America - The Official Thread

[Carbonox]

Whoa there, shut the front door, are you a mental health professional qualified to make an evaluation on someone, hell, anyone? I don't think so. I don't get offended easily but what you just typed is borderline extremely offensive. You do realize there are people with special conditions like Autism, Asperger's, Tourette's syndrome (to name a few) that are completely incapable socializing in a normal way, and you just incorrectly classified these people as Psychopaths.

And also, free speech is free speech just because the majority may find something offensive, that doesn't mean that right is restricted or that it's being misused. That is some very thin ice you are walking on there with that argument

Seeing as you're talking to someone who doesn't have a record of treating those in disagreement with any degree of respect, that's to be expected pretty much.

 

[UKMikey]

The White House publishes a list of seventy-eight incidents that it classifies as terror attacks and accuses the global media of deliberately under-reporting them. Included in this list is the stabbing death of a backpacker in Queensland which police determined to be a murder.

Incidentally the victim's mother has complained about people calling for her daughter's murder to be reclassified as a terror attack.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38893253

 

[Famine]

No, government retaliation is just one way of limiting the freedom of speech.

It's the only one that matters, as if you extend it to any other censure it ceases to exist - it conflicts with other rights, which no true right can do, and thus it doesn't exist.

If you come into my house and say you think my 5 year old is sexy and you want to bang her, that's absolutely fine. You're free to have and to express that opinion. If I then throw you out of my house for being absolutely vile, that's absolutely fine. I'm free to have anyone I like in my house and to bar anyone I don't.

However, in your world of 'any censure is against my freedom', I've breached your freedom of speech by visiting some consequences upon you for exercising it.

This causes some problems as rights cannot trump one another, otherwise one or the other of them is not a right - which means that either your understanding of free speech is wrong or my right to property is wrong, and unless you're going to insist that everyone must allow everyone else in their houses regardless of whether they want them there or not, it's your understanding of free speech. Which it is.


Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what you wish without government censure. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a guarantee of protection from the consequences of exercising your freedom of speech - such as being sued for libel, losing your job, your wife leaving you, or people thinking you're stupid - just the freedom from censure by the government.

If I go up on a stage and say that I want to kill of all (insert group here) because of this and that.

I cant just hide behind the pretence of Freedom of speech. No obviously I have made a serious overstep of what the right ensues..

Why is it not freedom of speech to say that you want to kill all of (insert group here) because of this and that?

You don't have a right to the platform, you don't have the right to an audience and you don't have the right to stop people from calling you a terrible human being for that opinion, but why don't you think you should have the right to say it?

 

[DDastardly00]

No, it is often quite obvious what is what.
If I go up on a stage and say that I want to kill of all (insert group here) because of this and that.

I cant just hide behind the pretence of Freedom of speech. No obviously I have made a serious overstep of what the right ensues.. You should be free to say what you want, but not hide behind a right that you are miss using.






Like I said, you are simply twisting my word out of context. not even worth to talk with you when you behave this childish..

If the people desire a amendment or a change then they will get it. It is simple no piece of paper have more power then the population of the country.

Do you even know what a psychopath is?

No, I am not twisting your words out of context. Your statement is idiotic and shows a gross misunderstanding of what a psychopath is. Go read website or a book about mental disorders and at least get a layman's understanding before making such ignorant statements about something you clearly do not have practical knowledge of, and fling around so carelessly.

You also quite clearly have no knowledge of what it takes to amend the COTUS or the desire and will of the American people to keep the right to Free Speech intact.

 

[Pillo-san]

I wouldn't have asked you twice if it was "quite obvious" where protected free speech ends and non-protected hate speech began. You've already used one example (someone dropping racial slurs) where it is "quite obvious" you didn't think through the implications of limiting free speech on that level, so I certainly hope it isn't you who would be put in charge of this definitely-going-to-happen amendment to the Constitution, but who would it be? What would their criteria be?

how does it work in USA or even in other countries that have free speech? Look in eran0004 post, it pretty much explain what freedom of speech really is about and what it ensues.

