RE: Free speech? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


evesgrden -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:26:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

If you don't support the right to free speech you despise, then you don't support free speech.





^^^^^
THIS






graceadieu -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:31:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

Agreed about the duck call business, but the show is probably also a multi-million dollar family enterprise, and they'd lose a lot of income if it got cancelled. That's what I was talking about.



As I was scanning the headlines on the Google News feed this morning, I saw one that the Robertson family is claiming other networks are eager to pick up the show.


Hmmm. You think they might have had a better offer from another channel and this whole thing was a way of getting out the contract with A&E early? (I don't know how much time they had left, or if there was some kind of non-compete clause or whatever.) It would have to be a network that wasn't worried about minorities or their allies boycotting them/their advertisers, though.




MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:35:51 AM)

Of course he is reading them. I can understand someone blocking another person or not reading another person's posts. I never could understand why they felt a need to tell the person that they were not reading their posts. (which basically says that they are indeed reading them.)

@TheHeretic:
Now, show me where I demanded anything. I stated that it ought not be said in public without repercussions.

ought 1. used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

repercussions 1. an unintended consequence occurring some time after an event or action, esp. an unwelcome one.


Which part of that demanded anything or stated that they did not have a right to say it? Better yet, which part of it said anything about government/legal intervention? (which is the only thing freedom of speech protects us from) Yes I criticize hate speech. I disagree with it. I detest and despise any hate speech directed towards a group of people who have done nothing to warrant that type of speech other than exist; and I hope the repercussions bite the speaker in the ass...........and I still defend to the death the speakers right to say it.

Now that is what freedom of speech is all about.

And you never asked me if I thought that one statement was hate speech. You asked me if I considered them supporters of civil rights based on that one statement. right here. The only one squirming here is you. I am solid on what I believe regarding this issue. You have changed your mind several times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

The fact that you commented at all proves that you aren't scrolling right past them, and flushes your credibility again.

Running away, is running away by any other name.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Thank you for saving me the trouble. This is becoming comedic. LOL





Here's where I chimed in to you, MsMJAY:

quote:

Its STILL WRONG and its not something that ought to be said in public without repercussions. No matter how desperately Christians try to convince the world that "its not us - its GOD that hates homosexuality" hate speech is still hate speech and religious beliefs do not make it okay.


Now, based on your further squirmings, obviously you would need to go personally get to know all of those Christians you think need to suffer repercussions for their hate speech, before you could be sure it really was hate speech...

Now what IS funny, is that EdBowie seems to think I'm doing more with his posts than scrolling right past them.









truckinslave -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:36:26 AM)

This was/is the last year of their A&E contract.
You wonder that the Ducks may have wanted this....
I wonder if A&E deliberately made a mountain from the GLAAD anthill, both to pump up ratings for this season and/or coerce the Ducks into a reduced contract.
If they did, it was certainly an epic fail.... people across the country are bailing on A&E.... I certainly have told them that I am boycotting....




graceadieu -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:36:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Thank you for saving me the trouble. This is becoming comedic. LOL





Here's where I chimed in to you, MsMJAY:

quote:

Its STILL WRONG and its not something that ought to be said in public without repercussions. No matter how desperately Christians try to convince the world that "its not us - its GOD that hates homosexuality" hate speech is still hate speech and religious beliefs do not make it okay.


Now, based on your further squirmings, obviously you would need to go personally get to know all of those Christians you think need to suffer repercussions for their hate speech, before you could be sure it really was hate speech...

Now what IS funny, is that EdBowie seems to think I'm doing more with his posts than scrolling right past them.




I don't see her saying anything about government consequences. If someone says something hateful in my hearing, you can bet that I will exercise my own freedom of speech to ensure there are social/personal consequences for them. Which I have the freedom to do. Do you really think freedom of speech should also mean freedom from consequences?




truckinslave -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:46:16 AM)

I see the principles of the Republic are wasted on you.

There is no right not to be offended.
There is no wrong in expressing a religious belief that homosexuality is sinful.




TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:54:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

Do you really think freedom of speech should also mean freedom from consequences?



