RE: Better watch your tongue

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Better watch your tongue

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

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Better watch your tongue

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 9:16:05 AM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

quote:

1) A man subjects a young boy to verbal abuse and this includes threats of sexual abuse. Imagine the young boy is someone you know.

2) A young black or asian girl is subjected to a tirade of vicious, racial abuse which leaves the young girl crying.

3) A man corners a woman in a subway after dark (with nobody around) and issues threats of physical and sexual abuse. The woman is left shaken. Imagine it is someone you know.

NG,

The above examples are tinged with a possible crime, that of assault. It is illegal to verbally threaten people and create a menacing atmosphere in which the victim fears for their safety.

A person can be sued in civil court here for sexual harassment, creating an hostile racist atmosphere at a person's employment. I just thought I would point this out.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 21

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 9:46:20 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

1) A man subjects a young boy to verbal abuse and this includes threats of sexual abuse. Imagine the young boy is someone you know.

2) A young black or asian girl is subjected to a tirade of vicious, racial abuse which leaves the young girl crying.

3) A man corners a woman in a subway after dark (with nobody around) and issues threats of physical and sexual abuse. The woman is left shaken. Imagine it is someone you know.

NG,

The above examples are tinged with a possible crime, that of assault. It is illegal to verbally threaten people and create a menacing atmosphere in which the victim fears for their safety.

Julia, the above examples are certainly extreme cases but they demonstrate there is no such thing as unrestricted freedom of speech. I would hazard a guess that 95% of society believes the above examples are crossing the line.

If most people accept that examples 1 to 3 are unacceptable then the real difference of opinion surrounds where the line is drawn and what each of us considers to be harmful, threatening and provoking real fear in a victim. IMO these all need to be considered before a stage is arrived at where the OPs questions can be answered

A related point, the government is in our lives everyday. Justice is one such area. Many of us will have been schooled by government agencies. For a person to suddenly declare they operate independently from the government is baffling. This does not mean the government controls lives - it simply means that they are an administrative body that manages our requests.

It really is futile to say that government legislation is politcally correct (as per the OP) without first discussing what the legislation is intended to resolve. Government is not all good but neither is it all bad. I have very real concerns over the proposed ID card scheme as my estimation is the scheme will be used for political ends. On the otherhand, restricting racial abuse? I can't fight the corner of such half-wits.

On the BDSM point, this keeps being brought up "it will be us next". There is a key difference and that is consent. In the example given in the OP the government are clamping down and protecting the rights of a non-consenting person being subjected to racial abuse. This is a different situation to the BDSM principle of consenting adults.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 22

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 10:00:59 AM

sleazy

Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
On the BDSM point, this keeps being brought up "it will be us next". There is a key difference and that is consent. In the example given in the OP the government are clamping down and protecting the rights of a non-consenting person being subjected to racial abuse. This is a different situation to the BDSM principle of consenting adults.

I wish I shared your optimism NG.

Take the recent violent images discussions, take Spanner.

We do not fit in, we are the albino rats within the pack and being different is always feared. Our right to consent is limited to only what we are judged capable of consenting to by the Islington Mafia and their like. This has shown up elsewhere too, the right to consent to smoke, the right to consent to watch advertisements for cetain foodstuffs.

On the OP, I think the legislation will be practically unenforcable, and as the story claims only 30% of people support it by rights it should never make the statute books. However I suspect this is yet another attempt at "nanny know best" and will be pushed in regardless of the will of the majority. It seems smalltown Texas is little different from full nations in that respect

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 23

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 10:06:53 AM

LotusSong

Posts: 6334
Joined: 7/2/2006
From: Domme Emeritus
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stanchioned

Next it will be bitch or slut or crackhead or buttmunch or cracker.

You know.. I wish they WOULD outlaw female slurs..seems if one is female.. it's to be accepted. Gad, it's even those who have bought the "oh..honey.. it's My endearment for you.." is bull! Are women THAT desperate for acceptance that they lay down and just let it define them? Would you like someone to define our own female offspring as such? If we have to legislate something to MAKE people grow the f*k up.. then it's worth a try. It's just a pity we allow it.

The causation race just takes it in stride. They don't seem to get all that upset because they don't let a word like "cracker" have power over them. (this, in turn, saves on legislation) I haven't heard one outcry to have Hugo Chavez apologize profusely for calling us 'Gringos'.

