Do we really have freedom of speech?

Weren't you recently going after someone because they were being noisy?
i bet i hit it on the head with loud radios at toll booths.
bet?
then again he might have a bad case of niggermortis.
don't like those black boys and their rap.
 
What ever the guy complains , he wants to be left alone , the government is FORCING him to spend his money
Don't give me your reasoning the point here is freedom, The guy is there since 1958 and is 1/4 of a mile from the other plot .

It most certainly IS about freedom! It's about his neighbors and others sharing the same underground water source having the freedom from disease! Ever heard of Typhoid Mary, silly boy?? And there are other infectious agents as well that can pass from humans to other humans through their drinking water.

This a prime example of what we've been telling you about many laws and regulations are in place to protect our freedoms. (But of course you're to dense to understand this health matter as an example of that.)
 
Better than giving his neighbors dysentery.



Weren't you recently going after someone because they were being noisy?

Yes after the government , who sets laws, for the citizen and the same government violate or disregards the law of noise pollution and water contamination.
 
It most certainly IS about freedom! It's about his neighbors and others sharing the same underground water source having the freedom from disease! Ever heard of Typhoid Mary, silly boy?? And there are other infectious agents as well that can pass from humans to other humans through their drinking water.

This a prime example of what we've been telling you about many laws and regulations are in place to protect our freedoms. (But of course you're to dense to understand this health matter as an example of that.)

Good, keep protecting and regulating
 
Yes after the government , who sets laws, for the citizen and the same government violate or disregards the law of noise pollution and water contamination.

Ah. So when you demand the government regulate noise to protect your poor sensitive ears, you are for freedom and liberty. When someone else demands the government keep fecal matter out of the water supply, they hate freedom. Got it.
 
Ah. So when you demand the government regulate noise to protect your poor sensitive ears, you are for freedom and liberty. When someone else demands the government keep fecal matter out of the water supply, they hate freedom. Got it.

In this mans case , he was there since 1958 probable prior such an ordnance was in place , so he have his right and if the bloody government changes the rules , the individual should be compensate to make in order to comply whit the new rule. My case have some similarity.
 
In this mans case , he was there since 1958 probable prior such an ordnance was in place , so he have his right and if the bloody government changes the rules , the individual should be compensate to make in order to comply whit the new rule.

"Don't poop in my water" is not all that unreasonable a request.

I would propose an alternative for him. Require him to put in a well directly below his outhouse and drink the water that comes from it. That would no doubt be far cheaper. Then let him do whatever he likes.

My case have some similarity.

So you should compensate the toll booth operator for removing his freedom?
 
"Don't poop in my water" is not all that unreasonable a request.

I would propose an alternative for him. Require him to put in a well directly below his outhouse and drink the water that comes from it. That would no doubt be far cheaper. Then let him do whatever he likes.



So you should compensate the toll booth operator for removing his freedom?


Sorry pal as far the well you don't make any sense .y you are a city dweller .
I quit on this discussion it does not make any sense any more .
 
Ah. So when you demand the government regulate noise to protect your poor sensitive ears, you are for freedom and liberty. When someone else demands the government keep fecal matter out of the water supply, they hate freedom. Got it.

Well said. His double-standard approach is clearly visible. He's just a whiner that wants everything HIS way - anything else is government government oppression.
 
Sorry pal as far the well you don't make any sense .y you are a city dweller .
I quit on this discussion it does not make any sense any more .

Your side of it never made any sense; everyone else made plenty of sense.

So, since you cannot defeat truth and logic - since you don't have any - you decide to take the coward's way out. As I said earlier, you have NO integrity since you cannot admit you were wrong. Figures - losers do that quite a bit.
 
The UK had a debate recently about a Blair-inspired law to prohibit being rude about people's religions. The idea was thrown out, I think rightly, because it was pointed out that a religion is a voluntarily adopted belief system, that must expect to be challenged by those who do not subscribe to it. Unlike, say, being black, which is an accident of birth, or being Indian, which is an accident of culture. Or being homosexual which, whatever its causes, is a state you can't do much about. So I'm not really surprised that the state over time enshrines some of these basic politenesses in law. And as a European, I am conscious of where unpleasant rabble-rousing has sometimes led in history. So I have no trouble buying the idea of a limited trade-off between total freedom and peace in our streets.

I think that is the most rational thing I saw so far. So mocking opinions and beliefs can be seen as an ok thing to do while mocking skin color not. So then even inheritage and history goes with the skin-color group which makes it very sensible. Thanks for your input. I found the debate btw if anyone else is interested to see:

[video=youtube;ddsz9XBhrYA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA[/video]
 
Sorry pal as far the well you don't make any sense .y you are a city dweller .

Nope. My nearest neighbor to the north is about a mile; my nearest neighbor to the east is about half a mile, and west is about 3 miles. I have a lot more room than the guy in your example.

