Do we really have freedom of speech?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Pithikos, Apr 24, 2013.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    When America was formed, freedom of speech meant the right to speak the truth without fear from the strong arm of royalty and self serving law. It was not designed so people could act like a-holes toward each other, but rather to make sure truth was not censored by force, politics and games of subjectivity. PC censor uses the force of law, to restrict free speech as the precursor to censoring the truth. Original America was trying to get away from this.

    This change from the original common sense of the founding fathers, had to do with the feminization of culture; emotion over reason. This caused a regression backwards to what the colonists were getting away from. Say it is 1776, and the colonist complain about taxes and lack of representation. This is all objective truth, but it hurts the king's feelings that anyone should complain. He has the money already spent. Should logic and facts be ignored to spare his feelings? The king gets mad and will want to punish them for daring to spit in his face with facts. People knew this and were afraid to speak out since it could go looney.

    This is modern culture is a nutshell (full of whiney nuts). Say the king says the colonists are a bunch of hicks and don't deserve to vote and should pay more taxes. This hurts the feelings of the colonists, do the colonists have to take it, since the king can use his version of the liberal dual standard to enhance his power via censor?

    When President Obama first ran he was the Messiah and King. The Tea Party appears as a rebellion against taxation without representation since costs were going up such as with Obama-care even though the majority did not want it. The ground work for the regression back to the monarchy had been set by liberalism via the subjective censor of free speech. The Tea Party is not treated with facts and data, but only with subjectivity (bunch of kooks) designed to diminish their message. Censor is a direct function of a subjective standard. An objective standard has higher standard.

    Freedom of speech was not designed around subjectivity but an objective standard of truth. How would you define an objective standard which means the same for all?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Crazy talk from crazy man who doesn't know the difference between a law (defamation, hate crime), right enshrined in the Constitution (freedom of speech, freedom of the press), and social convention (PC). Wellwisher may be a racist bastard but in railing against the "menace of PC" he is just saying he wants to restrict other people's speech about his non-adoption of social conventions. Wellwisher also wishes to restrict the speech of people who hold beliefs different than his. Rather than being an advocate of freedom, Wellwisher mostly advocates a tyranny of his values over all others.

    Exchemist reasonably argues that freedom of speech doesn't extend to starting a panic where human life would predictably be put in peril, such as scaring a large crowd in a space with narrow exists, inciting to riot, or sharing government secrets with foreign powers.

    Here I basically call Wellwisher's claims baseless, and label his misunderstanding of what PC means and how what he is insisting is not a freedom of speech but a totalitarian insistence on a freedom from speech.

    Like an insane person, while advocating his insane version of "freedom of speech" -- he offers as an example of its "failure" with a letter of complaint which does not say what he thinks it says and alleges a lawsuit where none is evident.

    You even have a right to state your dishonest opinion, which is why freedom of speech encompasses novels and poetry. You don't have a statutory right to defraud people with your dishonest opinion. You can sell a false story, but you are punished if you extract money from people by promising them riches that you had no intention of attempting to deliver. "PC", leopold correctly determines, never enters into it.

    I was almost certainly removed from a jury because when questioned on the topic I expressed my honest opinion about how I feel about children, which I view as having many of the flaws of humanity in greater portions than adults.

    Again, you are describing the criticism of your sensible neighbors, not the law.

    Exactly. Illegal = against the law. Non-PC = against your neighbor's estimates of what is civil and appropriate.

    Included for completeness.

    The socially conditioned out-of-date advocate of tyranny complains that other people's social conditioning is not the same as his. He speaks of a mythical age when "paddy", "kike", "chink", "spic" and "nigger" were hallmarks of great family fun and not tools of oppression by people who self-identified with the ruling elite.

    Sensible. Actual comedies from the 1940's had frequently had racist caricatures, plots involving cross-dressing and black face because it was farcical for people identified with the ruling elite to hide among the outgroup. Outgroups like women, cooleys, black people of any description, etc. Now films like "The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu" or "You Only Live Twice" or "The Klumps" can be just hard to watch in places. (OK, I admit. I have never seen "The Klumps.")

    Could use a little more distinction between "PC" and actual laws than enhance crimes due to stated motives or invective.

    This post came with a video that I wish the poster had taken space to summarize.

    I agree in that I believe the people who need to control their emotions (like sense of outrage) would be the listeners. That is probably not what wellwisher meant. I'm still waiting for his reply to my response to his first post.

    You undercut this point when you complain about the PC social convention that it is bad form to address a stranger with a racist appellation. That is acting like an a-hole because you see the stranger first as a "Chinaman" rather than first as a person, but the egg foremostly on your face when it turns out honorable stranger actually famous actor Peter Sellers. Ah so!

    Also, if you knew anything about the Declaration of Independence, you would know that America is founded on acting like a-holes.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Well done rpenner!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    President Obama was never the “Messiah and King”. That is Republican/conservative fiction.

    The Tea Party appeared in April of 2009. It appears to have been a reaction to conservative/Republican political and economic failures and was sponsored, financed by, corporatists like the Koch Brothers, the tobacco industry and Fox News. The notion that the Tea Party was somehow a rebellion against taxation without representation is rather odd for several reasons. One, those who are taxed in this country do have representation. Republicans/conservatives just didn’t like the fact that tax payers/voters rejected their political and economic agenda in November by handing the Senate, the House and the Presidency to Democrats. Just because your party loses the election, it doesn’t follow that you are not represented. Both sides in Washington are supposed to work together, negotiate and compromise for the good of the nation. Unfortunately, negotiation and compromise have become profane words in American conservative culture. It is all their way all the time or no way – the health and welfare of the nation be damned. And it is further evidenced with their reliance on the Hastert Rule (i.e. Majority of the Majority Rule) whereby nothing goes to vote unless it is approved by the majority of the Republican majority, which effectively neuters representation of Democrats. Democrats have no Hastert Rule. Perhaps Republicans were getting a bit fearful that Democrats would treat Republicans like Republicans treated them? It didn't happened. Democrats bent over backwards to appease Republicans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_of_the_majority


    Two, tax rates in this country are the lowest they have been for more than 60 years . . . kind of an odd time to stage a tax protest.

    As for Obamacare, most people are for all of the provisions of Obamacare. What they are not for are the myths, the lies, about Obamacare that were invented and promulgated by Republicans. They are not for healthcare rationing. They are not for “death panels” or for any of the other lies Republicans/conservatives were and continue to say about Obamacare. But reality is about to bite these Republican lies in a few months when Obamacare is fully implemented. As President Obama has recently remarked 85% of Obamacare is already in place and guess what, the Sun still rises in the East and sets in the West every day.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That is yet another bit of demagoguery. No one is censoring free speech. Can you prove this claim? No you cannot, because it is a direct lie or a reflection of your paranoid delusions. And you wonder why people think you guys are bunch of kooks?

    And again, where is your proof that the Tea Party is not treated with facts and data? That is yet again another Republican/conservative myth . . . a lie. The facts are the Tea Party advocates policies that are not endorsed by subject matter experts and in many case run contrary to common sense. The Tea Party diminishes itself by going against science, against empiricism and rational thought. Further the Tea Party is a movement financed by the conservative elites who use it to manipulate the conservative masses by playing on their cognitive biases. The reality is no one is censoring the Tea Party or anyone else. That is just one of the many delusions you conservative folk operate under every moment of every day. If you act like kooks, walk like kooks, talk like kooks, smell like kooks, you shouldn’t be surprised when people begin to think you are kooks.

    You and your conservative fellows should listen to the few conservatives who have voiced the truth about the “dumbing down of conservatism” in The United States (i.e. Governor Jindal, former Congressman Joe Scarborough, et al.) rather than the voices in the Republican/conservative entertainment industry.

