I'm confused about the American Republican party

[Tal]

Okay, lots of people want to punch me in the mouth.

Go back to PvE?

[eppie]

Your post, whether you intend it to or not, is still coming off as "I'm not saying I'll attack these guys I disagree with, but if someone else does, I'm going to turn the other way." I'm scratching my head as to how you can feel this is correct or justified. Just because you're not actively incurring the violence yourself doesn't mean you're not a part of a violent system that will strike down anyone you disagree with. Free speech doesn't work that way. Lots of people will disagree with your viewpoints; do you want them to "look the other way" while you're violently attacked?

I can sit here at an emotional level and think "man, Rush Limbaugh needs a punch in the mouth," but on an intellectual level, I recognize that his right to spew filth needs to be protected. Because, at the end of the day, someone out there wants to punch ME in the mouth for things I believe.

Okay, lots of people want to punch me in the mouth.

I think I understand what angrycommie means,and try to explain it with a hypothetical 'example'.

Say Fred Phelps is demonstrating spewing his filth while you are burying your son who has been killed in Iraq. You walk up to him and punch him in the face.
Angrycommie thinks he had it coming and so you should not be arrested. I actually think the same.
The only issue with this is of course where do you draw the line? Making such a thing into a kind of law very difficult.

But in a country where you have a right to have a gun in your house for self defence this shouldn't be too much of a stretch. Also when shooting someone who trespasses there is a line to draw. What about an unarmed 100 pound junkie who just tries to steal your TV. Can you shout him in the face?
I can for sure tell you want thing; a person is hurt a lot more when morons like phelps demonstrate at a relatives funeral than when someone steals their TV.


Just some thoughts...

[Mavfin]

The only issue with this is of course where do you draw the line? Making such a thing into a kind of law very difficult.

This is the crux of the whole thing. I'd rather leave Phelps' free speech alone than trust the politicians to get their censorship right; i.e. special interests would get in the mix, and would end up with a far worse situation than just Phelps, imo. It's like banning books. Where do you stop, once you start? (I'm against banning books, too, btw, just to be clear.)

Yes, his hate is pretty over-the-top, but, as far as I know, having not seen it in person, it's been limited to words, and not physical action.

Now, someone being in my house and stealing things is a completely different area from free speech. That's trespassing, just for starters, and I have no way to know what his intentions are, and whether he has a weapon. I just know he's in my house, taking stuff that isn't his. He could be intending to stop there, but, he could have a gun and be intending to kill or hurt me or my family before he's done. I have no way to know.

[Kevin]

Say Fred Phelps is demonstrating spewing his filth while you are burying your son who has been killed in Iraq. You walk up to him and punch him in the face.
Angrycommie thinks he had it coming and so you should not be arrested. I actually think the same.
The only issue with this is of course where do you draw the line? Making such a thing into a kind of law very difficult.

It depends on what Phelps was saying. If he was saying things directly to you and making threatening gestures it could be considered verbal assault and while you are only allowed to retaliate in kind it could be considered a mitigating circumstance and charges of assault against you might not stick if you punched him.

There are laws against certain types of speech, slander being the most obvious. If someone speaks defamation against you, you have legal recourse against them as well.

But if he is on public property and not threatening or slandering you, Phelps can be the total tool he is and speak his idiocy. Even if he is slandering you, you can't physically assault him. Of course other people also have a right to occupy that space and keep him away. This is often what happens with Phelps specifically people organize and prevent him and his group from being able to even get near the funeral.

The KKK often gets in trouble for spouting slander, or physically assaulting. However there are times where they protest and intimidate without directly threatening and their ignorant speech is protected in those cases.

I don't want to live in society where people are allowed to physically assault someone who is only using language against them. Of course I also don't want people to just be able to freely verbally abuse someone or disturb the general peace with just language either. But there is legal recourse against these types of things. Phelps himself has not been arrested for it, but some of his cronies have been arrested for disturbing the peace. Depending on the situation there are various types of action that can be brought against someone who is verbally abusing someone as well.


Shooting someone who has broken into your house isn't something that you can automatically get away with either. People have been jailed for shooting burglars while the burglar has gone free. Again it depends on the judge, the circumstances, etc. I've always been told that if you are going to shoot someone with a gun, it's best to empty the clip as it's much easier to argue defense/fear/etc than if you only fire a single shot. It's a misconception that you can just shoot someone for breaking into your home. Just the act of breaking and entering does not justify shooting there needs to be other circumstances.

[FireIceTalon]

Complete and total free speech also allowed this guy right here to get into power, and it didn't take long for his words to become reality. And we all know the result of that. Sadly, we still have scumbags that think this POS was a hero.



