No such thing as free speech in the new world order
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
freako104 said:
some forced others to drink the poison, and most didnt' know they where drinking poison
the kids sure didn't
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
Gonz said:
sure they will, people do it all the time
"I was following orders"
"god told me to do it"
"Infidels!!"
It's awe inspiring. The lack of personal responsibility & integrity some of you place on your fellow human beings. I choose to raise them to a level of knowing right from wrong & you guys seem to think they are mindless imbeciles without free will or forethought. Too bad.
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
Gonz said:
dude, until they prove us diffrent....
AlphaTroll
New Member
Gonz said:
Coercion can ake many forms Gonz and it sure as hell doesn't need to be an immediate threat to you or your loved ones. Young women and men are joining the millitary every day under the impression that they will fight for their country - to keep it safe from those who mean to do it harm. The coersive power used here is very subtle - played out by government in a way of 'join the army/navy/airforce, it's the right thing to do because we think someone might not like us & they might just decide to bomb us and then you will feel oh so terrible because you could have prevented it if you had only joined our cause....it's emotional coercion.
Those guys go off to war & kill other people, based on what they are told by their commanders and face it the training they receive, the words they hear every day, day after day, is not 'let's go over there and find new friends for our playgroup'. BS, they get trained to be killing machines...the way it's done is by instilling a hate of the 'enemy'.
You telling me soldiers have no strict sets of values and are basically braindead? Wow, yet we all rely on them to defend our precious nations. See, they may have strong individual sets of values, but they suppress those in favour of the 'group values' - it's called indoctrination.
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
Every right must have boundaries, or it can not remain a right for any length of time. Your rights and my rights may be in conflict, and logically we cannot both exercise those rights 100% at the same time. For example, your right to smoke and my right to breath clean air may be in conflict, and someone's rights must give.
As an extension of that, it has long been legal precedent that spoken words can be grounds for murder. The clearest case is that of a hired killer. You make the call, establish contact, etc., and give instructions in a general sense (who, what general time, etc.). You need not even transfer money to be guilty of murder... you might promise payment after the murder and then refuse to pay - in that case, you never made any action in support of murder, but only your spoken word. Did you incite murder? The hired killer could have refused, on moral grounds, but the courts long ago decided that both parties are guilty. And for the life of me, I can't see any reason why I should not agree with them.
If you want to walk around talking about how much you hate blacks (insert any perceived group here) and how much you wish they would all die, that is your protected right. When you start telling your followers that they have to go out and kill blacks, you have crossed the line where your rights and others' rights meet. If you rant about how much you wish all blacks were dead, in a general way, and your followers take it upon themselves to commit murder... well, that's when the court cases get really interesting, and that's why our judicial system is organized such that cases can be judged on an individual basis.
As an extension of that, it has long been legal precedent that spoken words can be grounds for murder. The clearest case is that of a hired killer. You make the call, establish contact, etc., and give instructions in a general sense (who, what general time, etc.). You need not even transfer money to be guilty of murder... you might promise payment after the murder and then refuse to pay - in that case, you never made any action in support of murder, but only your spoken word. Did you incite murder? The hired killer could have refused, on moral grounds, but the courts long ago decided that both parties are guilty. And for the life of me, I can't see any reason why I should not agree with them.
If you want to walk around talking about how much you hate blacks (insert any perceived group here) and how much you wish they would all die, that is your protected right. When you start telling your followers that they have to go out and kill blacks, you have crossed the line where your rights and others' rights meet. If you rant about how much you wish all blacks were dead, in a general way, and your followers take it upon themselves to commit murder... well, that's when the court cases get really interesting, and that's why our judicial system is organized such that cases can be judged on an individual basis.
Gotnolegs
Active Member
Gonz said:
Like it or not in an advanced society there are people who have learning disabilities. The general idea within most of the wsetern world is to integrate such people into society to the best of their ability. Do these people not deserve to live because they can be manipulated?
How about children? Do you have any? If you do you know that you can pretty much create a set of values that will stay with them for their whole lives. Do children deserve to die because they can be manipulated?
Also remember the average IQ is 100, I would guess that the majority of the posters here are well above that, people that are well below it can be manipulated. That is fact. Given time and enough exposure pretty much anybody can be coerced into doing pretty much anything. So do we all deserve to die?
How about Osama bin Laden? Are you saying that he has every right to incite people to kill US citizens? It looks to me like you are doing. Judging from your comments you would claim he has done nothing wrong...
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Without having read the article, my first idea was that this thread was mislabeled. There Rwandans were working in the media and I'm assuming that they used their media to spread the news. This seemed to fall more under the "freedom of the press" more than "Freedom of speech".
With that said... I've always been for limits placed on the freedom of speech to include 'hate mongering' and inciting of violence etc...
I'l; read the article and mull it over before I go off on a tangeant. Have fun in the meanwhile
With that said... I've always been for limits placed on the freedom of speech to include 'hate mongering' and inciting of violence etc...
I'l; read the article and mull it over before I go off on a tangeant. Have fun in the meanwhile
outside looking in
<b>Registered Member</b>
PuterTutor said:
I do post my thoughts from time to time. Sometimes they agree with Gonz, sometimes they don't. I disagree with his views on freedom of speech in this thread, yet I defended his right to free speech in another.
I want a jelly doughnut. I think I'll go have one...
OSLI, wouldn't it be better to make a law that actually outlaws hiring murder done? That is a seperate scenario. It still falls to the hired gun to pull the trigger. He is the one guilty of murder. The employer of said employee did not force or cause the murder. He offered a price to which the mercenary agreed. That doesn't make the employer any less innocent but it should change the charges. 
AlphaTroll, the military is the enforcer of a political system/ruler. Our particular system is based, as is our country, on laws & justice. People don't volunteer to join the miltary & expect to not learn how to kill. They aren't coerced to hate the enemy. They are taught to dismantle the enemy by any means necessary & when called off, to step aside. If they were taught to hate, they wouldn't be able to follow through on the orders to help re-establish safety & security. You, like so many, have a clearly misguided view of what our armed forces are here to do.
AlphaTroll, the military is the enforcer of a political system/ruler. Our particular system is based, as is our country, on laws & justice. People don't volunteer to join the miltary & expect to not learn how to kill. They aren't coerced to hate the enemy. They are taught to dismantle the enemy by any means necessary & when called off, to step aside. If they were taught to hate, they wouldn't be able to follow through on the orders to help re-establish safety & security. You, like so many, have a clearly misguided view of what our armed forces are here to do.
chcr
Too cute for words
OSLI, wouldn't it be better to make a law that actually outlaws hiring murder done? That is a seperate scenario. It still falls to the hired gun to pull the trigger. He is the one guilty of murder. The employer of said employee did not force or cause the murder. He offered a price to which the mercenary agreed. That doesn't make the employer any less innocent but it should change the charges.
It's called conspiracy, and it is illegal. if you conspire with someone else to commit murder, regardless of whether you are even there at the time of the murder, you are just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger. Guilty of murder.