    “In an interview with Politico, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized the Republican party as too anti-intellectual and too beholden to the wealthy.
    He said that “offensive, bizarre” comments have damaged the party’s brand. “We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism,” he added. “We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.” – Washington Post, Rachel Weiner.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...13/bobby-jindal-we-cant-be-dumbed-down-party/

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...omneys-2012-loss-you-punch-them-in-the-face/#

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83743.html

    If the conservative/Republican entertainment industry were confined to telling nothing but the truth, its broadcasts would be nothing more than dead air time . . . kind of like watching grass grow.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,102
    Confusing free speech with unrestricted volume of noise emission prevents comprehension of the issue, and (as with confusion and erosion of reason generally) gives leverage to power, to the speech squelchers.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    in my opinion freedom of speech does not cover writing poetry or fiction or anything else.
    that is covered by freedom of the press.
    furthermore the above freedoms were written in hindsight, not foresight.
    i also believe that both freedoms were laid down so that the common man can directly address the government without fear of reprisal.
    example:
    common man to government: (insert vile, derogatory phrase here)
    government: that's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
    common man to common man: (insert same derogatory phrase)
    you definitely stand a chance of being sued for assault.

    so, i believe both freedoms were laid down for the redress of grievances against the government, not so you can call your neighbor names.
     
  10. Pithikos Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    There is no evidence that shows that women are more emotional and less rational than men. The only evidence is that they have an easier time of showing their emotions. Men have been taught by society that it's not acceptable for them to shed tears and that they have to look masculine.
     
  11. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The distinction has to do with natural instinct and natural selection, which is conserved on the DNA. The DNA changes very slowly according to science. New fads and liberal sales pitches do not change the DNA overnight.

    The female historically, since primal times, took care of the babies and small children, with emotion the most efficient way to orientate, herself, to the real time needs of children. The child cannot provide a rational analysis of his state of mind. He may play through hunger. Rather he gives off emotional output such as happy, sad, mad, afraid, etc., which the mother will interpret based on her connection to her children. The rise of social dependency means the rise of children and nannies. Independence is when dad takes over to show the male child how to be a leader of his own family. These skills are missing because culture is stuck at emotion; nanny state.

    The instinctive male had to face danger in the field, each day, during hunting and group protection. Under these situations you can't go by emotions, since other critters are not human babies. You may have to confront fear to cross a river. You need to shut off emotion and use logic to see the longer term need. If the lion is calm and being playful, you can't use this emotional cue like you would with a child. The lion is still dangerous. Emotional cause and effect break down beyond humans and domestic animals, so you need another way to predict which may not equate to family emotions. Under all emotional states, beware of the lion.

    Most of PC word censor caters to the emotions of dependent children. We don't wish to hurt feelings. But there is not enough logic in this approach to see that catering to feelings is not what men need, although it may help women and children.

    What I would like to see are males making their own rules that applies to males, while women can be PC if that is what women feel will optimize the females and small children. I don't claim to know what is best for females. I don't think females know what is best for males.

    Picture a spoiled child whom we will judge first by emotions and them by logic. We can cater to his feelings like a baby, but this is not preparing him for the adult world, where strangers won't cater to him. He likes the crust cut off his bread and buttered on six sides or he cries. This approach is short term thinking, which is all you need for a small child who is changing day to day. But it is not for adults approaching steady state since the world won't cooperate. I would pity is wife; set up for failure. I don't mind saying good job to a child, for anything, to encourage them to try. But after a certain age, there needs to be cause and effect in reality for such praise.

    Getting back to the spoiled child, we can also use logic and see future problems and then attempt to fix this. This may hurt the child's feelings, since he is not being catered too; butter your own toast. The logical approach is a better immune system response against the needs of the future. He may reject the vaccine and get sick but once healthy he is better off; set up for success in marriage.

    He needs to become self reliant and has to deal with people who will not cater to him. Freedom of speech is preserved. This may be for men only, since females seem to prefer the short term emotional approach. They like the bad boy because he lies. The females may not be able to do this since their instinct is geared around babies and small children and they may want to delay the maturity in the child to preserve their own instinctive connection. She can set him up for divorce.

