The debate forum declaration of independence We're forming our own government!
#17
Posted 23 January 2005 - 02:18 PM
#18
Posted 23 January 2005 - 02:43 PM
Quote
#19
Posted 23 January 2005 - 04:14 PM
#20
Posted 23 January 2005 - 04:42 PM
#21
Posted 23 January 2005 - 05:50 PM
I support the freedom of speech. However, people often hide behind that ammendment to promote hatred and whatnot. I guess it's a double edged sword and I don't know how to solve it. Therefore I have no say on this issue. (The USA has a pretty good policy, so I say pilfer The USA's ammendment and use it as our own.)
#23
Posted 23 January 2005 - 10:45 PM
Now all of the comments so far have been in favor of this ammendment, but I agree that there should be limits. Naturally speech that is willfully false, needlessly inflamatory, leud or obscene, or causing of hatred aught to be outlawed.
It is a subject worthy of debate about whether causing hatred leads to violence or other problems for the victims, but I for one believe that hatred will end in violence, and that therefore inciting hatred through words (such as racial or ethnic slurs) is wrong. However we have to still allow people to dislike others, but this must be based upon deeds, not upon color, race, lifestyle or gender.
If there's no further debate about limits on free speech I think we aught to move on to protections for free speech, for instance the government is bound to want to quiet dissent and the media is likely to be willing to help. Therefore we aught to set down a clause that says that people will not be ignoredbased upon their message, and that protesters may be asked to attain permits, but that these permits will be granted without any government knowledge of what is being protested. Thus government neutrality will be achieved.
Is this acceptable to everyone?
Quote
#24
Posted 24 January 2005 - 12:29 AM
I don't like the idea of protesting. I belive we should set up public access tv, which can be used to spread your message to the masses. That would help to stop the possiblity of riots.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
#25
Posted 24 January 2005 - 12:43 AM
As for your views on protests I might point out that the inability of citizens to protest and be heard has led to more riots than the freedom to protest ever has, and more serious ones as well.
Quote
#26
Posted 24 January 2005 - 01:31 AM
I think one thing we can ALL (mostly) agree on is what spoils each other's savior's time here on earth is the organized religion which follows.
So this is how to spend our free time? What happened to the Sims?
(on the other hand, I'm enjoying being a rebel.)
edit: Naturally, we'll need to have a ratification assembly. They keep pushing for a domed stadium/convention center downtown, so I suggest Birmingham, Alabama, in the US of A.
but Louis and I are willing to travel. Host it where the Finns are playing and I'll be there regardless.
This post has been edited by Despondent: 24 January 2005 - 02:41 AM
#27
Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:38 AM
This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 24 January 2005 - 11:39 AM
#28
Posted 24 January 2005 - 04:00 PM
How the hell do you define that? KKK, Nazis? Sure I can see that, but you will have to define that Hoffie, because some people say the Black Panthers, The Nation of Islam, the Anti-Defamation League, and All Catholics are hate groups.
The phrase "hate groups" is in itself a political buzzword, a 'catchphrase' how do you fully define it? If you can't, then forget it. I hate nazis as much as anybody(if not more than ALL of you combined) but you see, the problem is ANYBODY could ACCUSE anybody of being a hate group. Without a significant definition(IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THAT PHRASEOLOGY) your charade is going to be a house of cards. I.E.a joke, a biased joke at that.
You are seriously going to have to illustrate this bullshit idea of "hate groups" because its nothing but modern doublespeak.
If you had said, we're going to have freedom of speech, and liberty, etc, thats one thing, and then define it, but if you are going to use modern talkshowisms, like "hate speech" "hate groups" and the words "terror" and "terrorism" and "terrorist" then count me out of your idiotic crusade there hoffie.
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)
Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
#29
Posted 24 January 2005 - 04:17 PM
Morality: religous or not?
Freedom of religion? What about satanists? Hatred is either a value or there is no such thing as hatred to them.
"Hate speech': "Jews are subhuman" (an opinion of one group)
"Nazis are scum" (another opinion)
"christians are stupid and ignorant" (yet another opinion)
"liberals are helping terrorists" (another view)
"homosexuality is a genetic disorder' (another opinion)
"scientists are amoral meddlers" (another opinion)
"White people have caused the majority of the worlds problems"(another)
'Blacks are prone to crime and violence' (another)
"christians are to blame for the worlds problems" (another)
Which of these are hate speech and which are the "hate groups" that espouse these ideas?
Answers?
You have none.
ALL of these statements could be lebeled "hate speech" and ALL gorups can be argued to be groups that promote hate.
liberals, republicans, christians, jews, nazis, muslims, whites, blacks, hispanics, homosexuals, women, men, scientists, etc can all accuse one another of being hate groups or promoting hate or anything else they don't like, and all can be argued to be classified as promoting hate, whatever "hate" wants to be defined as.
Legislating morality are you?
Anarchists don't write constitutions Hoffie, they wait for civilization to collapse, and hope for the best.
This post has been edited by Hannibal: 24 January 2005 - 04:23 PM
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)
Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
#30
Posted 24 January 2005 - 04:50 PM
Lecter- Glad to have you with me on that idea, I think keeping hate groups from inciting violence and spreading their message is necessary to a stable government. I don't think it's so much the groups we should be after as just their message. Since we've hit on this subject now I think a clause should be included that the government will work to create harmony between all humans and (pending the discovery of aliens or AI) sentient non-humans. (we have to think ahead, since presumably this forum and its constitution will be around for many thousands of years!)
Quote