quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

How very interesting by the way. I disagree somewhat with the absolutist legalist position there UllrsIshtar.


If you show your disdain for their comments wishing to distance yourself and they still continue them I'd say it amounts to harassment. Legal or not, I'd say that brings the ante up.
Rights without obligations aren't worth the paper they're signed on.

Your opinions wouldn't fly in a theocracy or under a socialist constitution nor would you be welcome in a tribe or a peasant republic.
In an Athenian democracy you'd better be willing to debate your insults or face ridicule or even virtual exile and in certain autocracies or even older modern democracies you could face the threat of a duel and the right of the other to "recover their honour".

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

How very interesting by the way. I disagree somewhat with the absolutist legalist position there UllrsIshtar.


If you show your disdain for their comments wishing to distance yourself and they still continue them I'd say it amounts to harassment. Legal or not, I'd say that brings the ante up.
Rights without obligations aren't worth the paper they're signed on.

Your opinions wouldn't fly in a theocracy or under a socialist constitution nor would you be welcome in a tribe or a peasant republic.
In an Athenian democracy you'd better be willing to debate your insults or face ridicule or even virtual exile and in certain autocracies or even older modern democracies you could face the threat of a duel and the right of the other to "recover their honour".

I'm not posting my opinions here. This thread isn't about what my opinions are about reality. This thread is about: "Given the fact that reality is a certain way, why do women act and speak in a manner counter to that reality?"

As such, I've stated what reality is, and reality is that in Western democratic societies, people have a right to free expression, even when it offends others (expect in the case of certain exceptions).

I haven't at all posed that it's my opinion that this is the way it ought to be (nor have I stated otherwise), or that this is the way it is, or has always been, regardless of the society in question.

As such, your comments "Your opinions wouldn't fly in a theocracy or under a socialist constitution nor would you be welcome in a tribe or a peasant republic." are somewhat bizarre, because I haven't given the slightest indication that I believe that what people's rights are would be the same in these types of societies.

In fact, only somebody who believes that their own preferences supersede the rights (as granted by the applicable society) of others would make such a preposterous claim.

Now, if you wish to debate what I think reality ought to be, I'll be happy to do so in another thread (in fact, I've done just that many many times on this forum, on the Gorean board, specifically, which is where such debates have historically always taken place on this forum), but that doesn't change the fact that what we believe reality ought to be might very well not be applicable in a Western democratic society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
You, on the other hand, pose that your preference to not be insulted supersedes other's rights to free expression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

Your right to privacy is not applicable in public life, especially not in a public place so that goes away right away fdwarf.
You do not have a right to respect.

Though you do have a right to the honour of your person, although not to the point of being able to request a duel you are able to defend yourself against falsehoods. But not someones opinions about you.

quote:

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.[1]

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

There are entire legal systems at least in theory built upon common opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

one could argue that the other persons right to free speech should come with obligations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

But there are situations where I think that modern civilization protects disgustingly immoral behaviour.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

So you wouldn't be in favour of taking the law in your own hands ever or to change the law so that it includes obligations or wider principles of quid pro quo?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

Lol Freedom. So still completely unnable to answer "Why do you dress for yourself" now expanded to "Why don't you dress in your best clothes while watching TV?". Then you're truly alone! Able to focus all that attention to your own self gratification and self-admiration!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
And one more bitest the dust.

And no, she had every right to refuse conversation with you. Though she couldn't refuse a dance. ;-)
Or more precisely a genetleman should Always indulge the lady if she asks a favour and if she would phrase her refusal as such he would be compelled to concede.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
Here's one I should follow more closely by the way at least if I followed the Gentlemans Guide of 1875 X.X

quote:

1. Even if convinced that your opponent is utterly wrong, yield gracefully, decline further discussion, or dexterously turn the conversation, but do not obstinately defend your own opinion until you become angry…Many there are who, giving their opinion, not as an opinion but as a law, will defend their position by such phrases, as: “Well, if I were president, or governor, I would,” — and while by the warmth of their argument they prove that they are utterly unable to govern their own temper, they will endeavor to persuade you that they are perfectly competent to take charge of the government of the nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

Why do you insist on talking out of your ass time and time again ?