    The break up of the family and the difficult role of female as both mother and pseudo-father, makes it harder for some male children to become natural male. Women have an imaginary image of a male, molded by propaganda, There are more he-she's in culture, simply due to lack of male examples. A few generations of he-she's and there are few males left.
     
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    That is a big dump of various biases. I don’t suppose you could support any of these biases/claims with evidence or reason?
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Let me give an example. According to modern liberalism, male and female roles are conditioned by cultural norms. It has little to do with natural male and female instinct and conservative DNA stemming from natural selection. On the hand, being homosexual is based on instinct and conservative DNA and is therefore not conditioned by culture. These treat DNA in opposite ways, and therefore both cannot be true at the same time. Either all are based on long term natural selection and conservative DNA, which means male, female and homosexual propensities are all based on genes, or male, female and homosexual behavior are all conditioned.

    On an emotional level, if goal is a certain warm fuzzy feeling of security, white lies can work and logical inconsistencies can be justified since the warm fuzzy ends justifies the means. The dual standard can also work emotionally, but neither work rationally since it lacks logical consistency. If I was trying to explain this logical inconsistency to someone.,who orientates themselves with feelings, this will make no sense since it appears to generate the correct feelings.

    Feelings are part of our human nature and are very important. They work best in smaller intimate groups where compromises may be needed to maintain a high level of group rapport. Logical inconsistencies can be used to induce a wider range of emotions such as male/female interaction. But feelings are not as useful for dealing with physical reality, but only how we wish it to be. Wishing can have unintended consequences. When women left their role in marriage (natural emotional glue), who would have predicted the epic decline of the family. The premise of wishful emotion was both male and female are conditioned by culture, therefore either way will work the same. It did not pan out at the rational level.

    If we go back to freedom of speech, and emotional orientations versus rational orientations, emotional tries to conclude with a feeling and will censor whatever might upset that feeling. It will even allow lies (you look skinny in that dress) if it helps the final feeling. The problem with catering to feelings is if lying can make people feel better why not lie all the time until reality is lost? This will not work at the rational level since bad data and bad analysis are detrimental to sound reasoning.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    What a convoluted load of crap! I again ask; can you prove any of the many things you have alleged? I think we both know the answer is a very clear and definite NO. Your post reveals strong cognitive biases, and an undisciplined and poorly informed mind. I would wager you know nothing about psychology or personality typing.

    Below are a few links to get you started:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_type

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

    You are very clearly a victim of your cognitive biases.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
     
  15. rpenner Fully Wired Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,833
  16. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Boy oh Boy are you a pompous ass . I am a bias person so what Do I have to surrender my view . You constantly ask for evidence . There are many people condemned not by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence , which means shi** and the state pays a lot of money because evidence slapped upon them.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    LOL, threatened by a little honesty, evidence and reason are you? Yes, I am for evidence and am grounded in reason and reality. I am glad you admit your bias. Biases are short cuts in the thought process that can and do lead to errors. Biases, especially political biases allow folks like you to be easily manipulated.

    I am not against evidence, circumstantial or direct. The problem with your conservative ideology is that you have little if any evidence either circumstantial or direct and one has to wear blinders in order to make sense of the ideology. You conservatives are challenged even to make a cogent argument.

    You can have your views of the world, if you want to be an unwitting pawn to be manipulated by special interests that want to take you down the path of economic degradation that is fine. But I won’t be going with you. And I will be yelling loudly, hoping to awaken at least a few of you sleepwalkers. How well did George Junior work out for you? He and his fellow Republicans/conservative ran the country into the ground, creating huge deficits. Their fiscal policies were so profligate that even Georgie’s handpicked Treasury Secretary could not go along with them.