_____________________________

Life Lesson #1

I'm not your type.
I'm not inflatable.

(in reply to starshineowned)

Post #: 24

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 10:22:57 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Take the recent violent images discussions, take Spanner.

We do not fit in, we are the albino rats within the pack and being different is always feared. Our right to consent is limited to only what we are judged capable of consenting to by the Islington Mafia and their like. This has shown up elsewhere too, the right to consent to smoke, the right to consent to watch advertisements for cetain foodstuffs.

On the OP, I think the legislation will be practically unenforcable, and as the story claims only 30% of people support it by rights it should never make the statute books. However I suspect this is yet another attempt at "nanny know best" and will be pushed in regardless of the will of the majority. It seems smalltown Texas is little different from full nations in that respect

Sleazy, I'll pass up the chance to go back over the smoking and fatty foods issues. It was done to death on another thread and was littered with far too many nonsense posts such as "you want the government to control your life", "you're a puritan", "save me from the nanny state" for my liking. You'll appreciate that I don't relish the prospect of going back through such reasoned debate.

Thus, I won't go into the pros and cons but I will say that what you state in your post is misleading at best and indisputably, factually incorrect at worst.

1) The right to smoke still exists - it is not banned.
2) The right to watch advertisements around fatty foods is not banned wholesale. It is being restricted at kids TV time - if memory serves this is between 4-6 in the evening and weekend mornings.

On the violent images point, I don't know the ins and outs of this. I'll have a look at it when I get some spare time.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to sleazy)

Post #: 25

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 10:40:02 AM

sleazy

Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

NG, i was not attempting to drag old issues back up, but simply demonstrate that in my eyes your argument of consent was null and void.

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 26

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 10:42:45 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Fair enough. Differing opinions.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to sleazy)

Post #: 27

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 10:52:27 AM

sleazy

Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

They make for more interesting reading than a whole thread of "me too" posts :)

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 28

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 10:58:33 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

They certainly do. There's nothing wrong with a healthy dose of disagreement. Providing the labels are ket to a minimum I've game for a chat.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to sleazy)

Post #: 29

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:05:27 AM

poplolly

Posts: 159
Joined: 10/7/2006
From: Edmonton
Status: offline

The part of the whole proposal that, imo, makes it almost uninforcible is:

"Under Corley's proposal, the ordinance would be enforced by citizens complaining to local police who would then write a citation to the offender. The offender would have to appear in court where a judge would determine the level of his or her fine."

Citizens complain after which the local police write a citation. Don't piss off your neighbour! Following which, the judge must subjectively decide on the amount of the fine. Better not piss off the judge! Can you even begin to imagine the back-log those Courts are going to experience if/when this becomes an ordinance? It's complete ridiculous.

_____________________________

"I am selfish, impatient, and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out of control, and at times hard to handle, but if you can't ACCEPT me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best!"
~~ Marilyn Monroe.

(in reply to starshineowned)

Post #: 30

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:29:12 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

There is a political agenda, under the guise of protection and good intentions that would have humans controlled and locked into boxes where all their words, thoughts, and actions are controlled by freedom infringing laws. With each new "small" law passed that further defines "right", limits access, and controls actions and speech; the box becomes smaller. Obviously many would not only want to live in those boxes, protected by a malevolent nanny state but, through the use of moving definitions and rationalization, help facilitate their construction.

Happy and proud to be on the opposing side of any liberty restricting law in the face of any rhetoric rationalized scenario. Any personal decision taken out of the hands of an individual, any access taken out of the hands of an individual; even regarding decisions and access that I am not involved is something I will be adamantly opposed.

(in reply to poplolly)

Post #: 31

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:32:40 AM

sleazy

Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

Poplolly, living in the UK I dont have to imagine. Due to the way things are over here anything that may be or is reported as motivated by racial or religous grounds gets far more attention from the police and courts than "normal" crime such as burglary or theft of a motor.

