• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Republicans Falling Like Ashes To The Ground

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I'm really stuck between deciding whether or not @Dog has honestly missed the point or whether he's being a dishonest shit trying to tap-dance around it.

Your words Dog:  Anyone who believes that free speech can be selective, doesn't believe in free speech. They don't even understand the concept.

Now, European countries are selective in the speech they allow. Very selective. For example, that Nazi rally you claim one must accept as "free speech" or be someone that doesn't even understand the concept... that's explicitly and legally prohibited in Europe. With the UN accepting that is in keeping with the UN declaration of human rights.

Or, just in case you really are a braindead moron and not the disingenuous weasel you appear to be, that means that by your own definition, Europe does not have the right to "free speech" because the concept of speech they allow is selective.

 

And now time to watch Dog try to salvage this fuck up...

dogscoot.gif

You're descending into the pedantic. That one European country has a specific restriction on a form of speech, (which btw they all do, including the US) does not mean free speech rights do not exist in Europe, they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

what is shameful, is when any group uses violence or otherwise suppress the free speech rights of others.

Is it, or is it not, "shameful" that Germany, France, the UK, etc. all have laws against "hate speech"? 

Does it, or does it not, make them "anti-free speech"? 

Does it, or does it not, demonstrate that they "don't believe in free speech"?

Does it, or does it not, indicate that "they don't even understand the concept"?

 

Just so we're clear, BTW, I'm not arguing Euros don't have free speech rights.

I'm just pointing out that you're being ridiculously, hilariously, inconsistent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

You're descending into the pedantic. That one European country has a specific restriction on a form of speech, (which btw they all do, including the US) does not mean free speech rights do not exist in Europe, they do.

You long ago descended into farce on this one Dog. If a European country is allowed to selectively restrict speech in a way that would exclude Nazi rallies - it is not free speech, as even an understanding of the concept of "free speech" doesn't allow that. Your words. Europe allows some countries to have more speech than Germany, but because they are allowed to restrict it as far as Germany's non-free speech - it is not a right. When you are allowed to take a privilege away from someone, they are not entitled to it. If they are not entitled to it, it's not a right. 

Your words, Dog. You are going to have a hard time weaselling out of them without admitting you were wrong (either then or now). :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

Is it, or is it not, "shameful" that Germany, France, the UK, etc. all have laws against "hate speech"? 

Does it, or does it not, make them "anti-free speech"? 

Does it, or does it not, demonstrate that they "don't believe in free speech"?

Does it, or does it not, indicate that "they don't even understand the concept"?

 

Just so we're clear, BTW, I'm not arguing Euros don't have free speech rights.

I'm just pointing out that you're being ridiculously, hilariously, inconsistent.

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws especially when applied discriminately and I don't trust government agents with the task of judging hatefulness. That said, I don't know that I would call them shameful, more misguided.

Hate speech laws demonstrate a willingness to compromise free speech they don't demonstrate absence of belief in or understanding of free speech .

BTW ..You put "shameful" in quotes. Is it me you are quoting if so was it wrt something other than the use of violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You long ago descended into farce on this one Dog. If a European country is allowed to selectively restrict speech in a way that would exclude Nazi rallies - it is not free speech, as even an understanding of the concept of "free speech" doesn't allow that. Your words. Europe allows some countries to have more speech than Germany, but because they are allowed to restrict it as far as Germany's non-free speech - it is not a right. When you are allowed to take a privilege away from someone, they are not entitled to it. If they are not entitled to it, it's not a right. 

Your words, Dog. You are going to have a hard time weaselling out of them without admitting you were wrong (either then or now). :lol: 

Ok...For you there is no free speech in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ok...For you there is no free speech in Europe.

Wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out there is no right to free speech in Europe. Three points for effort, but you're an old Dog and that's not a new trick. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dog said:

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws especially when applied discriminately and I don't trust government agents with the task of judging hatefulness. That said, I don't know that I would call them shameful, more misguided.

Hate speech laws demonstrate a willingness to compromise free speech they don't demonstrate absence of belief in or understanding of free speech .

BTW ..You put "shameful" in quotes. Is it me you are quoting if so was it wrt something other than the use of violence?

