America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,073 comments
- 1,710,333 views
- 24,614
- Anoka, MN
So you've gone from "knowing" to proposing hypothetical situations based on... nothing?
Admittedly, I've never been in a situation where a decision like that was needed so I don't feel comfortable commenting. Perhaps @Parker can give us an idea of what goes through ones mind in a high stress situation?
- 86,840
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
In rough order of importance:
The US Constitution
The US Bill of Rights
The fact that schoolchildren in the US have both drilled into them
The US military pledge, which I've quoted four times, that places the Constitution above obeying orders and tyrants.
Yes, you've stated a point several times that because you don't know your own constitution without looking it up and because your military swears an oath to politicians and generals and will execute a primary school because they were told to, you think US soldiers will despite the fact that they DO know their constitution and swear to defend it against all enemies*, even domestic.
I wouldn't be allowed to. The USA has a funny thing about Brits with guns (I wonder if you'll understand this time that I'm not American... you ignored even that the first time round).
Instead of that ludicrous example, perhaps you should read the things you've been ignoring and try to get even the most basic understanding of why everything you've been saying is utter tripe. Or you can continue to play dumb.
*For balance, the end of the oath does mention the CinC, but it's rather secondary; the whole of the USA is built around the Constitution, because it's what permits the 50 States to operate as a single Federation
- 716
Why should I need to know of what it is written in the US Constitution? what good does it give me?
So what if they are brainwashed, eh I mean drilled to know that? What will it change when faced in real situation.
Another example. I am walking on a street, somebody hits hits me and starts to rob me, I take up a gun and start shooting. A cop nearby sees me shoot and shoots me instead. how will the constitutions/bill of rights help me?
Far fetched example I know but still. How will it help me? will it stop the bullets from hitting me?
I do not need to know my constitutional rights because we are told in school what we are allowed to do. I do not need any poem of some sort to help me remember: -Oh yea I can walk on this path or here in this forest.. I have not needed any help form something like that, because my freedom or rights have not been in question in any form or way. If I do not know something I just look it up.
Once again, Why focus on small unimportant details. If I say to you, let see if you would think about the constitution/rights/stuff like that if you happen to be in "situation" as a soldier dispatched somewhere. I does not matter if it is a American constitutional oath or a Russian or Italian or whateever. It is not the point of my argument. It is to make you see that you would not think about stuff like that in the heat of the battle... OMG what is this...
- 716
Surely you will understand why I find this line so obscenely funny.
Okey indulge me?
Is it funny to you that school teaches what rights we have and what we can and cant do?
It is not like we start the day by singing the national hymn or some brain washing poem about what it is expected of us and how great our country is...
You think I care what others thinks of me?
I have said a lot, given a lot of examples and asked questions. Funny enough not many question that I asked got answered.
When I point out that you focus about unimportant things that have no weight of importance to the arguments/points. You say I make a fool out of myself. It is clearly that my questions are basically avoided or twisted out of context. To bad no one is allowed to have a proper discussion.
Would be fun. America is a good topic but I understand, no one is allowed to say or point out some of its flaws..
Last edited:
- 24,614
- Anoka, MN
I would expect a school to teach it, that's not what I find funny. What I find funny is that you said you don't need to know your constitutional rights because you were taught them in school. I don't know how to explain it any better than that.
I don't either and really the main reason we did the pledge in elementary school is because it was a convenient way to get a bunch of preteens to shut up and focus in the morning. Apart from a span after 9/11 I don't recall doing it in school past the 5th grade (last year of elementary).
Joey D
Premium
- 47,366
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Think of it as a free lesson in how freedom of speech works. You are free to say what you want and I'm free to think you're opinion is ignorant to the world around you.
Sweden has existed in some way since about 100 AD. I'm guessing if I go through the entire history of your country I can find war crimes or at least things that could be considered war crimes. The Swedish Empire also waged several wars during its time, and I'm guessing not every single person war a good upstanding Swede. I'm not well versed in the history past the Viking age of Nordic countries, so I don't really know, but given the length of time that's past the likelihood something has occurred is higher than the likelihood something hasn't.
I did not say many soldiers, I said the odds of some being bad are there but it's not the norm.
You can criticize as much as you'd like, but if you are ignoring facts and making an argument based on ignorance of the US, you're going to get called on it. Plenty of people in this thread, including many Americans, have criticized the US without any issue because they actually took the time to understand what they were criticizing in the first place.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 716
Why should I care about what it says on the US constitution/bill of rights when it has nothing to do with my arguments.
It can say the most beautiful and uplifting things imaginable, promises of eternal life and what not.
It would still not change the fact that it is just a piece of paper that can be ignored or changed if something unexpected happened.
What if we get free unlimited energy, technology to live long healthy lifes and have interplanetary technology. You think anyone would even care about the US constitution.
Or if another country invades, takes over US or US simply tears itself in to pieces so that every state is a country of its own, what then?
Or if people simply deem it to be old and unnecessary?
If you want to know about a country that was kind of like USA and what it happened to it then you should study Poland and its history. It is was not that different from USA.