Just to make the case, earlier this week I suffered damage to my car in the street (about £2000 worth), I called it in, got a reference number from the police and that was it. A few months ago a neighbour who is not of my skin colour had a single light smashed (no more than £150 to make good), because he complianed it only happend because he was ******* he got 2 constables attend, plus a full forensic examination of the car and several follow up calls from increasingly senior officers. should the person responsible for my damage ever be convicted the penalty will be small, should my neighbours criminal be convicted the penalties will be much higher. There is no evidence at all the damage to my neighbours car was as a result of race, but because the complaint was made that way it has to be treated as such.

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to poplolly)

Post #: 32

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:39:51 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

You (I speak of the public as a collective) know why they are taking away your rights? Because you are not responsible with them.

Right on target. Worse is that we are apathetic to them. We assume they are given to us when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The bill if rights and the constitution is nothing more than a contract with the government.

The government can violate that contract and it is our responsibility to see that it does not go unpunished, but we fail to do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.'

hell, perdition, tyranny, yes exactly.

i was just in another topic where they were talking about something similar to a seat belt law.

People do not think beyond their noses now days. One woman said oh well it saves lives so i think that is a good thing. Yeh and it also violates my rights and freedom not to wear one if i so CHOOSE.

In one of the alex jones flix a brit woman says "oh i think giving up a little liberty for freedom is ok"

Like DUH they are the same damn thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Many people don't realise that it is "The People" who tell the government what to do and not the other way around in the U.S. anyway.
Many people don't seem to have a problem being "dictated" to by the government. That's not the U.S. government's job to do.

i think we all know that is how it is supposed to work. We in america have the right, (according to the constitution), to burn tha damn flag if we so "CHOOSE" to do so.

Not any more. That right is gone. When they passed a law no one fought against it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
On your "speaking your mind" comment, do you believe that someone should be allowed to say whatever they want to whomever they want?

Do you think the above examples should be considered acceptable under the banner of "no restriction of thoughts and feelings"?

A related point, the government is in our lives everyday. Justice is one such area. Many of us will have been schooled by government agencies. For a person to suddenly declare they operate independently from the government is baffling. This does not mean the government controls lives - it simply means that they are an administrative body that manages our requests.

Like Starshine said laws are already on the books to take care of all of these kinds of things if they would enforce them. but that is not what they are doing for us anymore. instead of enforcing laws already on the books for many years that do NOT infringe on our rights they are making new laws and these new laws are designed to remove our rights. that is the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Hast thou not been delivered into the hands of thy master in the sight of the Lord? How then shalt thou deny the authority of thy master over thee? (The Book of Oppression, ch2, v10)

E

People here think their rights are handed them on a silver platter. They are to the extent that we have a contract with the government. However as t jefferson said, the price of freedon is eternal vigilance. We live in the midst of grand apathy. no one has time or cares for that matter what is really going on in our government. many who do only debate varying results rather than the underlying causes of the problem which is crooked government.

Government has become the tool of the corporation and laws are being made on a daily basis to support the corporation not people.

If saving someones life serves the corporation, as in seat belts, then pass a seatbelt law. If killing someone serves the corporation then blame it onto shoddy materials and cover up the investigation.

"Certain" people are making shit loads of money with those levees breaking as well as it was a great litmus test to see how disarming would be looked upon by the american people.

i mean the writing is on the wall. all under the guise of well its good for some reason other than upholding our constitution.

If there is really a lot of money to be made than blame it on someone else and go to war and take them over and kill 2 birds with one stone.

Taft sold this country down the shitter way back in 1914 rather than look stupid to the american people. That let carnegie and rockefeller and several others put this government in a stranglehold and they have never let up as corporations know no limits.

Now we have governement of and for the corporation. i have no problem with the masons really, just the bad ones like skull and bones that have infiltrated this government.

The problem is we do not have any one else to choose from! Hell its only a 2 party system. The only way to identify these people is to find out if they are masons. If they are, then how do you know who is with the illuminati and who is not?

The illuminati buys nearly every one of our presidents and is to the point most of our representatives so where does that leave "We The People"?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 33

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:44:29 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

There is a political agenda, under the guise of protection and good intentions that would have humans controlled and locked into boxes where all their words, thoughts, and actions are controlled by freedom infringing laws. With each new "small" law passed that further defines "right", limits access, and controls actions and speech; the box becomes smaller. Obviously many would not only want to live in those boxes, protected by a malevolent nanny state but, through the use of moving definitions and rationalization, help facilitate their construction.