No, I am not twisting your words out of context. Your statement is idiotic and shows a gross misunderstanding of what a psychopath is. Go read website or a book about mental disorders and at least get a layman's understanding before making such ignorant statements about something you clearly do not have practical knowledge of, and fling around so carelessly.

You also quite clearly have no knowledge of what it takes to amend the COTUS or the desire and will of the American people to keep the right to Free Speech intact.

No, I know what it is and what it means. As I have first hand experience with a psychopath, thank you very much.

I do not care what it takes to make an amend to it, it has been done before and if majority of the population demand stricter enforcement of the Free speech they will get it. It is made to serve people not people serve it. If it is outdated it will probable get a change if there is a demand for it.

Are the laws and the constitution a prison for the population or a way to be ensured that they have rights? You make it sound as the paper owns its people like they where its prisoners or something like that.

 

[Danoff]

Are the laws and the constitution a prison for the population or a way to be ensured that they have rights? You make it sound as the paper owns its people like they where its prisoners or something like that.

For those who want to abridge the rights of the people around them, it might seem like a prison. From the perspective of someone who wants to trample the rights of others, a document which protects those rights might seem like shackles. But, so be it, human rights are what they are. You cannot use force against someone who has done you no harm, and speaking in and of itself, is not harm.

 

[Famine]

Are the laws and the constitution a prison for the population or a way to be ensured that they have rights? You make it sound as the paper owns its people like they where its prisoners or something like that.

Neither. It's a prison for the government.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The list also includes some events that received an incredibly high amount of coverage.

The unofficial explanation seems to be that the White House feels that the attacks went under-reported because they happen so frequently and so people are unaware of the extent of the threat. However, Trump has said that the media are intentionally under-reporting the attacks "for their own reasons" without explaining what he means by that. Given his fractured relationship with the press, it's not difficult to imagine that he is thinking of some kind of collusion to intentionally misrepresent the extent of Islamic extremism and undermine him.

Meanwhile, the media are interpreting the list as being a list of attacks that went under-reported as there aren't any additional criteria attached - like what the White House would consider to be adequate reporting, for instance.

Incidentally the victim's mother has complained about people calling for her daughter's murder to be reclassified as a terror attack.

As well she should be. She's attempted to achieve some sort of closure, only to have her own personal tragedy and her grief dredged back up to further someone else's political ambitions.

 

[Tornado]

how does it work in USA

It doesn't, because with a couple exceptions completely unrelated to the claim that people have a right to not be offended, the government doesn't restrict free speech. Since eran's post was a lazy copy paste of a Wikipedia article as if it was a tautology it's clear he has devolved once again to not actually reading any posts that he's responding to, so that leaves you.


So, for the third time now, if the government was to step in and begin codifying restrictions to free speech like you and eran are claiming should happen, who gets to be the arbiter of things like racial slurs being misusing the concept of free speech or disguising hate speech? You?

 

[UKMikey]

As well she should be. She's attempted to achieve some sort of closure, only to have her own personal tragedy and her grief dredged back up to further someone else's political ambitions.

I guess to her he was just another murderer that god told to do it rather than the front line of a global jihad, assuming the allegation that he called Allah is even true.

 

[DDastardly00]

No, I know what it is and what it means. As I have first hand experience with a psychopath, thank you very much.

Lol, but yet you define someone who has extremists beliefs, be it far right of center or far left of center as a psychopath (which is a mischaracterization of the word if there ever was one) and clearly, your definition differs from all reputable medical journals and the dictionary. And somehow you can't see the danger in what you propose, to restrict free speech based what a majority would disagree with.

I do not care what it takes to make an amend to it, it has been done before and if majority of the population demand stricter enforcement of the Free speech they will get it.

Clearly you don't care about our laws or our constitution. You sound like a Dictator.

It is made to serve people not people serve it. If it is outdated it will probable get a change if there is a demand for it.

It serves us just fine the way it is and there is no need to water it down, the negative implications to what you are suggesting far outweighs any good. Restricted free speech is not free speech either. You can't have it both ways.

Are the laws and the constitution a prison for the population or a way to be ensured that they have rights? You make it sound as the paper owns its people like they where its prisoners or something like that.

