was a sub-dialect of English. Excluding regional slang (soda or pop, etc) what are the rules regarding the creation of new language? When does a dialect stop being a sub and start being its own language?



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.

The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.

Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?


I think black American vernacular is an actual, legit dialect of English.


I thought American was a sub-dialect of English. Excluding regional slang (soda or pop, etc) what are the rules regarding the creation of new language? When does a dialect stop being a sub and start being its own language?


Ebonics is often considered to be it's own language and not a dialect.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Sorry, but the so-called consequence of speech is exactly what I said it was. Anything that occurs afterwords is the consequence of something else.


Sure, I'm willing to bet we argue about that all day. But what you cannot claim it to be is censorship.



You holding people accountable for the “consequence of their speech” is the consequence of your magical thinking and authoritarian stance on civil liberties, not the speech; and blaming the speech is a consequence of your superstition. That’s the chicken# way of thinking, by the way.


Or protecting things like personal property rights, in regards to the product of one's freedom of expression.

Funny how you like to opine about authoritarianism and civil liberties, yet you claim no one has any rights to their personal property if that property is the product of freedom of expression.



Your attempt to make speech private property is a ploy to make you look all freedom-loving. The ease with which you switch between speech and private property in your rhetoric when it serves you is breathtaking.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.

The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.

Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?


I think black American vernacular is an actual, legit dialect of English.


I thought American was a sub-dialect of English. Excluding regional slang (soda or pop, etc) what are the rules regarding the creation of new language? When does a dialect stop being a sub and start being its own language?



Black American Vernacular is a dialect of English. Americans speak English as far as I know.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Your attempt to make speech private property is a ploy to make you look all freedom-loving.


You have super powers that let you know another person's intent?



The ease with which you switch between speech and private property in your rhetoric when it serves you is breathtaking.



Is not music, art, books, etc, all forms of both free speech and can be protected as private property? According to your opinion, people have no right those forms of private property specifically because they are products of freedom of expression and those that would seek to protect those rights are to be considered censors.

It would seem that the comment about attempts at ploys to make others look all "freedom-loving" is a matter of projection.

You claim to be for free speech, but you are not.

You claim to be for personal property rights, but you are not.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




You have super powers that let you know another person's intent?


Process of deduction. When an avowed socialist starts saying speech is private property, something is amiss.

Yes, you can protect what you created as private property, because it is private property. Someone’s copy or replication of your work is their property, not yours.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Process of deduction. When an avowed socialist starts saying speech is private property, something is amiss.


I said the product of free speech can be considered private property. Not sure you can rely on your powers of deduction when it appears you have issues with simple matters of context.

Also, it seems that you rely on ad hom fallacies as a form of argument. Me being a socialist has nothing to do with the veracity, or lack thereof, of your argument.



Yes, you can protect what you created as private property, because it is private property.


Even if they are just combinations of words, huh?

It appears you are becoming a "censor".



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


This guy makes some of the most specious arguments. He calls out James Damore for his Google memo as if Damore was 100 years behind society even though he lists scientific studies showing why men are drawn to engineering and women less so. He also blames the AltRight protesters at Charlottesville who lost their jobs not for speech but for being with the wrong crowd (not knowing exactly who was going to show up and how they might be perceived or portrayed by the media). Didn't have to say a word, get fired and THAT is an argument against free speech? Why is it that Sen. Byrd gets a pass for being in the klan and is revered yet David Duke who actually has a PhD in history can't speak anywhere in public? We all know because Duke won't embrace the politics of the Left.

The last 5 minutes are interesting though as he trashes safe spaces, cultural appropriation, trigger warnings etc. I was waiting for a punchline that never came justifying all that.

I do want to give you credit Mis for taking on the job of defending the ideals that you do. You articulate them extremely well which is no easy task, for whatever reasons it is far easier to against such things nowadays than to argue for them. Perhaps it's just the general culture of the times we live in. Keep writing and being a champion for ideals that have carried civilization forward. If there were a knighthood for those of the pen you would surely have earned a place at the round table.
edit on 25-4-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Free Speech only exists if others are listening. With that said, everyone has the right to free speech, what they don't tell you is that you don't have the right to listen. MSM is an example. They have the free speakers recorded, they only tell you what they want you to hear.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




I said the product of free speech can be considered private property. Not sure you can rely on your powers of deduction when it appears you have issues with simple matters of context.


It can also be considered not private property.



Also, it seems that you rely on ad hom fallacies as a form of argument. Me being a socialist has nothing to do with the veracity, or lack thereof, of your argument.


If you know anything about socialism, you'll know how socialists view private property. It has to do with the veracity of your argument, or your professed political beliefs, one or the other.


Even if they are just combinations of words, huh?

It appears you are becoming a "censor".


No, I mean the original documents, the actual created product, not the content therein. It's the difference between a Rembrandt and a knock-off.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

You flatter me, thank you. But you know the old cliché, I stand on the shoulders of giants. We're in good company so long as we defend civil liberties.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



It can also be considered not private property.


Indeed. We have protections in place for people such as that, that would deem it perfectly reasonable to hijack the property of someone else for profit.



If you know anything about socialism, you'll know how socialists view private property.


If you knew anything about socialists, you would know that there is a wide range of opinions on such things.



It has to do with the veracity of your argument, or your professed political beliefs, one or the other.


It had nothing to do with either. Your argument was not better reinforced through invoking my personal beliefs and socialism is not a political belief. It's an economic system.



No, I mean the original documents, the actual created product, not the content therein. It's the difference between a Rembrandt and a knock-off.


By your definition, those that protect the created product and hold others accountable for the encroachment on another's personal property rights is a censor.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Indeed. We have protections in place for people such as that, that would deem it perfectly reasonable to hijack the property of someone else for profit.


We have open source licences and groups such as Creative Commons who advocate against those that find it reasonable to claim monopoly on combinations of words.



If you knew anything about socialists, you would know that there is a wide range of opinions on such things.


...except on private property. Given your vehemence on the subject, perhaps you were mistaken about socialism.


By your definition, those that protect the created product and hold others accountable for the encroachment on another's personal property rights is a censor.


No, those who suppress the freedom of speech of others is a censor.



posted on Apr, 25 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



We have open source licences and groups such as Creative Commons who advocate against those that find it reasonable to claim monopoly on combinations of words.


Good for them. Actually, I produce quite a bit of CC content for other people to use freely. But that is my choice.

If I wanted to copyright my work for whatever purpose, that is my right and those protections are not an act of censorship.



...except on private property. Given your vehemence on the subject, perhaps you were mistaken about socialism.


Your ignorance is not my burden to bear.



No, those who suppress the freedom of speech of others is a censor.


I know. By your own definition, those that protect people's personal property rights are censors, if that product came from the use of freedom of speech.

Remember, you can't copyright a combination of words, right?

That means music, art, books, etc should not be protected and if it is, that is censorship.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join