Chefelf.com Night Life: The debate forum declaration of independence - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (16 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »

The debate forum declaration of independence We're forming our own government!

#16 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 23 January 2005 - 01:59 PM

So....What next?
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#17 User is offline   Dr Lecter Icon

  • Almighty God Of All Morals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,132
  • Joined: 03-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crawley/Hull
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 23 January 2005 - 02:18 PM

You accept me as your almightly leader, or you all will end up as System of a Down kindly stated: "Die, like a motherf*cker"
0

#18 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 January 2005 - 02:43 PM

Ok we've probably got enough people, I'm guessing we can call this meeting of the debate forum constitutional congress to order. Our first duty is naturally to create a constitution, and the most important freedom that we need to guarantee, in my opinion, is freedom of speech. People are going to be using the ammendment just about every day so its important that it be properly worded so as to be unambiguis in its deefense of free speech and in the limits that can be set to free speech. This is of course assuming that the majority here are in favor of this clause. The floor is open to debate.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#19 User is offline   Dr Lecter Icon

  • Almighty God Of All Morals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,132
  • Joined: 03-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crawley/Hull
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 23 January 2005 - 04:14 PM

I vote in favour of freedom of speech and the press. The only way to move forward is to allow full and free exp​ression of ideas. Make phone tappings illegal, give people to right to defend themselves in their own homes, the rights to own guns. I strongly believe there should no censorship of any kind, as far as freedom of speech is consider. However people still have the right to be protected from violence and sexual material, so it is illegal to swear, make graphic sexual or violent references in the public presses. Also, it should every's right to worship their own god and may pratice any faith they see fit as long as they don't commit any actions that are against the law. But, religious organisations will not be seen as charity organisation and will be expected to pay tax and their land will be classed as the property of the state.
0

#20 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 January 2005 - 04:42 PM

We haven't even gone into how property would be decided. Hell, we haven't even decided what sort of government we're going to be running here. Supes, you make me chuckle, but I'd die before I supported any dictatorship, however benign it appeared (as if that were possible.) You'd only be allowing an opening for your standard megalomaniacal dictators by starting out that way. You said for yourself that it would all go to hell as soon as you died. I think we should be trying to set up something lasting here, and less reliant on human whims.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#21 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 23 January 2005 - 05:50 PM

One step at a time here, we just started and we've already leaped over major grounds without giving it any thought.

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.)
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#22 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 January 2005 - 08:42 PM

Well I'm an American, so when you've got something better- let me know. sleep.gif



(swagger, "Bring it on.")
0

#23 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 January 2005 - 10:45 PM

Lecter- Try to focus on one topic at a time, we'll get to all of that stuff eventually but for the moment we're discussing free speech.

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

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#24 User is offline   SimeSublime Icon

  • Monkey Proof
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 6,619
  • Joined: 06-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 24 January 2005 - 12:29 AM

But what if the protest is of the KKK variety, which we have already outlawed? And why the hell are you calling the right to free speach and 'ammendment'? That would imply we already had a constitution and this was something we forgot.

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.
The Green Knight, SimeSublime the Puffinesque, liker of chips and hunter of gnomes.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
0

#25 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2005 - 12:43 AM

As I stated the freedom of speech should not extend to groups that promote hatred.

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

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#26 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2005 - 01:31 AM

You're not serious about all this, right?

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

0

#27 User is offline   Dr Lecter Icon

  • Almighty God Of All Morals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,132
  • Joined: 03-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crawley/Hull
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:38 AM

I agree with Horf on the condition that the only restrictions on freedom of speech are on these "groups that promote hatred" and only apply to color, race, lifestyle or gender. People should be able to openly criticize the government and other organisations because how do you know how to fix things if you don't know what is wrong with them.

This post has been edited by Dr Lecter: 24 January 2005 - 11:39 AM

0

#28 User is offline   Hannibal Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,013
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2005 - 04:00 PM

"As I stated the freedom of speech should not extend to groups that promote hatred.'


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.
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities also has the power to make you commit atrocities."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)


Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
0

#29 User is offline   Hannibal Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Former Members
  • Posts: 1,013
  • Joined: 29-October 04
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2005 - 04:17 PM

Hate: an emotion?

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

"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities also has the power to make you commit atrocities."
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)


Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
0

#30 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 24 January 2005 - 04:50 PM

Despondent- this is a very constructive use of debate. I thought that with all the different political views on the forum it would be fun if we all came together to try to flesh out a compromise between all our ideas that would be our ideal government. We're not actually doing it (yet anyways) but it is something interesting and a lot better than debating whether George Bush is a vampire.

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

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

  • (16 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size