What a stupid question. Have you read anything I've said in the thread?




truckinslave -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 12:07:24 PM)

No more so than having no tactic- or point- at all.




truckinslave -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 3:02:51 PM)

Too bad that I do not equate the cryptic with the intelligent.
Merry Christmas to you too.





Politesub53 -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 4:36:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: evesgrden


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

If you don't support the right to free speech you despise, then you don't support free speech.





^^^^^
THIS





Tosh....... utter tosh, no more and no less. With "free speech" comes a responsibility not to step on the rights of others, otherwise you are just saying your rights are more important than someone elses.

Name me anywhere that has totally free speech ? Not just claims to have like many of you Americans do.




TheHeretic -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 7:14:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Of course he is reading them.



Presuming to read my mind, MsMJay? Sorry, but you are no better at that than you are pretending to be consistent in your position. I see them certainly. I register that he has quotes from me in the body in of the post, but no, I'm just continuing on down the line, without paying any further attention to it. Would you say that because I have seen moments of Duck Dynasty, long enough to register what it is, before clicking to the next channel on TV, that I watch the program?

You and I have both spoken in this thread, of how there is a reaction and response to the speech of others. Earlier in the thread, he chose to fling a slur at another poster, by claiming that poster was pushing a meme for Stormfront. I have judged him by his speech, responded directly to him on it, and based on his response, now choose not to engage further with him on this topic. Free speech in action, as I feel it should be done. Perhaps you might describe it as a "repercussion," but from the tone of your first contribution here, and the attitude you reflected to that awful Christian hate speech, I'm still left with the opinion that you were thinking of more punitive responses. If not, then what is your problem with my taking a personal position regarding his "contributions" to the discussion?





popeye1250 -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 7:38:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Cracker Barrel is also facing a boycott as a consequence of pulling all of their Duck Dynasty merchandise that featured Mr. Robertson even though they left all their other DD merchandise on the shelves. Their attempts to play both sides of this backfired.


Cracker Barrel has reversed themselves. Their most recent press release:

When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we've done.
You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren't shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.
We listened.
Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.
And, we apologize for offending you.
We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.
We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.


I think that political correctness should be very very expensive. I am fed up with the gay tail wagging the straight dog.



"And you better have a ten inch vibrating penis with pleasure bumps and protruding veins high up on a shelf for the gays AND straights no more than $25!"
"We'll have more demands later, it's fun to watch you pikers squirm!"




EdBowie -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 8:36:52 PM)

And again, you get caught deliberately lying. I said that StormFront was generating memes like that, which were then spreading across the general internet, and here they came again.

At no point in time did I say that particular poster was 'pushing' the meme.

Your lie is no different than claiming that a person who calls 'Godwin's' is accusing another poster of actually being a member of the Third Reich.





quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Of course he is reading them.



Presuming to read my mind, MsMJay? Sorry, but you are no better at that than you are pretending to be consistent in your position. I see them certainly. I register that he has quotes from me in the body in of the post, but no, I'm just continuing on down the line, without paying any further attention to it. Would you say that because I have seen moments of Duck Dynasty, long enough to register what it is, before clicking to the next channel on TV, that I watch the program?

You and I have both spoken in this thread, of how there is a reaction and response to the speech of others. Earlier in the thread, he chose to fling a slur at another poster, by claiming that poster was pushing a meme for Stormfront. I have judged him by his speech, responded directly to him on it, and based on his response, now choose not to engage further with him on this topic. Free speech in action, as I feel it should be done. Perhaps you might describe it as a "repercussion," but from the tone of your first contribution here, and the attitude you reflected to that awful Christian hate speech, I'm still left with the opinion that you were thinking of more punitive responses. If not, then what is your problem with my taking a personal position regarding his "contributions" to the discussion?







graceadieu -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 9:41:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

Do you really think freedom of speech should also mean freedom from consequences?


What a stupid question. Have you read anything I've said in the thread?


I have. She said she believed in freedom of speech, and also that there should be (some unspecified) repercussions if someone says something hateful and cruel. She never said that the government should be the source of the repercussions. And yet you argued quite vehemently that for her to support there being any repercussions for hateful speech is to be opposed to freedom of speech, which lead me to believe that you feel the way I posted.




