User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 66

Thread: Obscenity

  1. #41
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Except for the voices you consider to be obscene...right. Freedom of speech is great until the speech is something that offends you personally. Got it.
    Of course I do support free speech.

    However there is no such thing as unlimited free speech.

    Free speech is limited by the criminal law and civil law.

    And our Courts and yours are asked periodically to decide what the limits are.

    And one limit is what the ordinary person would consider obscene.

    For instance you are not free to express sexual obscenity on this site, but you are free to promote the private ownership of weapons designed for violence. And which are used regularly in your country to commit mass murder against your own people.

    This seems to be anomalous.

    We read about it in our newspapers, and see it on our television. But we have stopped mass murder here, and we wonder why you haven't done the same there.

    But the answer lies in this very site - you openly promote weapons of mass murder.

  2. #42
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysterio View Post
    Iím not sure what you mean by ďnice try.Ē If Edgar made that up- that he got suspended for posting Lindsey Lohan with I CAME underneath - you should have already called him on it instead of me. Since you didnít, I assume it was true.

    I havenít been here that long and even I can see that this boardís as cliquey as a junior high lunchroom. I wonder if everyone on here would get suspended for something like that.
    Maybe you should be less gullible.

  3. #43
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysterio View Post
    But I guess itís not that surprising on a site where you get tarred for criticizing Rush Limbaugh.
    I didn't see anyone get tarred specifically for criticizing Limbaugh. I did see a political debate spring from the issues raised in that thread and it had very little to do with Limbaugh. Did I miss some posts there?

  4. #44
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    Except for the voices you consider to be obscene...right. Freedom of speech is great until the speech is something that offends you personally. Got it.


    ...

    Mysterio - people are going to disagree here, sometimes strongly. It doesn't mean you're being 'tarred'.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Maybe you should be less gullible.
    Thanks for pointing that out. Youíre probably very shrewd, unlike me.
    i believe that i am in hell, therefore i am there.
    Ėarthur rimbaud

  6. #46
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mysterio View Post
    Thanks for pointing that out. Youíre probably very shrewd, unlike me.
    Then again he may have simply read the thread in question before passing judgment.

  7. #47
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Of course I do support free speech.

    However there is no such thing as unlimited free speech.

    Free speech is limited by the criminal law and civil law.

    And our Courts and yours are asked periodically to decide what the limits are.

    And one limit is what the ordinary person would consider obscene.

    For instance you are not free to express sexual obscenity on this site, but you are free to promote the private ownership of weapons designed for violence. And which are used regularly in your country to commit mass murder against your own people.

    This seems to be anomalous.

    We read about it in our newspapers, and see it on our television. But we have stopped mass murder here, and we wonder why you haven't done the same there.

    But the answer lies in this very site - you openly promote weapons of mass murder.
    No, the limits aren't typically based on obscenity. The limits aren't imposed arbitrarily; they're imposed based on whether the free speech compromises some other right to an unacceptable level.

    In my country, for instance, you can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government or openly threaten the President. These are reasonable national security concerns. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater when there is no fire, because you are jeopardizing that theater's right to conduct business, for no good reason. You can't make unsubstantiated negative claims about someone if such claims stand to jeopardize that person's career--note that the reasoning here is not, "Slander is obscene"; it's "Slander threatens a person's right to make a living." The key here is that the statements must be threatening to the person's career--that's an overriding concern and it's unrelated to arbitrary conceptions of obscenity.

    But obscenity laws, by and large, are struck down in the United States. There's a reason Antonin Scalia's "I know it when I see it" obscenity test is often cited as a joke in order to illustrate the absurdly arbitrary nature of such laws.

    And guns are only weapons of mass murder in the hands of unbalanced individuals. I'm sure you've heard the following argument, but I am interested in hearing your response to it:

    Premise 1) The black market is an inevitable consequence of free society. There is no way to prevent black market gun sales without vastly restricting civil rights to the point of total impracticality, a la 1984.

    Premise 2) People who don't care about laws saying you can't kill people obviously don't care about laws saying that you can't own a gun.

    Conclusion 1) People who are determined to commit violent crimes with guns will obtain guns illegally no matter what the law says about them.

    Premise 3) Laws against guns do prevent normal, law-abiding citizens from having guns.

    Premise 4) Guns can be used for a positive purpose, personal protection, by mentally stable, healthy, law-abiding citizens. They also provide a deterrent for crime because criminals can never really be sure which potential victims have guns and which ones don't.

    Conclusion 2) Gun prohibition laws do more harm to normal, law-abiding citizens than to violent criminals.


    I mean, I'm appalled when I hear about violent crime too, but you must understand that occasional violent crime is an inevitable consequence of free society. There will always be a small percentage of people who are mentally unstable, and removing guns doesn't stop them from taking out that mental instability in the form of violence against others. In the wrong hands, a box cutter is a weapon of mass murder. That doesn't make it reasonable to outlaw all box cutters for everyone.

    We must draw the line somewhere based on how much damage that mentally unstable person can do before being stopped. We don't allow the average citizen to own nuclear arms, because in the hands of an unstable person, they could annihilate half the world's population.

    Similarly, I don't believe we should allow the average citizen to own tanks or rocket launchers or assault weapons with much greater capacity for destruction than is necessary for personal protection. But I do think that ownership of small, non-automatic, bullet-firing personal firearms is both a constitutional right and a necessity in order to allow citizens to protect themselves and their families from violent crime.

    The sad fact of the matter is, within the framework of an essentially unsupervised democratic society, guns are never, ever going away, no matter how much legislation you place on them. That's life.

    And furthermore, suggesting that even images of guns are somehow obscene/should be legally prohibited is absolutely ludicrous. Regardless of your position on gun control, that's taking it way too far.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  8. #48
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    In my country, for instance, you can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government
    You can't?

  9. #49
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,008

    Default

    Guns are fine, the people that kill other people with guns aren't fine. That's like saying food is bad because the idiots that eat too much get fat.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  10. #50
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    You can't?
    Well, I meant "you" in the general sense...as in most people, the common man.

    I'm sure you can. You're a moderator. What can't you do?
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Similar Threads

  1. Do we live in an obscene culture?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 05:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO