Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SERVEFollow

#102 Apr 17 2011 at 6:17 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


Edit: FYI I think I might "flip flop" once again on my personal opinion on SSM, which doesn't matter because my argument that I presented neglects my personal feelings. That happens when you argue with logic instead of emotions....You should try it some time.



Remind me, is flip-flopping good or bad? I can never keep up with these things.


Depends on how you look at it. In general, it's "bad", because you're changing your position, usually just to politically appease a crowd. If you're focusing on the outcome, then it can be "good" or "bad" depending on the comparison of the outcome to your position.
#103 Apr 17 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm using reality, not play play polls that have different results depending on how they are conducted and who responds to them. There's only one answer, either the majority supports it or the majority doesn't. Maybe in your world, 1000 is relatively close to 300,000,000, but not by any logical stand point.

lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Apr 17 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'm using reality, not play play polls that have different results depending on how they are conducted and who responds to them. There's only one answer, either the majority supports it or the majority doesn't. Maybe in your world, 1000 is relatively close to 300,000,000, but not by any logical stand point.

lulz


Lol, I know.. to think a phone survey of 1000 people is the most accurate way to determine what 300,000,000 think is quite hilarious.. I mean, where does it stop? I text surveyed everyone in my phone and apparently 75% of the U.S. believes President Obama is doing a great job! Why stop there? Pffft. According to my own personal survey (answered only by me), 100% of the U.S. believes that we should change the national bird to a Phoenix. I just love statistics..
#105 Apr 17 2011 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Apr 17 2011 at 8:04 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lulz


Hahaha
#107 Apr 17 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I know, right? About sums it up.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#108 Apr 17 2011 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kachi wrote:
Do people still not understand that the First Amendment is often and relatively easily restricted? Strict scrutiny, anyone? Time, place, and manner? Common state interests? Anyone? Bueller? (didn't actually read the entire thread, if anyone did)

They could have easily justified this, and while I personally don't care much either way, the First Amendment already doesn't protect against certain kinds of inflammatory speech/assembly, e.g., "fighting words." While I think it's fine to say that you think this kind of speech/assembly should be protected, it's asinine to think that Constitutional law prevents rulings that restrict it. It doesn't. It is almost purely up to the discretion of the Supreme Court Justices.


Okay, I'll take this up here.

The restrictions on free speech are extremely limited in scope. You can't use freedom of speech to justify instigating actions that will predictably cause or instigate immediate harm, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or rousing a mob to lynch someone.

When you start talking about shutting down a specific, peaceful line of protest, though, you've reached the line. There is no justification for refusing anyone the right to assemble peaceably and to speak their opinions calmly, just because you don't like those opinions. That is EXACTLY what the First Amendment speech clause protects.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#109 Apr 17 2011 at 11:10 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I know, right? About sums it up.


Yea, like totally..

Samira wrote:
Okay, I'll take this up here.

The restrictions on free speech are extremely limited in scope. You can't use freedom of speech to justify instigating actions that will predictably cause or instigate immediate harm, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or rousing a mob to lynch someone.

When you start talking about shutting down a specific, peaceful line of protest, though, you've reached the line. There is no justification for refusing anyone the right to assemble peaceably and to speak their opinions calmly, just because you don't like those opinions. That is EXACTLY what the First Amendment speech clause protects.


The First Amendment speech clause allows us to disagree with the government without going to jail or getting our heads cut off. People like you try to use it to say or do whatever you please.

These restrictions are not as limited as you might think. There is no immediate harm in slander. What you have are consequences, with power you have responsibilities. There is no immediate harm in Perjury. Again, what you have are consequences. There is no immediate harm in copy right infringements, once again, you have consequences. There's no immediate harm in public nudity or public urination. There's no immediate harm in pretending to be a police officer, only consequences.

This list can go on. All of those restrictions mentioned above are clearly done based on the consequences if done. That is no different than this scenario at the funeral. Actions speak louder than words and words are sharper than swords. This all comes down to us taking responsibilities for our actions.

People like you need to stop pretending that we live in a "what eva what eva, I do what I want" environment. Such mentalities are what are bringing down the U.S. society.
#110 Apr 17 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Slander and perjury do cause harm, in fact. Those consequences? Harm.

The speech that was most likely intended to be protected, political dissent, is very arguably what the WBC is doing.

Words are sharper than swords? Would you like to try that out in the real world?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#111 Apr 17 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1,000 adults DO NOT REPRESENT the majority of the nation.
Actually, they do. Not remotely shocked that you completely fail to understand statistical random sample sizes.



