Author Topic: Question for any Liberal who comes here:  (Read 799 times)

Online Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
  • Militant Libertarian
Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« on: May 30, 2019, 12:01:14 AM »
"Is" the Freedom Of Speech only about saying or doing something?
"Should" people say or do something?
"Should" people have to experience people saying or doing something?

"What" is hate speech?
"Who" decides "what" hate speech is?
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what hate speech is?

"What" is acceptable speech?
"Who" decides "what" is acceptable speech?
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what acceptable speech is?

"Should" there be consequences?
"Who" decides if there "should" be consequences?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if there "should" be consequences?

"What" are the consequences?
"Who" decides "what" are the consequences are?
"Who" decides on "who" get's to decide what the consequences are?

"Can" the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides if the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if the consequences go to far?

"Does" speech equate to violence?
"Who" decides if speech equates to violence?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if speech equates to violence?

"Should" there be violence?
"Who decides if there "should be violence?
"Who decides on "who" decides if there should be violence?

"What" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides "what" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides on "what" violence is appropriate?

If I believe that you have committed hate speech, can I equate it to violence?
Social Media are multi-national billion dollar corporations with foreign investors that are going unchecked with the power to effect our election process.

"Book burnings" have evolved into "de-plat forming". Its the same principles behind both: to eliminate accessible knowledge.

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2019, 12:34:29 AM »

Quote
"Is" the Freedom Of Speech only about saying or doing something?

No, it is not.  It's a limit on the government's authority.

"Should" people say or do something?

It depends on what this something is! 

"Should" people have to experience people saying or doing something?

Neither yes or no!  Yes as in no gov't can prohibit it but if you don't like it one can either come up with a counter argument or leave.

"What" is hate speech?

Here is my definition.  Hate Speech is defined as speech that is not based in logic, truth, reason or facts.  If you have your speech or what not then present your reasoning behind it.
"Who" decides "what" hate speech is?

Not who but what.  Reason, objective truth, and logic.  If there must be a who then those who are committed to search out truth

"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what hate speech is?

Those who are committed to search out truth.

"What" is acceptable speech?

Truth that is based in reason, logic and truth. 

"Who" decides "what" is acceptable speech?

Any culture who would be all for truth, reason and logic.


"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what acceptable speech is?

See above!

"Should" there be consequences?

For those who deliberately lie yes.


"Who" decides if there "should" be consequences?

Those who are committed to search out the truth. 

"Who" decides on "who" decides if there "should" be consequences?

See Above!

"What" are the consequences?

I don't know!
"Who" decides "what" are the consequences are?

Those who are committed to seek out truth above all.  It is ignorance that is one of the issues with society. 

"Who" decides on "who" get's to decide what the consequences are?

See above!

"Can" the consequences go to far?

Yes!

"Who" decides if the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if the consequences go to far?

Those who are committed to seeking the truth!

"Does" speech equate to violence?

Words are not equal to fists or a gun.  In fact, the pen is mightier then the sword. 

"Who" decides if speech equates to violence?

Definition wise, it makes no sense to even equate both.
"Who" decides on "who" decides if speech equates to violence?

See Above!


"Should" there be violence?

Only if to repel violence and bring down those who would promote a lie and legally (Orwell 1984) demand one believes it without question!

"Who decides if there "should be violence?

Those who are committed to reason and truth.  And, those who would be willing to use violence as a last resort.  If one doesn't have to use it why do so?

"Who decides on "who" decides if there should be violence?

See above!

"What" violence is appropriate?

The only violence that is appropriate is when one is to repel violence and to bring down a government that forces through the law to believe and accept that which is a lie (Orwell 1984).  Even then try everything else before resorting to it.

"Who" decides "what" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides on "what" violence is appropriate?

Those who are committed to reason, logic and truth.  Those who are willing to only use violence as a last resort.
 
If I believe that you have committed hate speech, can I equate it to violence?

No!  You can't.  One's belief should never alone determine what one accepts to be true or one's actions. 

Online Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
  • Militant Libertarian
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2019, 08:48:21 AM »
Yep, you are a Liberal. Please come back if and when you understand things.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 08:57:43 AM by Sick Of Silence »
Social Media are multi-national billion dollar corporations with foreign investors that are going unchecked with the power to effect our election process.

"Book burnings" have evolved into "de-plat forming". Its the same principles behind both: to eliminate accessible knowledge.