    “O'Neill was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by George W. Bush. O'Neill was an outspoken member of the administration, often saying things to the press that went against the administration's party line, and doing unusual things like taking a tour of Africa with singer Bono.
    A report commissioned in 2002 by O'Neill, while he was Treasury Secretary, suggested the United States faced future federal budget deficits of more than US$ 500 billion. The report also suggested that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts, or both would be unavoidable if the United States were to meet benefit promises to its future generations. The study estimated that closing the budget gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase. The Bush administration left the findings out of the 2004 annual budget report published in February 2003.[citation needed]
    O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies and his push to further investigate alleged al-Qaeda funding from some American-allied countries, as well as his objection to the invasion of Iraq in the name of the war on terror — that he considered as nothing but a simple excuse for a war decided long before by neoconservative elements of the first Bush Administration — led to him being fired[1] in 2002 and replaced with John W. Snow.
    Ron Suskind interviewed O'Neill extensively about his tenure in the Bush Administration. He was also given access to a large amount of documentation. In 2004 he produced the book The Price of Loyalty, detailing O'Neill's tenure in the Bush Administration.[6] The book describes many of the conflicts that O'Neill had with the Bush administration. For example, O'Neill was a great arguer and discusser of ideas; however when he approached Mr. Cheney and attempted to engage in dialog, the Vice President would simply nod his head, and thank him for his ideas. The book also details O'Neill's criticisms of some of Bush's economic policies. Bush appears somewhat unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office, even though Bush had promised not to engage in nation building during his campaign.[7][8] – Wikipedia

    So who do you conservatives blame for those transgressions? The fictional RINO . . .REALLY! Those RINOs are still leading your party and your entertainment industry. Folks like Ryan, Boehner, McConnell and the rest of the lot voted for every profligate spending measure which was passed during the George II administration, the unfunded and bungled wars, the unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded entitlement expansions, etc. And Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Rupert Murdoch, Glen Beck, et al. were all there cheering them on and they are still there, still cheering on elected Republicans and still leading the masses who prefer biases over evidence and reason.

    If you needed surgery, do you want a well-trained surgeon using decades of empirical sciences and evidence based learning doing the surgery or some yahoo off the street doing it relying on his biases and intuition? I am with the surgeon every time. You and your fellow Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated your affinity for the yahoo off the streets. You shouldn’t be surprised by the results.
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2013
  18. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    By the way Bush junior for me should be prosecuted as a war criminal and his vice president, He is your kind with evidence of weapon of mass destruction and between him and the clown Regan made the biggest deficit for this nation . So don't mix me with sympathizing with them. Regan wanted to show his power and he did by invading Granada
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    No, Georgie was not an evidence kind of guy; he had no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. History has shown it was an excuse which was not backed up with evidence or reason just like every other thing he did while in office save one, bailing out the banking industry.

    And the reality is that people like you are still supporting Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rupert Murdoch, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al. and those are the people who brought you George II and his cronies like McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, et al. who are still in office. You guys nominated Ryan as your vice presidential candidate last year.
     
  20. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564


    Fired for word: 'Negro' in Spanish class
    One of the first lessons one learns in English class is that context is everything. The same holds true in Spanish.

    Take the case of Petrona Smith. She says in a lawsuit that she was fired from teaching at Bronx PS 211 in March 2012 after a seventh-grader reported that she'd used the "N" word, according to The New York Post.

    'Negro.'

    Smith doesn't deny using the word. But she argues that everyone uses it, when speaking Spanish. She was teaching the Spanish words for different colors, and the color "black" in Spanish is "negro." She also taught the junior high school students, in this bilingual school, that the Spanish term for black people is "moreno." And by the
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Do you have proof or are you just repeating Republican/conservative lies? Two, just because an allegation is made, it does not make it true. The Republican blogosphere is not known for its honesty.
     
  22. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Thank Read-Only, the teacher has made an allegation. That does not make it true. I suspect the school district will have a slightly different story to tell. It sounds like the teacher had other issues going (i.e. control and communication problems).
     

Share This Page