4/10 - The red herring at the beginning looked promising but failed to deliver the necessary distraction from the point.

Dog just doesn't seem to have it in him to man up to his fuck up or to concede the point based on his own words. Sad. Bigly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Wasn't arguing that. I was pointing out there is no right to free speech in Europe. Three points for effort, but you're an old Dog and that's not a new trick. ;)

Ok...For you (and Raz'r) there is no right to free speech in Europe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Ok...For you (and Raz'r) there is no right to free speech in Europe

:rolleyes:

 

11 hours ago, Dog said:

Anyone who believes that free speech can be selective, doesn't believe in free speech. They don't even understand the concept.

2 hours ago, frenchie said:

I'm just pointing out that you're being ridiculously, hilariously, inconsistent.

Your words Dog. Though no-one is surprised you cannot be consistent, even in regards to your own view on the matter :lol: 

 

SdzdH.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question, for both sides of this debate: are "rights" something granted by governments / constitutions, or are "rights" something inherent & pre-existing, recognized by governments / constitutions?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Question, for both sides of this debate: are "rights" something granted by governments / constitutions, or are "rights" something inherent & pre-existing, recognized by governments / constitutions?

 

 

Getting into political philosophy, but immutable rights exist pre-govt. the question of course, are which rights are those? The founders had a version that most Americans believe are immutable, but others from other traditions would find silly, if not downright dangerous to society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

Question, for both sides of this debate: are "rights" something granted by governments / constitutions, or are "rights" something inherent & pre-existing, recognized by governments / constitutions?

In this context, I think rights are something granted by society and then recognised by government. Over time, society changes what they believe a person is entitled to, society then might have to fight in order to make that right legally enforceable, and governments (sooner or later accept) that the society they govern wants that right recognised by law and enshrine it at the appropriate level of legislation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm not a fan of hate speech laws especially when applied discriminately and I don't trust government agents with the task of judging hatefulness. That said, I don't know that I would call them shameful, more misguided.

Hate speech laws demonstrate a willingness to compromise free speech they don't demonstrate absence of belief in or understanding of free speech .

BTW ..You put "shameful" in quotes. Is it me you are quoting if so was it wrt something other than the use of violence?

pretenses of reason. as if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frenchie said:

Question, for both sides of this debate: are "rights" something granted by governments / constitutions, or are "rights" something inherent & pre-existing, recognized by governments / constitutions?

 

 

That which is not prohibited. Governments don't bestow rights, they impose limits on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

That which is not prohibited. Governments don't bestow rights, they impose limits on them.

That's not the definition of right.

right: (noun) a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

You're wrong Dog. Raz'r is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 9:53 PM, frenchie said:

I'd bring 'em up for you, but can't figure out how to embed a quote from a different thread with the crap-alistic new software...

It's totally not hard, dude.

I want this one to land in the thread where you posted it.

If I wanted your post and my reply to land in another thread, I'd finish typing, select all, cut, go to other thread, paste, post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

That's not the definition of right.

right: (noun) a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

You're wrong Dog. Raz'r is right.

I'm with Dog on this. The Bill of Rights was not intended to grant anything. It limits government on infringement of rights people already had. "God given", if you will.

And "entitlement" makes his case more than yours, so I'm not sure why you used the word..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I'm with Dog on this. The Bill of Rights was not intended to grant anything. It limits government on infringement of rights people already had. "God given", if you will.

And "entitlement" makes his case more than yours, so I'm not sure why you used the word..

I'm not so sure these "rights" we speak of are "God given". They are a social construct. Back in the good old days, the only one with rights was the biggest, baddest dude in the neighborhood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

I'm not so sure these "rights" we speak of are "God given". They are a social construct. Back in the good old days, the only one with rights was the biggest, baddest dude in the neighborhood. 

Technically speaking, "rights" are not "God given" but "endowed by our Creator".  There is no mention of God in either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.  And the Constitution is the document that would define our rights, not the DOI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sean said:

I'm not so sure these "rights" we speak of are "God given". They are a social construct. Back in the good old days, the only one with rights was the biggest, baddest dude in the neighborhood. 

There are rights and there is the choice to exercise them based on the consequences.  They don't go away if you don't use them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Technically speaking, "rights" are not "God given" but "endowed by our Creator".  There is no mention of God in either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.  And the Constitution is the document that would define our rights, not the DOI.