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2019, 01:20:43 PM »
Yep, you are a Liberal. Please come back if and when you understand things.

Well!  What are your answers?

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66943
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2019, 01:32:52 PM »
Well!  What are your answers?
Short answer. There is no such thing as "Hate Speech" and slander and lying are illegal and can get you sued.
#WWG1WGA

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2019, 02:26:22 PM »
Short answer. There is no such thing as "Hate Speech" and slander and lying are illegal and can get you sued.

I see!  You don't define lying or slander as  hate  speech.  I didn't know that.  sorry

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66943
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2019, 03:42:36 PM »
I see!  You don't define lying or slander as  hate  speech.  I didn't know that.  sorry
Like I said, there is no such thing as "Hate Speech" that is a Marxist creation, there is only speech and it's all free as long as it isn't slanderous or blatant lie, both are subject to civil litigation.
Even then, you must prove damage.
#WWG1WGA

Offline midcan5

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Liberal Conservative
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2019, 05:46:42 PM »
"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen

Why do some people find it necessary to create straw person arguments. Why ask if you already know? What purpose does that serve?  Is it to convince yourself of something. Every person knows what hate speech is. They know it because they have used it. They know it because someone used it on them. No mystery here. Does 'love speech' lead to mass murder. Hate and evil are close companions. Google 'hate speech'.

The harder question is how a free society deals with hate speech. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater but you can demean our last president in every hateful way possible and still feel righteous or religious or smart. I' don't know the easy answer, but I know acting like it is a made up issue of your opposing tribe is ignoring reality.

'Germany starts enforcing hate speech law'
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42510868

'Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.'  https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

"Pornography, racial and sexual harassment, and hate speech are acts of intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination, and should be legally treated as such. Only Words is a powerful indictment of a legal system at odds with itself, its First Amendment promoting the very inequalities its Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to end."  http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674639348

The 10 neuropsychological symptoms are:

1. Repetition: the aggression is repeated compulsively.
2. Obsessive ideation: the perpetrators are obsessed with ideas that justify their aggression and underlie missions of ethnic cleansing, for instance that all Westerners, or all Muslims, or all Jews, or all Tutsis are evil.
3. Perseveration: circumstances have no impact on the perpetrator’s behaviour, who perseveres even if the action is self-destructive.
4. Diminished affective reactivity: the perpetrator has no emotional affect.
5. Hyperarousal: the elation experienced by the perpetrator is a high induced by repetition, and a function of the number of victims.
6. Intact language, memory and problem-solving skills: the syndrome has no impact on higher cognitive abilities.
7. Rapid habituation: the perpetrator becomes desensitised to the violence.
8. Compartmentalisation: the violence can take place in parallel to an ordinary, affectionate family life.
9. Environmental dependency: the context, especially identification with a group and obedience to an authority, determines what actions are possible.
10. Group contagion: belonging to the group enables the action, each member mapping his behaviour on the other. Fried’s assumption was that all these ways of behaving had underlying neurophysiological causes that were worth investigating.

https://aeon.co/essays/is-neuroscience-getting-closer-to-explaining-evil-behaviour
Working class American, husband, father, grandpa, veteran, and still high on life.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66943
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2019, 09:18:10 PM »
"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen

Why do some people find it necessary to create straw person arguments. Why ask if you already know? What purpose does that serve?  Is it to convince yourself of something. Every person knows what hate speech is. They know it because they have used it. They know it because someone used it on them. No mystery here. Does 'love speech' lead to mass murder. Hate and evil are close companions. Google 'hate speech'.

The harder question is how a free society deals with hate speech. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater but you can demean our last president in every hateful way possible and still feel righteous or religious or smart. I' don't know the easy answer, but I know acting like it is a made up issue of your opposing tribe is ignoring reality.