Happy and proud to be on the opposing side of any liberty restricting law in the face of any rhetoric rationalized scenario. Any personal decision taken out of the hands of an individual, any access taken out of the hands of an individual; even regarding decisions and access that I am not involved is something I will be adamantly opposed.

Right on target!

The problem is that no one cares, no one can see the writing on the wall. People think freedom is free! We are more concerned with football than losing our costitution to these hoodlums.

What amazes me is how small the box is getting and no one seems to notice!!!! They are killing us and no one is alarmed!!!!

i mean what does it take?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 34

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:50:24 AM

FelinePersuasion

Posts: 4792
Joined: 11/20/2004
Status: offline

I love it when Daddy calls me his bitch slut, or his baby whore. IT IS endearment to us, and I'm not desperate and I don't " lay down and take it" I enjoy it because I am his slut, hungry and eager most any time for him and his administrations.

Now if you ment the kind of namecalling done to be rude, yeah, but you can not put a distinction on such things. You can't outlaw one type of intent with out the other being outlawed.

And personally, I enjoy when he talks dirty to me, and I enjoy and will randomly and totaly at my own will refere to myself as his baby bitch, or his slut babydoll. I would hate to see it outlawed simply cause some people use such words to insult and harange.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

quote:

ORIGINAL: stanchioned

Next it will be bitch or slut or crackhead or buttmunch or cracker.

You know.. I wish they WOULD outlaw female slurs..seems if one is female.. it's to be accepted. Gad, it's even those who have bought the "oh..honey.. it's My endearment for you.." is bull! Are women THAT desperate for acceptance that they lay down and just let it define them?

(in reply to LotusSong)

Post #: 35

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:52:11 AM

starshineowned

Posts: 1551
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

Are you telling us that you are legally mandated to send your child to a school which has mandatory dress codes? What the fuck is going on down there in Texas? I know of no other jurisdiction than yours where this is the case.

Um no..that was an example because some schools do require this based on "good intention" when really all that was needed was to enforce the school code that was probably already on the books. Point of it was does anyone see a difference in the schools as a result of such..hence the question "Anyone seen any real promising changes with some of these enforcements or attempts there of? " I'm sorry, but I think this boils back down to the individual parents of such kids wearing clothes that are against school dress codes, and not a even more stringent code that affects All students and parents who did not have a problem with being compliant to begin with. Again..there is stupid, and there is real harm.

Again to reinterate..there are already standing laws on the books for abuse, and what constitutes abuse, physical, mental, sexual, emotional. There are laws on the books alread regarding harrassment, inwhich the racial slurs of any magnitude would come under. There are also laws on the books regarding false imprisonment which might even cover being detained and not allowed to proceed forward to destination. All of these standing laws covered all of the 1-3 examples NG Sir gave.

So here we go attempting to add on more laws when the current laws aren't even enforced which already cover such. What was the prime thing that stood out in that article to me? The money!..The imposing of up to a $500.00 fine for being found guilty of saying the N word. I'm sorry..why doesn't the person bothered by this word being said to them simply sue if it bothers them that much? Why is there a reason to attempt to involve Everyone over it?

As far as "our daughters being called such names as slut or bitch"? I think it would be better to raise the daughters to not be affected by such. Maybe try and teach them what the real world is like out there instead of trying to baby them so much and shelter them from it. Now I don't know about you but I grew up being called names by other kids, and did the same back. Even got into some knock down drag out fights over it all. Ya know what? Us dealing with those issue's and problems ourselves, and our parents allowing us to and telling us like it is just made us figure it out a heck of alot quicker that it just wasn't worth it, and we didn't require anyone else's butting in to do so.

I don't know about you but I got spankings growing up. The worse was Grandma and her switch, which you had to go select yourself. This was a extremely Rare event for me with Grandma because it made a lasting impression the first couple of times. Didn't dig having my mouth washed out with soap either but it happened a few times as well. It to made an impression, and the same offense's didn't happen again. Never once did I ever think of my mother or my Grandmother as abusers. Ya know why? Because they weren't. You honestly think that imposing a new law against "spanking" when abuse laws are already standing is going to stop those that would and truely do like or enjoy abusing their kids or others? No, but now the parents who use these discipline tools are being targeted as well who use them not to abuse but to teach, and guide.