The COTUS is the framework that Americans live by and it ensures certain freedoms granted to every American like freedom of speech and of the press, any limitations on it and you start going to down the road towards a dictatorship.

 

[Pillo-san]

It doesn't, because with a couple exceptions completely unrelated to the claim that people have a right to not be offended, the government doesn't restrict free speech. Since eran's post was a lazy copy paste of a Wikipedia article and since he once again isn't actually reading any posts that challenge him, that leaves you.


So, for the third time now, if the government was to step in and begin codifying restrictions to free speech like you and eran are claiming should happen, who gets to be the arbiter of such a thing being misusing the concept of free speech or disguising hate speech? You?

It just describes what Freedom of speech is nothing more nothing else.

It does not need to be a grandiose essay, a copy paste should be more then enough for you.

If I make a speech that seems hateful it should be resolved in court, should it not?
I think it works like that in pretty much every country, probably in USA too...

Lol, but yet you define someone who has extremists beliefs, be it far right of center or far left of center as a psychopath (which is a mischaracterization of the word if there ever was one) and clearly, your definition differs from all reputable medical journals and the dictionary. And somehow you can't see the danger in what you propose, to restrict free speech based what a majority would disagree with.



Clearly you don't care about our laws or our constitution. You sound like a Dictator.



It serves us just fine the way it is and there is no need to water it down, the negative implications to what you are suggesting far outweighs any good. Restricted free speech is not free speech either. You can't have it both ways.



The COTUS is the framework that Americans live by and it ensures certain freedoms granted to every American like freedom of speech and of the press, any limitations on it and you start going to down the road towards a dictatorship.

 

[eran0004]

It's the only one that matters, as if you extend it to any other censure it ceases to exist - it conflicts with other rights, which no true right can do, and thus it doesn't exist.

Rights can definitely conflict with each other. They're man-made concepts, not perfect natural laws.

If you come into my house and say you think my 5 year old is sexy and you want to bang her, that's absolutely fine. You're free to have and to express that opinion. If I then throw you out of my house for being absolutely vile, that's absolutely fine. I'm free to have anyone I like in my house and to bar anyone I don't.

However, in your world of 'any censure is against my freedom', I've breached your freedom of speech by visiting some consequences upon you for exercising it.

Yes, that is limiting my freedom of speech. And rightly so, if you ask me because I don't think that I should have the right to say something like that.

This causes some problems as rights cannot trump one another

They can and they do. The freedom of speech is not always supreme to all other rights, there are cases where the freedom of speech is limited because it causes harm.

Why is it not freedom of speech to say that you want to kill all of (insert group here) because of this and that?

That is just speech. Freedom of speech means that there are no legal (or social for that matter) penalties to it. Freedom of speech in the above case would be to say that you want to kill all of (insert group here) because of this and that and not being penalised or risk being penalised for saying it.

And just to be clear, there should be limits to the freedom of speech. You should not be allowed to promote violence against somebody, or for that matter say that you want to bang my 5 year old. Those are justifiable limitations of the freedom of speech.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I guess to her he was just another murderer that god told to do it rather than the front line of a global jihad, assuming the allegation that he called Allah is even true.

The police investigated and found no reason to believe that it was an act of terror. They have no reason to intentionally misrepresent the event. If anything, there was more to gain from calling it a terror attack - the government at the time found it politically convenient for terrorists to be living among us because it gave them someone to talk tough about and score a few points in the opinion polls.

 

[Famine]

Rights can definitely conflict with each other. They're man-made concepts, not perfect natural laws.

No, that's laws you're thinking of. Please look at the Human Rights thread to clarfiy the difference.

Yes, that is limiting my freedom of speech.

If it is (which it isn't), then your concept of what freedom of speech is cannot and does not exist.

And rightly so, if you ask me because I don't think that I should have the right to say something like that.

Of course you do.

They can and they do.

Nope.

The freedom of speech is not always supreme to all other rights

That's because no right is supreme to another - as true rights cannot conflict. They are complementary.

there are cases where the freedom of speech is limited because it causes harm.