People greatly underestimate the power of words, especially in times of crisis. You might accuse me of being authoritarian by wanting certain types of hate speech to be unprotected, but certainly no more so than the bigots and racists who want to deny rights to women, minorities or other people that are "different", and who have the freedom to say it. In fact, I could and would argue that I am far less so. Ever heard that expression that Freedom is not free? Well, indeed its not. With it comes responsibility. You have the freedom to drive a car, so long as you are of proper age and have license/registration. If you get enough DUI's, you revoke your right/freedom to drive for at least a certain amount of time, because you were irresponsible. Calling someone a (insert racist term of your choice here) is just as bad as yelling fire in a theater, whether you like it or not. Both are irresponsible behavior that can easily lead to the same result, and you do NOT have the right to say either of them - at least not without suffering the repercussions.

[Tal]

Complete and total free speech also allowed this guy right here to get into power, and it didn't take long for his words to become reality. And we all know the result of that. Sadly, we still have scumbags that think this POS was a hero.

   

Unnecessary Godwin - 10 yard penalty, repeat second down. (side note: THIS is the best you could come up with to try make me mad? For Godwin's sake man, STEP UP TO THE PLATE)

You have the freedom to drive a car, so long as you are of proper age and have license/registration. If you get enough DUI's, you revoke your right/freedom to drive for at least a certain amount of time, because you were irresponsible.

Sorry but no - you have to meet requirements to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, that means that inherently it is not a Right. In addition this has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. I thought you went to school for this?

Calling someone a (insert racist term of your choice here) is just as bad as yelling fire in a theater, whether you like it or not. Both are irresponsible behavior that can easily lead to the same result, and you do NOT have the right to say either of them - at least not without suffering the repercussions.

Courts have often recognized that the right of free speech is not absolute. They have limited free speech when it becomes libel, incites a riot, threatens an elected official, or conspires to monopolize industries. Bans on cigarette advertising or liquor sales also narrow free speech. Anti-racists must become First Amendment realists who argue that individuals harmed by racist speech and symbols should be able to sue under defamation laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress laws, and/or assault and battery laws.

From here .

And once again you're missing my point. There is a better recourse than attacking someone or limiting their speech. And oddly enough what I linked is what you've been talking about. That an individual is responsible for what they've said. It's up to the offended party to redress it (without attacking them)

[FireIceTalon]

The Hitler picture wasn't a shot at you or anyone for that matter, but was used as an genuine example to drive my point home. And what makes you think I am trying to make you mad? I really have much better things to do with my time, then sit here and try to piss someone off whom I've never even met. I get the impression that you and many others here think I am just trolling for the sake of trolling - but that isn't the case at all - I am a genuine radical, and the "rhetoric" i type are genuine grievances that I and other radicals (and even some non-radicals) have with our society that should, and deserve to, be taken seriously. If my views piss you off, I don't know what to say - but that is hardly my intention. Meat made a post a few pages back that really got under my skin, though I doubt that was his intention. If I was here to troll, I'd have been long gone by now, either by your hand, or mine out of boredom.

Even if my example wasn't the best, I think my ultimate point, that there are limits on all general freedoms, including free speech, is quite clear.

I think you are conflating my learning of stuff with AGREEING with it. Indeed, I have studied this stuff, but I don't necessarily agree with it. As a Critical Theorist in fact, there is probably a substantial portion of my studies downright couldnt believe what I was reading. The article you provided, for instance, stated that a case was decided by the Supreme Court that burning a cross on someones lawn is equivalent to freedom of speech. Well, the court, from my perspective, was WRONG, and there is nothing anyone can say to change my view of that. Anyone who does agree with the Courts decision in that circumstance is guilty of an "appeal to authority" fallacy as I see it.

[Zyn]

Sorry, I don't usually post in these sections of the forums, but learning how to use basic language for communication and taking a test to assess whether or not an individual possesses enough spacial reasoning and coordination to travel on a roadway whilst not endangering himself or others are completely different things. You can't really use those examples to prove your point and/or disprove his.

Granted, I'm not saying you're wrong in your overall ideology - I'll reserve my opinion, I'm just saying that those two examples aren't in any way analogous. Plus, if they made me take a test before they let me talk to people, I couldn't yell at Tal for wiping us on Deathwing.

[kandrathe]

Shooting someone who has broken into your house isn't something that you can automatically get away with either. People have been jailed for shooting burglars while the burglar has gone free. Again it depends on the judge, the circumstances, etc. I've always been told that if you are going to shoot someone with a gun, it's best to empty the clip as it's much easier to argue defense/fear/etc than if you only fire a single shot. It's a misconception that you can just shoot someone for breaking into your home. Just the act of breaking and entering does not justify shooting there needs to be other circumstances.

When I was growing up, that was the advise the local Sheriff gave to my mom, and also... If he falls dead out of the window to the outside, it would be best to push him back inside.