You don't solve problems by adding on more restrictions. You only suppress it until it festers into something else.

Well Wishes
starshine
Happy slave of Master Delvin

< Message edited by starshineowned -- 1/26/2007 11:55:07 AM >

_____________________________

"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." --Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Noah)

Post #: 36

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:53:42 AM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
On your "speaking your mind" comment, do you believe that someone should be allowed to say whatever they want to whomever they want?

Do you think the above examples should be considered acceptable under the banner of "no restriction of thoughts and feelings"?

A related point, the government is in our lives everyday. Justice is one such area. Many of us will have been schooled by government agencies. For a person to suddenly declare they operate independently from the government is baffling. This does not mean the government controls lives - it simply means that they are an administrative body that manages our requests.

Like Starshine said laws are already on the books to take care of all of these kinds of things if they would enforce them. but that is not what they are doing for us anymore. instead of enforcing laws already on the books for many years that do NOT infringe on our rights they are making new laws and these new laws are designed to remove our rights. that is the problem.

[

My point is/was: there are limits to freedom of speech. Your part that I've highlighted suggests you agree. Once agreed, the question then becomes where is the line drawn and why? ie. what constitues harm, threatening behaviour, victim fear. There is no point going through the "I value my rights and others don't" lines because these do not get at the root of the general requirement for law and why law is or is not required in this instance. The only way for any real debate to proceed on this to consider what I've highighted in bold. I'm not making a case for or against the issue in the OPs link - I'm saying that it is futile to believe there is such a thing as complete freedom of action and speech and it follows it is futile to believe all government intervention in our lives is unjustified.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 37

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 11:56:25 AM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
You know.. I wish they WOULD outlaw female slurs..seems if one is female.. it's to be accepted.

case in point.

Prosecution rests!

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to LotusSong)

Post #: 38

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 12:02:28 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
My point is/was: there are limits to freedom of speech. Your part that I've highlighted suggests you agree. Once agreed, the question then becomes where is the line drawn and why? ie. what constitues harm, threatening behaviour, victim fear. There is no point going through the "I value my rights and others don't" lines because these do not get at the root of the general requirement for law and why law is or is not required in this instance. The only way for any real debate to proceed on this to consider what I've highighted in bold. I'm not making a case for or against the issue in the OPs link - I'm saying that it is futile to believe there is such a thing as complete freedom of action and speech and it follows it is futile to believe all government intervention in our lives is unjustified.

oh of course i agree.

my rights end where yours begin. However... do we legislate that we cannot call someone a bitch? Then everyone will pick a different word to call them and move on to slut, ass whatever... next thing we know every word in the dictionary is against the law because it was derogatory in some way.

i think julia said it perfectly. Its where is imposes and or inplies some sort of "real" harm or danger to another.

i dont believe in absolute unrestrained freedom of speech as that negates the next persons freedom.

i am 500% for the freedoms that are in the constitution and bill of rights therein.

oh and let me add that government intervention is to be restrained to the upholding our laws and through court actions create laws that we the people want that do not violate our rights, to sure justice, not beyond.

We are not a democracy as people want to think. We are a republic. A country of law. Or at least that was the intent.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/26/2007 12:07:55 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Post #: 39

RE: Better watch your tongue - 1/26/2007 12:15:09 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

oh of course i agree.

i think julia said it perfectly. Its where is imposes and or inplies some sort of "real" harm or danger to another.

i dont believe in absolute unrestrained freedom of speech as that negates the next persons freedom.

Now we're getting to the root of the issue. We agree in principle that there are limits to freedom of speech.

The question is, does the word "nigger" cross the boundary. You may not think it causes harm (the key point word in your post). I'm not sure how you would know as my guess is you're not black, I'm not black so can't say.

Hypothetically speaking, what would you say if the general view in the black community is/was they are sick and tired of that bollocks and as far as they're concerned it does cause harm for three reasons:

1) It is an insult designed to degrade.
2) It reinforces centuries of prejudice in the form of slavery and lynchings.
3) Derogatory terms reinforce society's divisions.

If the black community were adamant they believe it causes harm would you still support the rights of people to label members of the black community "niggers".

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Better watch your tongue

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.141