That's just laws.

That is just speech. Freedom of speech means that there are no legal (or social for that matter) penalties to it. Freedom of speech in the above case would be to say that you want to kill all of (insert group here) because of this and that and not being penalised or risk being penalised for saying it.

Apart from the struck out phrase, that's correct.

And just to be clear, there should be limits to the freedom of speech.

As soon as you limit freedom of speech, it is not freedom of speech. It's censored speech.

 

[Imari]

I guess to her he was just another murderer that god told to do it rather than the front line of a global jihad, assuming the allegation that he called Allah is even true.

People should probably understand that Allahu Akbar is something that is said by more than just terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir

I guess this is why some people think all Muslims are terrorists, because they hear them all saying Allahu Akbar.

If I make a speech that seems hateful it should be resolved in court, should it not?
I think it works like that in pretty much every country, probably in USA too...

So judges decide what is hateful speech? What rules or precedents should they use to apply this? Are there any? Or should they just use whatever they personally feel is hateful?

I get the impression that you haven't actually thought through how this would work. You're just going with what feels correct and assuming that it'll all work out.

 

[Pillo-san]

Lol, but yet you define someone who has extremists beliefs, be it far right of center or far left of center as a psychopath (which is a mischaracterization of the word if there ever was one) and clearly, your definition differs from all reputable medical journals and the dictionary. And somehow you can't see the danger in what you propose, to restrict free speech based what a majority would disagree with.



Clearly you don't care about our laws or our constitution. You sound like a Dictator.



It serves us just fine the way it is and there is no need to water it down, the negative implications to what you are suggesting far outweighs any good. Restricted free speech is not free speech either. You can't have it both ways.



The COTUS is the framework that Americans live by and it ensures certain freedoms granted to every American like freedom of speech and of the press, any limitations on it and you start going to down the road towards a dictatorship.

? I am not purposing anything, I am just saying how it is for all of us. I do not care about a piece of paper and how hard or easy it is to amend. Because I do not live in USA, not my problem. I could care less about it, because it is just that. A paper with words on it. Anytime someone could just pick it up and rip it apart. If Trump turns out to be like Erdogan and just dont give a damn about it, what would the Constitution do then?

Will the The Constitution of independence suddenly come to life and do something about Trump and his military if it would come to a situation like that?

No, because it is just a piece of paper and cant do anything on its own for its people. IF people want a change do you think politicians would say, no it is impossible? The people would just vote for politicians that are willing to amend it. People of the country are the country not a piece of paper.


About a psychopath, why do you think psychopath are usually criminals? They lack the human compass that we have of what is wrong or right. They need rules so that they know what right and wrong is. It is not uncommon to find psychopath in the more"extreme" groups.

 

[Famine]

Will the The Constitution of independence suddenly come to life and do something about Trump and his military if it would come to this?

You asked this before and I told you that the military swear an oath to defend the Constitution. It looks like this:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Not sure why you ignored that - or literally everything else I've posted in response to you today. Though I can guess.

 

[Northstar]

If I make a speech that seems hateful it should be resolved in court, should it not?

If by "court" you mean the court of public opinion, yes!

I guess I would rather avoid an openly racist person than associate with a secretly racist one.

About a psychopath, why do you think psychopath are usually criminals? They lack the human compass that we have of what is wrong or right. They need rules so that they know what right and wrong is. It is not uncommon to find psychopath in the more"extreme" groups.

It's also not uncommon for a psychopath to be that guy/girl next door that seemed like such a nice person... until they butchered their entire family.

 

[Pillo-san]

You asked this before and I told you that the military swear an oath to defend the Constitution. It looks like this:
Not sure why you ignored that - or literally everything else I've posted in response to you today. Though I can guess.

Who cares, if he wants and has loyal people behind him he could do what he want. Words and oaths are nothing, when even politicians/cabinets members are lying or giving half truths in court/hearings.

how would a constitution protect anyone, will heaven open itself and angles would come to its protection?

It is the people that live in the country that make the country and decide the course of the country, not a piece of paper that can be changed by the people or ripped apart if there is a coup d'etat.

