TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew on the other hand you can see it like this, europeans have the freedom to choose (almost) whatever they want when it comes to healthcare, school etc, without the limitation of your private economy. but sure low taxes means that you are the land of freedom, for some, but not for all.

It's not "more freedom," but a philosophical decision that European nations have made for equality over freedom (liberty). This is the classic tradeoff in any Western economy, and every nation is at a different place on the scale.

Lower taxation and fewer regulations mean more freedom in that the government does not restrict you from achieving on your own, which is precisely what personal freedom concerns. Whereas other nations are more restrictive of the advancement of citizens (taxes, etc.) to the benefit of others, promoting equality.

It's funny how you're european views on freedom are so skewed that you think feedom only equals freedom of the press/speach (media). It's so much more then that.

I'm well aware that European TV and Radio, and other media is more free then American media, but that is only one part of freedom. Until you've studied the American government, and it's founding concepts you cannot argue with this.

The American form of government IS the best form of government ever created. Yes, it still has corruption, but for the size of the country, nothing in history has ever come close.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen I'm well aware that European TV and Radio, and other media is more free then American media, but that is only one part of freedom.

yet we live under censur with only liberal biased media...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok It's not "more freedom," but a philosophical decision that European nations have made for equality over freedom (liberty). This is the classic tradeoff in any Western economy, and every nation is at a different place on the scale. Lower taxation and fewer regulations mean more freedom in that the government does not restrict you from achieving on your own, which is precisely what personal freedom concerns. Whereas other nations are more restrictive of the advancement of citizens (taxes, etc.) to the benefit of others, promoting equality.

guess we just simply have differnt views on what freedom really is then

Come on FuzzyGreen - give us an example of European censorship. Otherwise, at least have the decency of admitting that you were wrong and were just stirring shit.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew on the other hand you can see it like this, europeans have the freedom to choose (almost) whatever they want when it comes to healthcare, school etc, without the limitation of your private economy.

Socialized medicine IS NOT freedom. Actually it is exactly the opposite. You actually lack freedom in this area. I have access to the best healthcare in the world (thanks to Stanford medical center) because I *choose* to obtain a job that provides the best medical insurance. THAT IS FREEDOM.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Come on FuzzyGreen - give us an example of European censorship. Otherwise, at least have the decency of admitting that you were wrong and were just stirring shit.

Well personally i think fuzzygreen's argument is a pile of crap but I can't resist! Heehee!

http://www.newsdesigner.com/archives/2004_03.php (scroll 1/3 of the way down)

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Come on FuzzyGreen - give us an example of European censorship. Otherwise, at least have the decency of admitting that you were wrong and were just stirring shit.

I didn't mean media censorship, I meant lack of freedoms due to your socialism and "one-world" views.

Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew imo europe seems much freeer than USA.

It isn't,Trust me.

America is very free, But, With freedom comes responsibility.(In reply to your "story" Trancaholic.)

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Come on FuzzyGreen - give us an example of European censorship. Otherwise, at least have the decency of admitting that you were wrong and were just stirring shit.

Ok, this one's easy. In France, Oriana Fallaci's book "The Rage and the Pride" was 'taken to court,' where the court actually heard arguments on whether to censor or ban her book. The book was not banned, but the French, Swiss, and Austrians have frequently had actual cases in court to determine whether a book will be allowed to be published within the country. One book on bin Laden has been placed on hold while the government investigates the plaintiff's claims. Yes, the government.

"Hate speech" in many countries has also been banned, while in the US, the government believes that what constitutes "hate" is not a matter for the government to be deciding with respect to speech. As I mentioned before, neo-Nazi and far-right groups have been censored by their governments, mainly in France and Germany. They must print their materials in the US, and base their websites here. (And when Iranians set up foreign broadcasting organizations to preach democracy to their country...they don't go to Europe. They do it from the US - why? The broadest speech protections.)

Canada, by the way, is on the way to making parts of the Bible hate speech, as people use scripture to speak out against homosexuality.

In Britain, defamation and libel laws are so strong that even moderately divisive books and articles must be run through legal departments before being published -- a de facto censorship under the law.