Do you even read?

Not remotely shocked that you completely fail to understand an argument and use yet again the dumbest interpretation as a counter.
Explain how a poll of 1000 people does not represent the opinions of the US at large.

Go.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#112 Apr 17 2011 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Bsphil, stop slapping the ****** in the head. Polls are tough stuff, involving statistics. You ask too much,
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#113 Apr 17 2011 at 1:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:
Slander and perjury do cause harm, in fact. Those consequences? Harm.


How is that harm any different from the harm you do unto the people at the funeral? Unless it's physical harm, it's all subjective. What about public nudity, public urination, police impersonation, etc.?

Samira wrote:
The speech that was most likely intended to be protected, political dissent, is very arguably what the WBC is doing.


You couldn't be any further from the truth. "Taxation without representation", "Separation of Church and State", you know the things that this nation was founded on, represents the "Freedom of Speech" that is to be protected, not being a douche bag. The freedom is to be able stand against the government and not go to jail, killed or get you left ******** removed, kind of like what happens in other countries.

Samira wrote:
Words are sharper than swords? Would you like to try that out in the real world?

It's an expression, your failure of understanding isn't my fault. Some words cause just as much or more pain than physical harm.


bsphil wrote:
Explain how a poll of 1000 people does not represent the opinions of the US at large.

Go.


I was going to explain to you how you completely missed the point, but then I realized that it was obvious that you didn't reread my post (or the subsequent ones) or you wouldn't have responded the way you did.

So, how about rereading the post in question and THEN if you still don't understand my argument, I'll break it down for you. I mean, sheesh, the very first freakin sentence demonstrates my understanding of statics and Belkira even re-quoted it again. So, while I could derail the argument and go into Statistics, I would rather for you just reread the post and stay on topic.

Edited, Apr 17th 2011 9:13pm by Almalieque

Edited, Apr 17th 2011 9:16pm by Almalieque

Edited, Apr 17th 2011 9:17pm by Almalieque
#114 Apr 17 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Bsphil, stop slapping the ****** in the head. Polls are tough stuff, involving statistics. You ask too much,


Once again, it's quite ironic that the person who I was debating with, Belkira, while disagreing with me, understands my point while the people who I wasn't talking to don't get it.... interesting..
#115 Apr 17 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


Edit: FYI I think I might "flip flop" once again on my personal opinion on SSM, which doesn't matter because my argument that I presented neglects my personal feelings. That happens when you argue with logic instead of emotions....You should try it some time.



Remind me, is flip-flopping good or bad? I can never keep up with these things.


If you disagree with the person or they aren't on "your side," it means they're wishy-washy and indecisive, and that they're prone to making mistakes in their decision-making. If you agree with them or they're on your side, it means that they aren't afraid to be bold and go against the grain, not too stubborn to change positions when new information elucidates a better path, and that they are judicious and contemplative.

The 2004 election being the exception.
#116 Apr 17 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
When you start talking about shutting down a specific, peaceful line of protest, though, you've reached the line. There is no justification for refusing anyone the right to assemble peaceably and to speak their opinions calmly, just because you don't like those opinions. That is EXACTLY what the First Amendment speech clause protects.


Except that there is already a justification for limiting freedoms on inflammatory speech. The Supreme Court already acknowledges that some things are so insulting that their mere utterance inflicts harm, and beyond that, incite violence. Again, if that is your opinion, that's fine, but to say that there is no justification is false. They cannot limit what people say or protest, but with respect to context, they can ban any expression based on the likelihood that it would incite violence. That's the basis of strict scrutiny and time, place, and manner. If they can determine that it is for the general welfare, which is easy to argue, they can restrict the time, the place, and the manner of the protest, which they already do-- they are just talking about expanding it further. The WBC has already incited violence for their funeral protests, as any rational person could have foreseen. The question of if they can is open and shut: they can. It's merely a question of if they should.
#117 Apr 17 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Even during the riots of the '60s, the Supreme Court consistently ruled that people have the right to dissent.

We can go around and around about this*, but if you restrict the right of the WBC to protest at funerals, no matter how distasteful most of us find their actions, you have opened the door to shutting down political dissent of all types.












*Well, you can. I'm bored again.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#118 Apr 17 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Kachi wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


Edit: FYI I think I might "flip flop" once again on my personal opinion on SSM, which doesn't matter because my argument that I presented neglects my personal feelings. That happens when you argue with logic instead of emotions....You should try it some time.