What have I ignored?

People should probably understand that Allahu Akbar is something that is said by more than just terrorists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir

I guess this is why some people think all Muslims are terrorists, because they hear them all saying Allahu Akbar.



So judges decide what is hateful speech? What rules or precedents should they use to apply this? Are there any? Or should they just use whatever they personally feel is hateful?

I get the impression that you haven't actually thought through how this would work. You're just going with what feels correct and assuming that it'll all work out.

how does your judicial system work?
This system is in use in many countries, every country has a bit different judicial system, some have judges some have a jury that are to be convinced either if the man had intent to spew harmful crap or something else if he actually prepared/planned to do actual harm.
Let me ask you, If I say, we need to kill the president or destroy the state? what would happen then? Would you not be treated like a terrorist or something similar?

 

[Famine]

Who cares, if he wants and has loyal people behind him he could do what he want.

He'd need literally every soldier in the US.

And even he if had that, he'd still need at least half of the general population too. Read the Second Amendment lately?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

how would a constitution protect anyone, will heaven open itself and angles would come to its protection?

No, the million soldiers who have sworn an oath to defend it would. Like the thing I just said to you.

What have I ignored?

Literally every response I've made to you today in this thread.

 

[DDastardly00]

? I am not purposing anything, I am just saying how it is for all of us. I do not care about a piece of paper and how hard or easy it is to amend. Because I do not live in USA, not my problem. I could care less about it, because it is just that. A paper with words on it. Anytime someone could just pick it up and rip it apart. If Trump turns out to be like Erdogan and just dont give a damn about it, what would the Constitution do then?

To you it may just be a piece of paper, to the rest of us who care, it is the foundation of our nation's laws and principles written by some of the greatest political (and philosophical minds) that ever existed. An no it can't be just ripped apart by Trump or anyone else. Trumps powers are actually limited by the COTUS and the Senate.

About a psychopath, why do you think psychopath are usually criminals? They lack the human compass that we have of what is wrong or right. They need rules so that they know what right and wrong is. It is not uncommon to find psychopath in the more"extreme" groups.

Are Psychopaths usually criminals? Do you have some sort of magical stats to back that up?

So the person that robbed a bank is a psychopath? How about the person that steals mail to commit Identity theft, a psycho too? Or how about someone who commits insurance fraud, a Psycho in your book? What about drug dealers?

 

[Pillo-san]

He'd need literally every soldier in the US.

And even he if had that, he'd still need at least half of the general population too. Read the Second Amendment lately?

No, the million soldiers who have sworn an oath to defend it would. Like the thing I just said to you.

Literally every response I've made to you today in this thread.

Have I? I am pretty sure I have answered all I could.
Because if The government or president say it is state of emergency how do you know a soldier know what he is doing wrong, all he is doing is following orders. If he is not he will be probably be shot right there. Military is after all Military. You know nothing and you just follow orders.

 

[Danoff]

how would a constitution protect anyone, will heaven open itself and angles would come to its protection?

This is a really common argument, I've seen it made at least a half dozen times it seems in the human rights thread alone (which has covered most of this ground). Human rights only have meaning if they can be infringed. If reality didn't let you infringe someone's rights, they'd just be reality. It's like saying, you have the right to move forward in time. Ok great, that's a pretty pointless right given that under no circumstances will our universe (seemingly) allow that to ever be violated. You have the right to move slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. Fantastic.

Human rights actually have meaning because the universe doesn't open up and prevent you from violating them. It's what allows us to look at an act and recognize the logical implications of that act. It's the basis upon which we imprison criminals and still sleep well at night. We know that we have the authority to lock up (certain) criminals based on their behavior. Whether or not they get locked up is not a function of rights, but of our criminal justice system. The degree to which we adhere to those rights is the degree to which our government can derive legitimacy.

That's how the constitution protects people, by codifying those rights and declaring that the US government will adhere to them.

 

[Famine]

Because if The government or president say it is state of emergency how do you know a soldier know what he is doing wrong, all he is doing is following orders. If he is not he will be probably be shot right there. Military is after all Military. You know nothing and you just follow orders.

