User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 112

  1. #31
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    You make the mistake of viewing "country" as a singular, rather than composing of many people. Your mistake is to use a false singular.

    Also the word "trust" does no come unqualified. I may trust a government on say Defence spending but be suspicious of welfare cuts. And a government does not operate as a contiguous unit, much as it would like to you to believe. Again a case of the false singular.

    So when you say you do not trust the government, one can discern nothing much about the governments "trustworthiness", if such a thing were possible; rather, it merely confirms Victor's contention that you are actually paranoid.
    I was viewing country as a collective set of public opinion polling data... I'm not asking the people of France, for instance, what they think of the US government... I'm looking at country by country basis on how they view their government IN GENERAL- that should cover trust- as a broad covering of all different aspects of what it's up to- be it invading somewhere else, cutting education spending or building a 6 lane interstate through a national forest- if I wished to look at sub-issues I would have done so, but for the sake of keeping this derail shorter, as opposed to being anal retentive and overly picky, I decided to cover the multiple things that could be trusted into one aggregate category and public opinion of the governing bodies in another aggregate category... If the general public disapproves of more things the government is doing than approves, and has confessed to not trusting them to make the correct decisions for their own good in general, it would be safe to say that the country (an aggregate of public opinions of it's citizens) does not trust it's government (does not trust the government to make decisions that the agree with on an aggregate base)

    You didn't study public opinon did you?
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gromit View Post
    Conversation I had probably at least 1000 times in my childhood with various little punk-ass classmates:


    gromit: Stop that.

    other little kid: NO. It's a free country. HAHAHA!!!!!!


    It would piss me off immensely, but I obviously didn't have the vocabulary as a child to express the difference between legal rights and being an inconsiderate ass.
    Generally, that's the moment where the other little kid got introduced to "Mr. Fist."

  3. #33
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    What would you call a social worker who said this?
    Fancy meeting you here again, Jag. My evening feels better already.

    To answer the question in context, one should ask is there anything fundamentally wrong with a self-proclaimed "social worker" expressing strong homophobic leanings. After all, excluding one's brother from one's home, based purely on the fact he is gay, is something that many people find repulsive. Yet, Lark even goes to the extent of creating a thread exploring the "limits" of free speech.

    One would suppose that if such limits were imposed Lark, with his repulsive & dispicable views, would be the first thing to get the chop. But that's an irony he misses.

    Z hits the nail on the head quite nicely.

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    Sure. Especially when they don't understand that their ability to say what they want also means other people can too.
    That's the deal. Like it or lump it.

  4. #34

    Default

    I would say that freedom of speech is much like the legal right to kill an intruder in your home - i.e., the right is there, but that doesn't mean that the full exploitation of your right can't be considered stupid, callous, or even ethically indefensible.

    You can say what you wish, but always remember that your right to free speech is not accompanied by a duty on anyone's part to treat your speech with attention, thought or respect.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  5. #35
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Indeed, if we consider the idea of Positive and Negative Liberty, we run into many problems associated with the concept of free speech. Would it be reasonable, for example, to exercise a right to offend at the cost of social unrest? It is reasonable to accept that my liberty to offend impinges on another's right not to be offended. - But what exactly is a right not to be offended?

    Well, in the UK incitement to racial hatred is considered an offence; if you seriously wish to stir things up and your words lead to a race riot you are likely to have your freedom curtailed. Is this a bad thing? The law revolves around the probability of outcomes, not intent. So I would be free to say many things on Stormfront - White Nationalist Community for example, but not host a play that was likely to cause trouble in the Sikh community. The content however might be identical: in one place speech curtailed, in the other grudgingly accepted.

    So we can say that free speech in the UK is contingent on outcomes, not intent; we must deal with every borderline event on a case-by-case basis.

    And just as you are free to pop me on your ignore list (although I know you wouldn't do that, FMW) I'm free to speculate as to why you might do this.

    Here in the UK we like to throw eggs at politicians whom we disapprove. The eggs do little damage and sometimes the egg-thrower looks foolish and sometimes the politician looks foolish. Sometimes both look foolish, if you get my drift. But it's largely good fun for the egg-thrower, although there are exceptions - as our former Deputy Prime Minister illustrates...

    [YOUTUBE="ZdmoDLuLh44"]Two Jabs[/YOUTUBE]

    BTW. There is no right to defend one's property or kill burglars in the UK. Only to use proportionate force in self-defence. As this fellow found out:

    Businessman jailed for attacking intruder - who goes free - Telegraph

    I suspect it wouldn't have reached court if it had happened in Texas.

  6. #36
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Banana, I'm pretty sure the right to defend one's property isn't protected under freedom of speech and is a totally different right.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  7. #37
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    Banana, I'm pretty sure the right to defend one's property isn't protected under freedom of speech and is a totally different right.
    It was a point of correction, perhaps not so relevant, to FMW's post. He says "I would say that freedom of speech is much like the legal right to kill an intruder in your home". As no such right exists here I thought I'd point that out.

    And thank you for pointing it out.

  8. #38

    Default

    And just to be clear, I wasn't implying that these rights were similar in kind. I was only comparing them for illustrative purposes, to point out that they are both rights which might be foolhardy or indefensible to exploit fully. Essentially, that just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  9. #39
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    Essentially, that just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it.
    One could equally say that occassionally one can and should.

    Without qualification, you are simply spilling forth sound bites. I took some effort to explain a position and you respond with platitudes, FMW.

  10. #40

    Default

    I don't understand what you mean. My position is fully explained. The OP expressed concern that freedom of speech is used for hateful purposes, thus causing people to question the value of the concept. I agree that freedom of speech is used for hateful purposes, but rather than curtail the right (which I would find unacceptable), I pointed out that discretion should play a part and that exercising the right isn't always the best idea. Of course, as you point out, occasionally one should...after all, that's why the right is there.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

Similar Threads

  1. Humanism the basis for the world's religions and philosophy
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-25-2011, 11:40 PM
  2. [NT] Strategies for Rationalists in a Sensationally Feely world.
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 08:54 PM
  3. [ENFP] ENFP-When is it safe for Fi to come out?
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 11:06 PM
  4. Plot for NT World Domination
    By MerkW in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 02:13 AM
  5. Help Stop the Plot For NT World Domination
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 02:12 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