The worst scenarios are when you just maim them and they survive to win the lawsuit against you. That's when words really hurt... in civil court.

[FireIceTalon]

Sorry, I don't usually post in these sections of the forums, but learning how to use basic language for communication and taking a test to assess whether or not an individual possesses enough spacial reasoning and coordination to travel on a roadway whilst not endangering himself or others are completely different things. You can't really use those examples to prove your point and/or disprove his.

Granted, I'm not saying you're wrong in your overall ideology - I'll reserve my opinion, I'm just saying that those two examples aren't in any way analogous. Plus, if they made me take a test before they let me talk to people, I couldn't yell at Tal for wiping us on Deathwing.

Fair enough. Perhaps the example i used wasnt the best one, but you do see my ultimate point, right?

[Tal]

If my views piss you off, I don't know what to say - but that is hardly my intention. Meat made a post a few pages back that really got under my skin, though I doubt that was his intention. If I was here to troll, I'd have been long gone by now, either by your hand, or mine out of boredom.

I'd think that except for the fact that when a question is asked, like I did earlier in this thread, you don't answer. My original post in this thread was something along the lines of stating your opinion was a slippery slope and how would you even begin to define it. Eppie made some stabs at answering my question and he's not even FROM this country. Instead you drag in examples that have nothing to do with the matter at hand and point at that dog and pony show to deflect from what you originally said. (See Godwining the thread by invoking Hitler) Those are all trollish behaviors.

Even if my example wasn't the best, I think my ultimate point, that there are limits on all general freedoms, including free speech, is quite clear.

And my ultimate point was that it's best to minimize the restrictions on freedoms like Free Speech. (I didn't realize that I would need to summarize so early into the discussion.)

I think you are conflating my learning of stuff with AGREEING with it.

No I'm questioning whether you've learned anything in Political Science. The view from the cheap seats is that if you have learned anything, even if you disagreed with it, it didn't STICK with you.

I shouldn't have to research your point for you if you're getting a degree in this stuff. Stop spouting, do your research and come back with a well thought out and supported argument.

[Zyn]

Fair enough. Perhaps the example i used wasnt the best one, but you do see my ultimate point, right?

I do, sort of - I just don't know that your analogy did you any favors, is all I was trying to point out.

-Z

[FireIceTalon]

If my views piss you off, I don't know what to say - but that is hardly my intention. Meat made a post a few pages back that really got under my skin, though I doubt that was his intention. If I was here to troll, I'd have been long gone by now, either by your hand, or mine out of boredom.

I'd think that except for the fact that when a question is asked, like I did earlier in this thread, you don't answer. My original post in this thread was something along the lines of stating your opinion was a slippery slope and how would you even begin to define it. Eppie made some stabs at answering my question and he's not even FROM this country. Instead you drag in examples that have nothing to do with the matter at hand and point at that dog and pony show to deflect from what you originally said. (See Godwining the thread by invoking Hitler) Those are all trollish behaviors.

Even if my example wasn't the best, I think my ultimate point, that there are limits on all general freedoms, including free speech, is quite clear.

And my ultimate point was that it's best to minimize the restrictions on freedoms like Free Speech. (I didn't realize that I would need to summarize so early into the discussion.)

I think you are conflating my learning of stuff with AGREEING with it.

No I'm questioning whether you've learned anything in Political Science. The view from the cheap seats is that if you have learned anything, even if you disagreed with it, it didn't STICK with you.

I shouldn't have to research your point for you if you're getting a degree in this stuff. Stop spouting, do your research and come back with a well thought out and supported argument.

So now I have A learning disability? Wow. And I love how you said it in such a politically correct way as to appear you weren't personally insulting my intelligence. ROFL. I also love how whenever Hitler is brought up in a political discussion you always have one person screaming "That's Godwin's Law!!".....

Well, for someone who hasn't or isn't learning anything in his major, I must have the all time record academic performance (with a cumulative GPA of near 3.9) for such individuals. Damn, I'm awesome.

And I already answered your question numerous times, you just didnt like the particular answers I gave you, because it isn't what you wanted to hear. I'm not in the business of telling people what they want to hear (I will leave that to people like President Obama), I'm telling them what they need to hear.

[Hammerskjold]

Well, for someone who hasn't or isn't learning anything

I agree! Oh wait, there's more?

Well, for someone who hasn't or isn't learning anything in his major,
I must have the all time record academic performance (with a cumulative GPA of near 3.9) for such individuals. Damn, I'm awesome.

+10 points for sheer balls.
-10000000000 points for tossing word salad and trying to even pass that as a trolling attempt.

About the only thing that remotely made sense is 'freedom is paid with responsibility', buried under a heap of buzzwords and general WTFokk are you talking about.