What is this bizarre fictional world you inhabit? US soldiers don't know the Constitution and would just blindly follow orders to ignore it or their equally stupid colleagues will execute them?

 

[Pillo-san]

This is a really common argument, I've seen it made at least a half dozen times it seems in the human rights thread alone (which has covered most of this ground). Human rights only have meaning if they can be infringed. If reality didn't let you infringe someone's rights, they'd just be reality. It's like saying, you have the right to move forward in time. Ok great, that's a pretty pointless right given that under no circumstances will our universe (seemingly) allow that to ever be violated. You have the right to move slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. Fantastic.

Human rights actually have meaning because the universe doesn't open up and prevent you from violating them. It's what allows us to look at an act and recognize the logical implications of that act. It's the basis upon which we imprison criminals and still sleep well at night. We know that we have the authority to lock up (certain) criminals based on their behavior. Whether or not they get locked up is not a function of rights, but of our criminal justice system. The degree to which we adhere to those rights is the degree to which our government can derive legitimacy.

That's how the constitution protects people, by codifying those rights and declaring that the US government will adhere to them.

In other words you agree, that if no one is willing to follow it would only be a piece of paper.

What is this bizarre fictional world you inhabit? US soldiers don't know the Constitution and would just blindly follow orders to ignore it or their equally stupid colleagues will execute them?

No, I am saying that they would not know what really is happening. They would think that the government is right and is protecting the country from harm. Military propaganda is strong. They would strictly follow orders, especially in state of emergency. Why do you think stuff like this has happened in other countries, there would not be any difference in USA. What I can say with confidence is that military is basically the same in every country. I remember when I did my part. My cousins in Poland and USA had the same military cultural experience and pretty much same training as I had here in Sweden.

 

[Danoff]

In other words you agree, that if no one is willing to follow it will only be a piece of paper.

No. It's a truth written on a piece of paper.

If I write 1+1=2 on a piece of paper, it's not just a piece of paper. It's a description of our reality, it's a truth. In our universe, when you bring one thing together with another thing you have 2 things. A third thing does not magically appear and nothing magically disappears (ignoring chemistry for a moment, I hate chemistry). It's an abstraction captured in tangible form. Physically it's just paper, but we humans have the ability to process abstract thought, and so we can understand the implications of something written on paper. The number of people who agree with it is meaningless.

Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea... and ideas are bulletproof.

 

[Pillo-san]

No. It's a truth written on a piece of paper.

If I write 1+1=2 on a piece of paper, it's not just a piece of paper. It's a description of our reality, it's a truth. In our universe, when you bring one thing together with another thing you have 2 things. A third thing does not magically appear and nothing magically disappears (ignoring chemistry for a moment, I hate chemistry).

Why would we need it if we, those that want to live in peace without using or harming anyone?
If there would not be any laws would you steal from me?

 

[Famine]

No, I am saying that they would not know what really is happening. They would think that the government is right and is protecting the country from harm. Military propaganda is strong. They would strictly follow orders, especially in state of emergency. Why do you think stuff like this has happened in other countries, there would not be any difference in USA. What I can say with confidence is that military is basically the same in every country. I remember when I did my part, My cousins in Poland and USA had the same cultural experience and pretty much same training as I had here in Sweden.

What's the Constitution of Sweden? Do you swear to defend it when you enlist?

An American wouldn't hesitate to answer the first question - it's drilled into them from primary/grade school and onwards - and while they might get a chunk of the text wrong they've all got the basic idea of it. Their servicepeople do swear to defend it and they're defending something they know. The chances of a US soldier not knowing what it is and breaking it out of ignorance is... not high, even if Swedish and Polish soldiers would blithely execute their own citizens for disobeying the president.

 

[Danoff]

Why would we need it if we, those that want to live in peace without using or harming anyone?
If there would not be any laws would you steal from me?

I don't understand why you're asking why we would need the constitution in some sort of fictional utopia. We live in our reality, where people like yourself think that freedom of speech does not exist and would move to infringe it. That's why we need it.