'Germany starts enforcing hate speech law'
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42510868

'Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.'  https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hate-speech/

"Pornography, racial and sexual harassment, and hate speech are acts of intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination, and should be legally treated as such. Only Words is a powerful indictment of a legal system at odds with itself, its First Amendment promoting the very inequalities its Fourteenth Amendment is supposed to end."  http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674639348

The 10 neuropsychological symptoms are:

1. Repetition: the aggression is repeated compulsively.
2. Obsessive ideation: the perpetrators are obsessed with ideas that justify their aggression and underlie missions of ethnic cleansing, for instance that all Westerners, or all Muslims, or all Jews, or all Tutsis are evil.
3. Perseveration: circumstances have no impact on the perpetrator’s behaviour, who perseveres even if the action is self-destructive.
4. Diminished affective reactivity: the perpetrator has no emotional affect.
5. Hyperarousal: the elation experienced by the perpetrator is a high induced by repetition, and a function of the number of victims.
6. Intact language, memory and problem-solving skills: the syndrome has no impact on higher cognitive abilities.
7. Rapid habituation: the perpetrator becomes desensitised to the violence.
8. Compartmentalisation: the violence can take place in parallel to an ordinary, affectionate family life.
9. Environmental dependency: the context, especially identification with a group and obedience to an authority, determines what actions are possible.
10. Group contagion: belonging to the group enables the action, each member mapping his behaviour on the other. Fried’s assumption was that all these ways of behaving had underlying neurophysiological causes that were worth investigating.

https://aeon.co/essays/is-neuroscience-getting-closer-to-explaining-evil-behaviour
As far as the First is concerned, there is no such thing as hate speech. The First was written with the press in mind, and if you think our press is unruly today, you should read some of the news print in their day.
They knew that a govt could go bad and they saw to it that speech, of any form needed to be protected because one day it would be pointed directly at politicians and govt.
I think our Founders knew better than anyone else what would happen if we allowed govt to start stifling any form of speech, all opposition would cease and Govt would win.
PC is the worst thing to ever have been foist upon the American people. That's why this forum has no filters whatsoever, all speech is free and open. Funny isn't it, all the leftist social media bans speech they don't like. Why is that?

#WWG1WGA

Online Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
  • Militant Libertarian
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2019, 12:10:14 AM »
Well!  What are your answers?

People always abuse the First Amendment by using it as an excuse to say whatever they want or act however they like regardless of the people around them. They have no respect for others First Amendment rights. People have the right to not speak or express themselves. That's why cops tell you that "you have the right to remain silence" as a warning that it can be used against you. People also have the right to be free from speech and expression. Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. It's one thing to watch Bill Maher's show. It's expected that they talk politics. But, do we really need to watch an entertainment award show and hear the same crap? No. If you attend a political event, you expect political talk. Should I have to experience it just by walking down the street? No. Should I be forced to be part of your video harassing the Post Office? No.

I hate the terms "hate speech" or "hate crime". Typically, it is not treated equally. A white person can hint something and automatically be labeled racist. Yet, if the rolls are reversed it doesn't get treated the same. Liberals believe that overall benign views, stances, or discussions is an aggression or violence towards a person or group. And, do believe that they can physically attack you. Liberals will play the victim if you fight back after being physically attacked. What makes it worse is you have the Democrat complex of the educational system, media system, social media system, and entertainment system acting as an engine to keep it going as well as a shield to protect it. Asking if I can return violence if I feel offended would just further shows the hypocrisy of the left on the definition of hate/acceptable speech because they would not support if the roles were reversed.

Every question is asked of who gets to decide on any of these matters, as well as who gets to elect these decision makers. The one's asking about Liberal's opinion if violence is necessary, what violence is necessary, can violence go to far is about trying to find out if that particular Liberal has any ethics, decency, or morals.
Social Media are multi-national billion dollar corporations with foreign investors that are going unchecked with the power to effect our election process.

"Book burnings" have evolved into "de-plat forming". Its the same principles behind both: to eliminate accessible knowledge.

Offline midcan5

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Liberal Conservative
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2019, 01:14:51 PM »
The only sites I have been banned from are so called conservative sites. Redstate was the first and I was trying hard not to offend but back then I was a bit more outspoken.

But back on topic, 'hate speech' is a problem as there are many people in this world who take these words seriously and too often act on them. I have no problem with Laura Ingraham giving hateful people the microphone but make sure there is a counterpoint. Challenge them, contradict them when they lie, etc etc.

"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." Joseph Goebbels

"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer
Working class American, husband, father, grandpa, veteran, and still high on life.

Online taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23686
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2019, 01:17:19 PM »
The only sites I have been banned from are so called conservative sites. Redstate was the first and I was trying hard not to offend but back then I was a bit more outspoken.

But back on topic, 'hate speech' is a problem as there are many people in this world who take these words seriously and too often act on them. I have no problem with Laura Ingraham giving hateful people the microphone but make sure there is a counterpoint. Challenge them, contradict them when they lie, etc etc.

