posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:10 PM
reply to post by darkbake
Who here thinks this gives you the right to suppress other people's thoughts and opinions because they don't agree with your own? The
argument here would be that because you have free speech, you are free to harass others and shut them down if they have different viewpoints. The
drawback to this would be that you might not be able to express your own opinions without being harassed.
I have free speech. I take that to mean that I can freely express my opinion on a myriad of topics. Other people also have the right to free speech.
That means that, if I say something, other people have the right to critisize my opinion.
Basically, I can have a contrary opinion to your own, and you do not have the authority to stop me from expressing my thoughts, and vice versa.
Who here thinks that this amendment grants free speech?
I don't. I think that we are all born with the rights listed in amendments 1-10. They are inherently ours by our nature alone, the amendments are
only listing my rights for easy reference. If someone repealed those amendments, the reference is gone, but the rights are still inherently mine.
The argument here would be that it is impossible for everyone to have the same opinion and views as you, therefore you should tolerate other
viewpoints and have open discussions. The advantage here would be that you could also express your own opinions.
Yes, that is the point. And if someone tells you to shut up and sit down, you can ignore them. And if someone tells you to shut up and sit down, and
then tries to force you to do so--you can use violence to stop them.
Now on to religion. Who thinks the First Amendment gives the right to establish a religion / philosophy and harass people who have different
belief systems than you, even going so far as to deny basic services such as medical care.
We have freedom of religion because all humans have the right to form their own beliefs regarding their existence, whether someone else agrees with
their point of view or not. Whether their beliefs are true or false.
If I am paying for your medical care, you will do what I say because I am footing the bill. If you don't like it, then pay for your own medical care.
If you are providing for your own medical care and someone tries to stop you from obtaining medical services--simply because the service goes against
their religious views--you can use violence to stop them.
Who thinks that the First Amendment gives someone the right to practice their own religion / philosophy and still receive basic services like
A doctor takes a Hippocratic oath to serve everyone. That would include people whose views they disagree with. A more specific example would be
helpful to clarify your position.
What is the advantage to denying someone else medical care with different opinions than your own? Is the advantage that you don't have to be
around such filth? Or is the advantage that you can force them to change their views by denying them access to basic human rights?
It would depend on the context. Give us a more specific example.
Is it more mature to deny someone basic services because they think differently than you, or to be strong enough to interact with people who
have different views?
Obviously it is more mature to be strong enough to interact with people who have different views than your own.