And the list goes on...even though this was not necessarily the point that fuzzygreen was trying to make.

Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It isn't,Trust me.

What the hell?

This is getting highly aggravating. For once, just once, back up what you say. I've never seen you actually articulate your position properly, or back up what you say with a logical argument and/or sources and examples. You just announce that something is the case, usually with a "trust me" added on, then apparently think that you've made a good point. FFS, if it isn't, cite examples.

Re: Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by arctic What the hell? This is getting highly aggravating. For once, just once, back up what you say. I've never seen you actually articulate your position properly, or back up what you say with a logical argument and/or sources and examples. You just announce that something is the case, usually with a "trust me" added on, then apparently think that you've made a good point. FFS, if it isn't, cite examples.

Doesn't that take, like, effort?

Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It isn't,Trust me.

With arctic on this one (too). Have you ever been to Europe?

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 America is very free, But, With freedom comes responsibility.(In reply to your "story" Trancaholic.)

WTF? "Responsibility"? To whom? How can it be anybody else's business whether this girl masturbates or not? Unless you are assuming some kind of country-wide level of (christian) holiness, which is somehow of consequence to all christians, how can her action affect anyone but herself?

By your argument any stupid law that limits freedom could in fact be stated not to limit freedom: Simply say that people have freedom but we help them along being responsible by putting down guidelines for behaviour.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Ok, this one's easy. In France, Oriana Fallaci's book "The Rage and the Pride" was 'taken to court,' where the court actually heard arguments on whether to censor or ban her book. The book was not banned, but the French, Swiss, and Austrians have frequently had actual cases in court to determine whether a book will be allowed to be published within the country. One book on bin Laden has been placed on hold while the government investigates the plaintiff's claims. Yes, the government. "Hate speech" in many countries has also been banned, while in the US, the government believes that what constitutes "hate" is not a matter for the government to be deciding with respect to speech. As I mentioned before, neo-Nazi and far-right groups have been censored by their governments, mainly in France and Germany. They must print their materials in the US, and base their websites here. (And when Iranians set up foreign broadcasting organizations to preach democracy to their country...they don't go to Europe. They do it from the US - why? The broadest speech protections.) Canada, by the way, is on the way to making parts of the Bible hate speech, as people use scripture to speak out against homosexuality. In Britain, defamation and libel laws are so strong that even moderately divisive books and articles must be run through legal departments before being published -- a de facto censorship under the law. And the list goes on...even though this was not necessarily the point that fuzzygreen was trying to make.

According to FuzzyGreen (above) it wasn't that point he was trying to make - but there's still solid arguments here. Let me just throw in my view on some of them.

First of all, the censorship issue with books. I'm not that surprised that the French government shows this behaviour. After all Chirac is the personification of arrogance and know-all attitude. Furthermore, the French have a large muslim minority living among them, which they apparently have decided not to upset. Why the Swiss and the Austrians are behaving in similar manners is beyond me. However, as you only state that there have been court rulings on banning of books, and not whether any books have actually been banned, this could also be an indicator of a liberal justice system, which takes upon it any cases that special interest groups come up with.

As to the limitations on hate speech: I wasn't around when WW2 took its toll, but from what I hear, some attrocities took place. Some people think that if you prevent people from speaking hatred towards minorities, then you prevent society as a whole from going down the slide of facism once again. If this view is correct then I would actually applaud this limitation of freedom. However, I think it is a crap argument - and gets disturbingly aggrevated when I see France, Belgium, Sweden, etc. criticising governments in other European countries only for containing right wing groups.

About Britain: Didn't know that - quite surprising if it is true.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well personally i think fuzzygreen's argument is a pile of crap but I can't resist! Heehee! http://www.newsdesigner.com/archives/2004_03.php (scroll 1/3 of the way down)

Ahh, why did you have to do that?
Seriously, I do believe that most of the papers running the edited picture, never knew they about the editing. I believe this for the simple reason that there seems to be no reason for running the "nice" version.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen The American form of government IS the best form of government ever created. Yes, it still has corruption, but for the size of the country, nothing in history has ever come close.

That's right!...

Re: Re: Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze That's right!...

Great argument! By the way - what's with the English? I though you didn't like everyone understanding what you had to say?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Doesn't that take, like, effort?