"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." Joseph Goebbels

"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer

You should try to learn more.
Gab  |  Disqus  |  BitChute  |  Minds | Parler

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2019, 01:41:09 PM »
People always abuse the First Amendment by using it as an excuse to say whatever they want or act however they like regardless of the people around them. They have no respect for others First Amendment rights. People have the right to not speak or express themselves. That's why cops tell you that "you have the right to remain silence" as a warning that it can be used against you. People also have the right to be free from speech and expression. Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. It's one thing to watch Bill Maher's show. It's expected that they talk politics. But, do we really need to watch an entertainment award show and hear the same crap? No. If you attend a political event, you expect political talk. Should I have to experience it just by walking down the street? No. Should I be forced to be part of your video harassing the Post Office? No.

I hate the terms "hate speech" or "hate crime". Typically, it is not treated equally. A white person can hint something and automatically be labeled racist. Yet, if the rolls are reversed it doesn't get treated the same. Liberals believe that overall benign views, stances, or discussions is an aggression or violence towards a person or group. And, do believe that they can physically attack you. Liberals will play the victim if you fight back after being physically attacked. What makes it worse is you have the Democrat complex of the educational system, media system, social media system, and entertainment system acting as an engine to keep it going as well as a shield to protect it. Asking if I can return violence if I feel offended would just further shows the hypocrisy of the left on the definition of hate/acceptable speech because they would not support if the roles were reversed.

Every question is asked of who gets to decide on any of these matters, as well as who gets to elect these decision makers. The one's asking about Liberal's opinion if violence is necessary, what violence is necessary, can violence go to far is about trying to find out if that particular Liberal has any ethics, decency, or morals.

Wow damn!  I see.  Now that you explained yourself better I really screwed the pooch.   

Lesson learned:  B4 responding or debating someone make sure I understand the common sense definitions of things and don't go into the weeds as solar calls it.

Online taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23686
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2019, 01:52:51 PM »
People always abuse the First Amendment by using it as an excuse to say whatever they want or act however they like regardless of the people around them. They have no respect for others First Amendment rights. People have the right to not speak or express themselves. That's why cops tell you that "you have the right to remain silence" as a warning that it can be used against you. People also have the right to be free from speech and expression. Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you. It's one thing to watch Bill Maher's show. It's expected that they talk politics. But, do we really need to watch an entertainment award show and hear the same crap? No. If you attend a political event, you expect political talk. Should I have to experience it just by walking down the street? No. Should I be forced to be part of your video harassing the Post Office? No.

I hate the terms "hate speech" or "hate crime". Typically, it is not treated equally. A white person can hint something and automatically be labeled racist. Yet, if the rolls are reversed it doesn't get treated the same. Liberals believe that overall benign views, stances, or discussions is an aggression or violence towards a person or group. And, do believe that they can physically attack you. Liberals will play the victim if you fight back after being physically attacked. What makes it worse is you have the Democrat complex of the educational system, media system, social media system, and entertainment system acting as an engine to keep it going as well as a shield to protect it. Asking if I can return violence if I feel offended would just further shows the hypocrisy of the left on the definition of hate/acceptable speech because they would not support if the roles were reversed.

Every question is asked of who gets to decide on any of these matters, as well as who gets to elect these decision makers. The one's asking about Liberal's opinion if violence is necessary, what violence is necessary, can violence go to far is about trying to find out if that particular Liberal has any ethics, decency, or morals.

There's no such thing.
Gab  |  Disqus  |  BitChute  |  Minds | Parler

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66943
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question for any Liberal who comes here:
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2019, 05:27:38 PM »
The only sites I have been banned from are so called conservative sites. Redstate was the first and I was trying hard not to offend but back then I was a bit more outspoken.
Try being just an average Conservative on social media, even as a lib, if you go against the narrative, they'll boot you.
.
Quote
But back on topic, 'hate speech' is a problem as there are many people in this world who take these words seriously and too often act on them. I have no problem with Laura Ingraham giving hateful people the microphone but make sure there is a counterpoint. Challenge them, contradict them when they lie, etc etc.

"Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred." Joseph Goebbels

"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance." Eric Hoffer
Therein lies the issue, you libs always want to give up Freedoms and Liberty because you "fear" it might offend someone.
Think about that. It's why we fight as hard as we do to preserve the original 10 Amendments. Losing just one will be the beginning of eliminating the rest.
#WWG1WGA

 

Powered by EzPortal