I agree it is nice to know that there is a value that the country holds dear, but the notion that it is something holy and that its military forces would think about it when they are in battle is kind of a strange notion. I do not know any national oath by heart and none of my friends know it either, but does it make us dangerous or more restrictive of anybodies freedom? By now you should now that that is not the case.
Why would I care what Sweden did several hundred or thousand year ago, the thing is that they do not redo the mistakes. Something USA is doing over and over and over again.
And now it is 4 a clock in the morning.. noooooooooo
Last edited:
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
If you don't like American ways don't come here... That piece of paper is the rules here and our soldiers can't just run around and kill us.
What is so dang hard to understand?
And for someone who doesn't care about our rules you are very admit to "figure them out".
And as explained before if a change to our piece of paper is needed appropriate actions will be taken in our other branches of government.
What is so dang hard to understand?
And for someone who doesn't care about our rules you are very admit to "figure them out".
And as explained before if a change to our piece of paper is needed appropriate actions will be taken in our other branches of government.
- 1,971
- Seattle, WA
So trump vs the state of California.... try as I might, I just can't see how this will end positively for either party if they choose to battle this thing out. I don't see a middle ground both sides can meet at either, at least not without rather large concessions being made.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
Concessions? Bahh Cali dug their own debt grave...
And if they want to separate let them. Good luck for those who live there.
- 1,905
- Missouri
- RoLnD79
- 716
Does a country's history only stretch about 100 years into the past?
Sure the country was officially gone from the maps for long time but history is more than just a short look back to the to so far away past.
About the American freedom of speech(expression)
https://futurism.com/net-neutrality...-administration-and-we-all-need-to-take-note/
It seems it does not count when money is on the stake...
Last edited:
- 24,614
- Anoka, MN
And unfortunately with our current political climate any concession will pretty much be career suicide. Trump would probably be the best position to flex a little as I doubt he will get a second term (If he even runs), but he's too thick-headed to do such a thing.
Hopefully Trump manages to get congress to approve term limits as I think that would help things a little at least.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Q: What does Melania Trump plan to do with her position as First Lady?
A: Make obscene amounts of money.
A: Make obscene amounts of money.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 11,208
- Sweden
- eran0004
If you don't tolerate what I'm saying then you are limiting my freedom of speech. It's that simple. If you get fired because of something you said, then that is a freedom of speech problem.
What you seem to think is that freedom of speech is some kind of absolute and holy right that must never be breached, and that is certainly a perspective that you can have. Can there really be absolute free speech? Probably not, but that doesn't mean that the definition of free speech is wrong or that freedom of speech shouldn't be pursued as far as it reasonably can be.
That is a backwards way of looking at it. We can't redefine the rights just because there are problems with them.
What about "all men are born free and equal", can that ever exist? Probably not. Does that mean that the definition is wrong and that we should redefine it to "some men are born free and equal"? No.
The limits are about the freedom of speech. It is the freedom of speech that is limited and it's the freedom of speech that we're discussing. The problem is about how far freedom of speech can and should be implemented. You can call it censoring of speech if that makes you happy, but everyone else says freedom of speech when they discuss these problems.
- 86,840
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Freedom to do something has nothing to do with if other people tolerate it.
Sure, if you ignore everything I said and pretend that I said something else...
By your definition of zero consequence it's outright impossible in this universe. Even the act of speaking has consequence, moving air molecules. If heard, it moves ear parts and changes brain patterns.
That alone means the zero consequence definition is innately wrong.
You've invented a state that cannot exist, thus your definition is inconsequential.
That's not a right, so is irrelevant.
It's freedom of speech when it's free. When it isn't it's not freedom of speech. Look at the word 'freedom'...
- 11,208
- Sweden
- eran0004
It does too.
Where did you get such a ridiculous definition from? I'm talking about being penalised for speaking.
Also, if definitions are wrong because they can't exist then your definition of zero consequence is wrong because there is always a consequence.
It means that your definition of zero consequence or your definition of what a valid definition is are wrong, because you are using a term "zero consequence" which describes a state where nothing changes, even on sub-atomic level, and you are using a definition of definition which states that if the defined phenomenon can't exist then the definition is wrong. You can't use both of these definitions together as one contradicts the other.
You twisted the reasoning so far that you invalidated your own reasoning.
"Freedom of speech" is the term, whether you like it or not.
- 11,126
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
No. Freedom of Speech protects you from getting in trouble by the law, doesn't protect you from social retaliation, this is also apart of free speech. It has nothing to do with tolerance and your job. @Famine is allowed to respond using her freedom just like you are. The employer is allowed to fire me because I said something that was completely out of line but he/she had every right to if it was apart of rules of work place the emplyer enforced and she is allowed to express these rules. They aren't against the law but they are against the workplace.
- 11,208
- Sweden
- eran0004
No. It protects you from social retaliation as well.
It's the government's responsibility to make sure that your rights are protected, not just protected from government interference but from any interference. For instance, the government can't say that they protect your absolute right of property if they allow non-government agencies to cease your property. In the same way they can't say that they protect your absolute freedom of speech if they allow your employer to fire you because of something you said.