Our creator. Ok. Was I supposed to list all of them?  I figured the quotes would suffice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, benwynn said:

Our creator. Ok. Was I supposed to list all of them?  I figured the quotes would suffice. 

Not really trying to bust your balls here.  Lord knows I don't want to draw your ire.  But its kinda of a trigger for me when some claim our rights are given by God when the exact opposite is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, the reason I asked, is that discussion up-thread where you guys discussed some "right" to own slaves... seems a bit problematic, in my mind. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, benwynn said:

There are rights and there is the choice to exercise them based on the consequences.  They don't go away if you don't use them. 

I don’t disagree, but I also don’t see how that addresses the point I was trying to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

That's not the definition of right.

right: (noun) a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

You're wrong Dog. Raz'r is right.

And that legal entitlement is not defined by what is permitted. It's defined by what's prohibited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sean said:

I don’t disagree, but I also don’t see how that addresses the point I was trying to make. 

I suppose I missed your point.  I don't see rights as the product of a social construct. Only the restriction of them.  You basically have the rights that are left over from what you had in the first place.

From the peoples perspective, the Constitution practically defines exceptions, not rules.  Anything not forbidden is okay. It's based on natural law theory that goes back to Plato.

Take just a couple of portions of the first amendment as an example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is nothing in this amendment that grants anything.  The freedom of speech and the the right of the people to peaceably assemble are not granted anywhere earlier than this mention.  They are presumed.  We already had them before this document was even drafted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

See, the reason I asked, is that discussion up-thread where you guys discussed some "right" to own slaves... seems a bit problematic, in my mind. 

 

Different thread, maybe?

Recognition and protection by a government is not a good test for what is or isn't a right. They're kinda fallible and corruptible to be used for such a purpose IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, benwynn said:

I'm with Dog on this. The Bill of Rights was not intended to grant anything. It limits government on infringement of rights people already had. "God given", if you will.

I know how the founding father's phrased it, but that doesn't make it so anymore than the wide variety of religious texts people wrote and once controlled their society with.

Take, for example, the right to bear arms. It is not "god given". It is something man, at the time, decided would be a good thing to have society entitled to for the purposes of a well regulated militia. Prior to it's inclusion in the US Constitution - there was no such "right". Government could legislate certain people could not possess or use certain kinds of weapons, and that was generally accepted around the world as acceptable. Prior to the US enshrining it in legislation, the "right" to bear arms was merely a privilege that government could take away should they desire to do so. 

 

6 hours ago, benwynn said:

And "entitlement" makes his case more than yours, so I'm not sure why you used the word..

He defined a right as being "That which is not prohibited". I highlight the word because the definition of the right is what you are entitled to do. The definition is not "that which is not prohibited". I am not prohibited from owning a Lamborghini. I am not entitled to owning a Lamborghini. See the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, benwynn said:

There are rights and there is the choice to exercise them based on the consequences.  They don't go away if you don't use them. 

Yes, but those rights are not granted by a creator or god. They are granted by society. At one time, a woman did not have the right to her own person. Now she does. 

It might not have been fair to her at the time, and it appalls most good people now, but the fact remains that women did not have rights at one point in history that they currently do have. The difference isn't the creator, but in the society we live in and what we (as a society) are willing to enforce. Rights DO go away if society choses not to believe they are rights and acts accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

And that legal entitlement is not defined by what is permitted. It's defined by what's prohibited.

Incorrect. There are a great many things that are legally permitted that you are not legally entitled to. I am not legally prohibited from knowing your name, address, and where to send copies of your online drivel for your family to laugh at. I am not entitled to know these things. There is a large difference between the two and it is that difference that defines a right from a privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Different thread, maybe?

How the hell... ?

yeah, thanks for pointing that out. 

Starting at post #90  -  everything I posted in this thread, was supposed to be in the "fire & fury" thread. 

 

 

...looks like I accidentally found another way to quote a post from one thread, in a different thread: open both threads in separate tabs; use the multiquote button in the one thread, then hit reply in the other thread. 

 

...wait.  I was asking about that, in THIS thread. 

Not THAT thread. 

...Fuck me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this