Phydeaux -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 10:04:58 PM)

hmmm.. Seems to me people that want repercussions never got the "sticks and stones" lesson.


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

Do you really think freedom of speech should also mean freedom from consequences?


What a stupid question. Have you read anything I've said in the thread?


I have. She said she believed in freedom of speech, and also that there should be (some unspecified) repercussions if someone says something hateful and cruel. She never said that the government should be the source of the repercussions. And yet you argued quite vehemently that for her to support there being any repercussions for hateful speech is to be opposed to freedom of speech, which lead me to believe that you feel the way I posted.





MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 10:21:08 PM)

You can have that opinion but the question is: did I say anything about "more punitive responses?" No I did not. So now you are just making stuff up. And I don't know what you two are arguing over nor do I have any problem with what you read or do not read on this message board, but I am as free to comment on it as you are. That's part of the problem. You think because I affirm a person's right to say something, that I cannot disagree with what they are saying. I can disagree with what you say. I can criticize what you say. I can completely detest what you say ............and still stand for your right to say it. I don't understand why that is so hard for you to grasp.

I do not have to agree with the speech in order to agree with the right to speak it.

Why you don't get this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

Of course he is reading them.



Presuming to read my mind, MsMJay? Sorry, but you are no better at that than you are pretending to be consistent in your position. I see them certainly. I register that he has quotes from me in the body in of the post, but no, I'm just continuing on down the line, without paying any further attention to it. Would you say that because I have seen moments of Duck Dynasty, long enough to register what it is, before clicking to the next channel on TV, that I watch the program?

You and I have both spoken in this thread, of how there is a reaction and response to the speech of others. Earlier in the thread, he chose to fling a slur at another poster, by claiming that poster was pushing a meme for Stormfront. I have judged him by his speech, responded directly to him on it, and based on his response, now choose not to engage further with him on this topic. Free speech in action, as I feel it should be done. Perhaps you might describe it as a "repercussion," but from the tone of your first contribution here, and the attitude you reflected to that awful Christian hate speech, I'm still left with the opinion that you were thinking of more punitive responses. If not, then what is your problem with my taking a personal position regarding his "contributions" to the discussion?







GotSteel -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:15:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
We should all be free to be offended, and to offend.


That's exactly what happened.




sweetgirlserves -> RE: Free speech? (12/22/2013 11:57:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

Do you really think freedom of speech should also mean freedom from consequences?


What a stupid question. Have you read anything I've said in the thread?


I have. She said she believed in freedom of speech, and also that there should be (some unspecified) repercussions if someone says something hateful and cruel. She never said that the government should be the source of the repercussions. And yet you argued quite vehemently that for her to support there being any repercussions for hateful speech is to be opposed to freedom of speech, which lead me to believe that you feel the way I posted.



Greetings Master,

I don't think there should be any repercussions on anything someone SAYS, or WRITES, until the INTENT behind what was actually said, or written, is properly deciphered.

99% of the time, that is the problem. It is called COMMUNICATION ERROR.

Sincerely,
~sgs




MsMJAY -> RE: Free speech? (12/23/2013 12:04:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetgirlserves


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu

Do you really think freedom of speech should also mean freedom from consequences?


What a stupid question. Have you read anything I've said in the thread?


I have. She said she believed in freedom of speech, and also that there should be (some unspecified) repercussions if someone says something hateful and cruel. She never said that the government should be the source of the repercussions. And yet you argued quite vehemently that for her to support there being any repercussions for hateful speech is to be opposed to freedom of speech, which lead me to believe that you feel the way I posted.



Greetings Master,

I don't think there should be any repercussions on anything someone SAYS, or WRITES, until the INTENT behind what was actually said, or written, is properly deciphered.

99% of the time, that is the problem. It is called COMMUNICATION ERROR.

Sincerely,
~sgs


For the record, I made no statement regarding when or how the repercussions would happen. I agree that what is said or written should be properly deciphered and understood before anyone reacts to it.




thompsonx -> RE: Free speech? (12/23/2013 7:39:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.



So you are on board with shouting fire in a crowded theater?[8|]




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875