RE: Free speech?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Free speech?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Free speech?

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:26:46 AM

evesgrden

Posts: 597
Joined: 6/9/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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

^^^^^
THIS

_____________________________

What you permit, you promote.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 141

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:31:45 AM

graceadieu

Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 142

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:35:51 AM

MsMJAY

Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to EdBowie)

Profile

Post #: 143

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:36:26 AM

truckinslave

Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline

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....

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to graceadieu)

Profile

Post #: 144

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:36:45 AM

graceadieu

Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 145

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:46:16 AM

truckinslave

Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to wanderingjew)

Profile

Post #: 146

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:54:24 AM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to graceadieu)

Profile

Post #: 147

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 12:07:24 PM

truckinslave

Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to wanderingjew)

Profile

Post #: 148

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 3:02:51 PM

truckinslave

Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to wanderingjew)

Profile

Post #: 149

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 4:36:36 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to evesgrden)

Profile

Post #: 150

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 7:14:18 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to MsMJAY)

Profile

Post #: 151

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 7:38:58 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

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!"

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to truckinslave)

Profile

Post #: 152

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 8:36:52 PM

EdBowie

Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 153

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 9:41:39 PM

graceadieu

Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 154

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 10:04:58 PM

Phydeaux

Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to graceadieu)

Profile

Post #: 155

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 10:21:08 PM

MsMJAY

Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline

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?

< Message edited by MsMJAY -- 12/22/2013 10:22:52 PM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Profile

Post #: 156

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:15:10 PM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

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

That's exactly what happened.

(in reply to truckinslave)

Profile

Post #: 157

RE: Free speech? - 12/22/2013 11:57:22 PM

sweetgirlserves

Posts: 373
Joined: 4/14/2009
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel." ~Maya Angelou

(in reply to graceadieu)

Profile

Post #: 158

RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 12:04:24 AM

MsMJAY

Posts: 515
Joined: 3/17/2013
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to sweetgirlserves)

Profile

Post #: 159

RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 7:39:58 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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.