Wikipedia

quote:

Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.[1]

We do not live in your world, yet. And if we ever do be ready to defend it with arms for I'll be ready to take it down with my own. At least if there is no place for me to go flee =)!

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence
@freedomdwarf1: You're like fucking retarded....
Your ignorance is astonishing.
You just don't seem to be able to understand them.
Fuck man Think Before you speak. Stop swallowing the stupid shit they tell you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

From your post #177: "People have the right to make verbal comments to others. Plain and simple."
And that trumps the right not to have insults thrown at them or be leered at because of the style of dress they chose to wear?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

From your post #177: "People have the right to make verbal comments to others. Plain and simple."
And that trumps the right not to have insults thrown at them or be leered at because of the style of dress they chose to wear?

The "right" to "not to have insults thrown at them or be leered" is a fictions construct you are making up, because you feel it ought to be this way, when there is no society, current or history of which I'm aware, which has ever even tried to postulate such a thing as a "right".

Considering that your apparent inability to maintain a cogent argument that is grounded in facts and reality, I have nothing further to say to you, besides to quote your own sigline back at you:


“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

There are entire legal systems at least in theory built upon common opinion.

Legal systems are always entirely based on opinion. Whether those opinions are held in common or not depends solely on the type of society it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

one could argue that the other persons right to free speech should come with obligations.

Common rights (as in: things applicable to everybody within that society) are always countered with obligations.
In Western democratic society, the counter obligation to the right of free expression is the fact that you yourself are responsibly for dealing with how you feel about other people freely expressing themselves, without attempting to use force to get them to stop. (I.E. you have the right to express yourself, your obligation in that regard is to deal with the fact that others have that same right, even if you don't like it).

There are other obligations, including the ones dealing with where the law draws the line as to what it considers a permissible act of free expression and what is not (in most Western democratic locations, you're not allowed to masturbate in public), but the obligation to deal with your emotions around your disapproval of other's right to free expression without the use of force is the most important one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

But there are situations where I think that modern civilization protects disgustingly immoral behaviour.

I agree 100%.
But morals and rights are not the same thing, despite how often people conflate them.

Rights stem directly from law. One cannot have a right that is not defined by law.
Laws stem directly from the social contract governing that specific society, at that specific point in time (whether they're written down or not).

Morals are the overarching system by which an individual determines what they deem "good" and "bad", and cannot be codified by law by their very nature, because they are dependent on the individual (although, very often, majority morals are attempted to be codified by law, usually with limited success).

We, as a species, developed morals and ethics as a evolutionary survival tool. By means of us having morals, we are more successful at living in the large groups that we are than we would be without them.
However, that same evolutionary tendency towards morals also dictates that morals will not be consistent among populations. There will always be outliers.

This is why we also have laws: to deal with those not ascribing to the morals of the majority.
As such, laws will always both take precedent over (on a group/macro scale) and well as be subordinate to (on an individual/micro scale) to morals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

So you wouldn't be in favour of taking the law in your own hands ever or to change the law so that it includes obligations or wider principles of quid pro quo?

That's too complicated a question to answer on this thread, without writing a novel and derailing the whole thread (which we are already doing).

In short: I am in favor of each and every individual spending the time to have a strongly developed, and ever refining, moral code that is based, not on external dictate, but their own introspective believe systems. I strongly believe that this moral code should be Darwinist and concentric in nature, where both the optimal survival of the individual, their offspring, and their kin, as well as the survival of humanity, and life on Earth as a whole is taken into account on a hierarchical plane.

As such, I believe it's an individual's moral duty to resist those laws which they consider immoral, and that the means by which one ought to do so are dependent on the context.
I also believe that it's of the utmost importance that, if and when, one decides to resist a law they consider immoral, they do so deliberately and consciously, instead of in a reactionary manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
(and you only know US law).

quote:

ORIGINAL: CodeOfSilence

You are unable to understand law.