Ssshhhhh. Don't want to let the cat out of the bag now do we?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Great argument! By the way - what's with the English? I though you didn't like everyone understanding what you had to say?

sorry...but i don't understand what you mean...?

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Ok, this one's easy. In France, Oriana Fallaci's book "The Rage and the Pride" was 'taken to court,' where the court actually heard arguments on whether to censor or ban her book. The book was not banned, but the French, Swiss, and Austrians have frequently had actual cases in court to determine whether a book will be allowed to be published within the country. One book on bin Laden has been placed on hold while the government investigates the plaintiff's claims. Yes, the government. "Hate speech" in many countries has also been banned, while in the US, the government believes that what constitutes "hate" is not a matter for the government to be deciding with respect to speech. As I mentioned before, neo-Nazi and far-right groups have been censored by their governments, mainly in France and Germany. They must print their materials in the US, and base their websites here. (And when Iranians set up foreign broadcasting organizations to preach democracy to their country...they don't go to Europe. They do it from the US - why? The broadest speech protections.) Canada, by the way, is on the way to making parts of the Bible hate speech, as people use scripture to speak out against homosexuality. In Britain, defamation and libel laws are so strong that even moderately divisive books and articles must be run through legal departments before being published -- a de facto censorship under the law. And the list goes on...even though this was not necessarily the point that fuzzygreen was trying to make.

Well, there comes a time where liberties must be limited to protect the general population. It's like me saying "US isn't a free country because killing people is not allowed. I want to kill people and if the government doesn't let me do it, then I'm not truly free". Hate speech is one of those cases where potential harmful effects outweight the benefits of unlimited freedom. It's better to prevent it than to have brainwashed kids beat up and kill people of different skin color.

Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It isn't,Trust me. America is very free, But, With freedom comes responsibility.(In reply to your "story" Trancaholic.)

Im starting to realize how easy it is to beat a dead horse here, but Nellie -

have you ever *lived* outside of the US?

have you traveled anywhere outside of the US, other than Canada or Mexico?

have you even been to Canada or Mexico?

i think i already know the answers, but humor me|

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, there comes a time where liberties must be limited to protect the general population. It's like me saying "US isn't a free country because killing people is not allowed. I want to kill people and if the government doesn't let me do it, then I'm not truly free". Hate speech is one of those cases where potential harmful effects outweight the benefits of unlimited freedom. It's better to prevent it than to have brainwashed kids beat up and kill people of different skin color.

If you had any actual knowledge about the American form of government you would see that the US constitution and Bill of rights covers this perfectly.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen If you had any actual knowledge about the American form of government you would see that the US constitution and Bill of rights covers this perfectly.

a bit more explanation would be in place for us who don't know every fucking detail of the US consitution. and how can you in the same time have the right to say whatever you want, even hate things, as you cannot say this... just doesn't make any logic to me.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen If you had any actual knowledge about the American form of government you would see that the US constitution and Bill of rights covers this perfectly.

perfectly?

even i think it works alright, but if something written in the 18th century is still 'perfect' today there wouldnt be the need or possibility for amendments.

i really dont think anything, much less one specific type of government can be 'perfect' for every single human residing under that system|

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Socialized medicine IS NOT freedom. Actually it is exactly the opposite. You actually lack freedom in this area. I have access to the best healthcare in the world (thanks to Stanford medical center) because I *choose* to obtain a job that provides the best medical insurance. THAT IS FREEDOM.

like i said before, we obviously have different views on freedom. everyone in europe has freedom, while many in US doesn't, that's the differnt. okay the best may be better than our best, but the average guy still has more freedom in europe....

quote:

Originally posted by biznology perfectly? even i think it works alright, but if something written in the 18th century is still 'perfect' today there wouldnt be the need or possibility for amendments. i really dont think anything, much less one specific type of government can be 'perfect' for every single human residing under that system|

yeah this is something that is actually rather interesting... many americans see the consitution as some kind of bible. Everything that the constitutions says is right. much like arguing with nelly, "you need better gun control", "no the constitution says we can have guns". Yeah i don't know if that is a good example but you see my point

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.