|
For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| 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? |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| 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. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| 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. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Ahh, why did you have to do that?:mad:
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. |
|
|
| Bronze |
| 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!...:gsmile: |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bronze
That's right!...:gsmile: |
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? |
|
|
| Bronze |
| 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...? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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. |
|
|
| biznology |
| 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| |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| 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. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| biznology |
| 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| |
|
|
|
|