Seriously, whatever happened to the Commie -Worker- persona? If this is what passes for commies these days, spouting off words like 'bourgeouise' like a tantrum throwing teen who just read the commie manifesto in summer class. While wearing a Che' t-shirt from HotTopic.


PS. 3.9 GPA means nothing without context. There's diploma mills and schools that works under a 'grade for pay' system. Judging by the wordsmithery displayed by you so far, I'd seriously suggest looking at a refund.

Christ I really do hope you are a troll. Because if you are serious, I'm terrified at the state of edumacation in North America.

[FireIceTalon]

Well, for someone who hasn't or isn't learning anything

I agree! Oh wait, there's more?

Well, for someone who hasn't or isn't learning anything in his major,
I must have the all time record academic performance (with a cumulative GPA of near 3.9) for such individuals. Damn, I'm awesome.

+10 points for sheer balls.
-10000000000 points for tossing word salad and trying to even pass that as a trolling attempt.

About the only thing that remotely made sense is 'freedom is paid with responsibility', buried under a heap of buzzwords and general WTFokk are you talking about.

Seriously, whatever happened to the Commie -Worker- persona? If this is what passes for commies these days, spouting off words like 'bourgeouise' like a tantrum throwing teen who just read the commie manifesto in summer class. While wearing a Che' t-shirt from HotTopic.


PS. 3.9 GPA means nothing without context. There's diploma mills and schools that works under a 'grade for pay' system. Judging by the wordsmithery displayed by you so far, I'd seriously suggest looking at a refund.

Christ I really do hope you are a troll. Because if you are serious, I'm terrified at the state of edumacation in North America.

Hahahahaha, now I pay off school officials to get my grades. Yep, and Obama's a Muslim, The world is around 7,000 years old, people walked with Dinosaurs, the earth is flat, and the Holocaust never happened, right? I've heard it all now.

You are a complete and utter joke. The rest of your post is sweeping generalizations, assumptions, hypocrisies, ad-hominems, and otherwise pointless jargon that it is not even worth my time addressing. On ignore you go. Enjoy your stay. Idiot.

[Hammerskjold]

Hahahahaha, now I pay off school officials to get my grades.

Holy christ on a tree. What it means is as long as the cheque clears, you show up, hand in a paper with some words on it, you get to pass.
A+. Hand in some toilet paper slightly soiled, B-.

That's the general workings of a diploma mill.

Now you want to become some sort of commie-dy writer perhaps, the stuff you shown so far at best is 'zine quality. Waving around your grade, is not really helping either.

Seriously, I'm both terrified and appalled if you are actually serious about being proud of your 3.9. You are being robbed of your money, for some sparkly "great job!" sticker.

[kandrathe]

And, while you weren't looking... Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President

Lee Camps is pretty coarse, but that's not unusual for this thread.

[FireIceTalon]

^^Just another day in Fascist America.

[LemmingofGlory]

You are a complete and utter joke. The rest of your post is sweeping generalizations, assumptions, hypocrisies, ad-hominems, and otherwise pointless jargon that it is not even worth my time addressing. On ignore you go. Enjoy your stay. Idiot.

This coming from someone who posts dueling opportunities in the Diablo subforum? You know, I've watched your behavior in this thread for some time now, and it's giving me flashbacks to the glory days of Diablo when I encountered duelists on Bnet. I'm not sure whether to thank you for the nostalgia or smack you upside the head and tell your mom you're on the internet past your bedtime, because posting pictures of Hitler and invoking your GPA in arguments does nothing to convince anyone you're older than 14. Hammerskjold, on the other hand, is a longtime Lurker with thoughtful opinions and keen observations. For instance:

Now you want to become some sort of commie-dy writer perhaps, the stuff you shown so far at best is 'zine quality.

This is an amazing burn. It's napalm to the crotch. Can you feel it? I can, because I once accidentally found myself obliged to listen to a 'zine archivist (who looked like he'd been attacked by a hole punch and a dozen metal chain link puzzles) go on about the importance of 'zines. Because there is almost nothing less interesting than this (except of course D1 dueling strategies) I started naming the ceiling tiles. I think these memories are giving my brain cramps.

So right now, your level of absurdity is about here and it should be brought down to maybe here if you want people to start taking you seriously again.

-Lemming

[kandrathe]

Seriously, I'm both terrified and appalled if you are actually serious about being proud of your 3.9. You are being robbed of your money, for some sparkly "great job!" sticker.

It's better to have a brown nose than a brown shirt. But, in this case I'm afraid it might be both.

Heaven help the political system that embraces the soul whose idea of fair justice for those in their political opposition is to "hang them by their entrails". But, if the revolution comes, I'm surely heading for Texas where gun control still means a firm and steady aim.