Remind me, is flip-flopping good or bad? I can never keep up with these things.


If you disagree with the person or they aren't on "your side," it means they're wishy-washy and indecisive, and that they're prone to making mistakes in their decision-making. If you agree with them or they're on your side, it means that they aren't afraid to be bold and go against the grain, not too stubborn to change positions when new information elucidates a better path, and that they are judicious and contemplative.

The 2004 election being the exception.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought...it changes based on who is doing it.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#119 Apr 17 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
I find it slightly disturbing that someone who has asuch a hard time with communication (sending and recieving) works for the military sending signals.


Then again I suppose a piece of string and two tin cans dont need to understand grammar or language to pass along the intended message.


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#120 Apr 17 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
paulsol wrote:
Then again I suppose a piece of string and two tin cans dont need to understand grammar or language to pass along the intended message.
There's a joke to be made there, but no. That's about the correct level of our technology.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#121 Apr 17 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Samira wrote:
Even during the riots of the '60s, the Supreme Court consistently ruled that people have the right to dissent.

We can go around and around about this*, but if you restrict the right of the WBC to protest at funerals, no matter how distasteful most of us find their actions, you have opened the door to shutting down political dissent of all types.

*Well, you can. I'm bored again.


WOW... that sounds a whole lot like my argument against SSM. If you can't create an exclusive argument to allow SSM, then you have opened the door to marriages of anything and everything. Of course you wont get the backlash as being called an idiot or anything for using a "slippery slope", funny how that works.

The difference is, we have provided an exclusive argument specifically in regards to funerals. By doing so, it has no direct effect on other scenarios. You keep forgetting that no one is denying their right to protest, they are just mandating a distance.

To go along with public urination, public nudity and impersonating authorities, the FCC has a very strict regulation of what can and can not be broadcasted under various circumstances. You can drop the "F bomb" all you want, but not on prime time basic T.V. You can protest a funeral all you want, just not directly in front of the funeral.

You're right, we can go about this all day, but the bottom line is that we have restrictions and it is very possible to restrict certain actions without directly effecting other actions.


Paulsol wrote:
I find it slightly disturbing that someone who has asuch a hard time with communication (sending and recieving) works for the military sending signals.


Then again I suppose a piece of string and two tin cans dont need to understand grammar or language to pass along the intended message.


Your ignorance of me and the Signal Corps is enlightening. One would think that a light bulb would go off for you..... but then again I suppose mindless, biased, immature and ignorant people aren't as capable to pick up such clues..

I mean think about it, being the number one country in the world, we sure are kicking people's butt with "two tin cans and a string". Maybe you should get with the program?
#122 Apr 17 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Almalieque wrote:


I mean think about it, being the number one country in the world,



Cite?


Almalieque wrote:
we sure are kicking people's butt with "two tin cans and a string".


Cite?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#123 Apr 17 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
paulsol wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


I mean think about it, being the number one country in the world,



Cite?


Almalieque wrote:
we sure are kicking people's butt with "two tin cans and a string".


Cite?


Oh, let me clarify, I'm "Amuricahn"! There you go, that should clear up any confusion.
#124Almalieque, Posted: Apr 17 2011 at 5:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I was just playing around in my last post, but I decided to do some research on world wide rankings among countries. The U.S ranked at the top in every category.
#125 Apr 17 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Your ignorance of me and the Signal Corps is enlightening. One would think that a light bulb would go off for you..... but then again I suppose mindless, biased, immature and ignorant people aren't as capable to pick up such clues..

I mean think about it, being the number one country in the world, we sure are kicking people's butt with "two tin cans and a string". Maybe you should get with the program?

I have to admit, my first thought when I saw "signal corps" was the guys on the deck of an aircraft carrier waving flags. I was going to call you the color guard of the military.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#126 Apr 17 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Debalic wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Your ignorance of me and the Signal Corps is enlightening. One would think that a light bulb would go off for you..... but then again I suppose mindless, biased, immature and ignorant people aren't as capable to pick up such clues..

I mean think about it, being the number one country in the world, we sure are kicking people's butt with "two tin cans and a string". Maybe you should get with the program?

I have to admit, my first thought when I saw "signal corps" was the guys on the deck of an aircraft carrier waving flags. I was going to call you the color guard of the military.


I love my Wig-wags !!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 316 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (316)