I quit on this discussion it does not make any sense any more .

Sorry; are we making you think too much?
 
Your side of it never made any sense; everyone else made plenty of sense.

So, since you cannot defeat truth and logic - since you don't have any - you decide to take the coward's way out. As I said earlier, you have NO integrity since you cannot admit you were wrong. Figures - losers do that quite a bit.



Mr. wisdom please read the first 11 posts including your own and analyze them what are the comments about the freedom of speech , and you will see how wrong you are. It will tell you that freedom of speech is restricted by laws and
I add the more laws there are the less freedom a society have.
your point is " Laws are enacted to protect us. If you are as intelligent as you pose yourself , you would agree , that laws restrict society from freedom.

Now are there countries that have more freedom then the USA. If you apply the logic: that countries that have lesser number of laws then the USA , then you have to agree , that those countries have more freedom then there is in the USA.
Please digest my position , then answer
 
Freedom of speech requires mature people who can control emotions. When I was young they used to teach "sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me." This saying was based on an objective standard. Sticks and stones can hurt you even if you try to will it away because there is a cause and effect in hard reality based on physics. But names are noises or sounds that cannot hurt you, based on objective laws of science. These require subjective influences in your mind. This saying was from a more masculine time of history with logic put before emotion. Feminism changed it the other way.

Once emotion gets the better of reason, then freedom of speech suffers because now invisible sticks and stones appear to be rain down everywhere, with only certain people able to see various types of invisible sticks and stones. Not everyone is having this trip nor can you always tell which trip they are on. But to be safe freedom of speech is diminished.

I like the old way where only real stuff was treated as real. Con artists benefitted by the trip version.
 
If you apply the logic: that countries that have lesser number of laws then the USA , then you have to agree , that those countries have more freedom then there is in the USA.
Freedom is a vector that has more than one component. Laws are certainly one, but so is persecution by other groups. Ethnicity, religion, social class, sex, age, language, caste and sexual orientation are just some of the many ways in which majorities persecute minorities.

There are certainly many countries in which the laws merely institutionalize and facilitate this persecution. In these cases the laws do not increase freedom for the majority because it's a freedom they already had, and they do not increase freedom for the minority because it's a freedom they still don't have.

But there are other countries in which the laws strive to mitigate this persecution. The government of France, for example, does not even identify its people by ethnicity or religion. Its legal system prosecutes a "hate crime" by a member of the majority against a member of a minority as it would prosecute the same crime if it were between two people of the same status.

Most Western countries fall somewhere in between, but since WWII we have been struggling, with great success, against institutional tolerance of hate crimes or simply discrimination.

Sure, it could be argued that all the new civil rights laws restrict the freedom of the majority, since we can no longer call Afro-Americans n*****s and use similar offensive names for other minorities, and moreover we are no longer allowed to discriminate against them in employment, housing, or any service in the public sphere (we're still allowed to choose our friends by any criteria we want, but not the people who shop in our stores, work in our businesses, or rent our apartments). But this has increased the freedom of the people who previously suffered discrimination so greatly that, on the balance, the American people in aggregate have more freedom.

The same is true of laws regarding the environment. Sure, my freedom is restricted by not being allowed to dump sewage in the river or blow tobacco smoke into the air in a restaurant. But it so greatly increases the freedom of the people who drink that water or breathe that air, that once again, aggregate freedom has been enhanced.

And on the other hand, there are countries where the laws favor manufacturers, allowing them to pollute the air and the water. Laws can do both harm and good.

So you're going to have to come up with a much better argument if you want to convince anybody that countries with fewer laws always or even usually have more freedom than those with more.
 
Mr. wisdom please read the first 11 posts including your own and analyze them what are the comments about the freedom of speech , and you will see how wrong you are. It will tell you that freedom of speech is restricted by laws and
I add the more laws there are the less freedom a society have.
your point is " Laws are enacted to protect us. If you are as intelligent as you pose yourself , you would agree , that laws restrict society from freedom.
Now are there countries that have more freedom then the USA. If you apply the logic: that countries that have lesser number of laws then the USA , then you have to agree , that those countries have more freedom then there is in the USA.
Please digest my position , then answer

What a convoluted load of crap! I think you had better reread Read-Only’s posts and then take your own advice and contemplate what he has written instead of mindlessly repeating conservative talking points that are repeated ad nauseum daily in all the various branches of the Republican/conservative entertainment industry.

You cannot get specific, you cannot answer the questions that have been put to you. Because if you did, you would have to admit to the vacuous nature of your argument and commentary. All you can do is what you have done and what the many ditto heads before you have done is dump and run.
 
It will tell you that freedom of speech is restricted by laws and I add the more laws there are the less freedom a society have.

Freedom of speech is restricted by people like you - people who want to silence tollbooth operators because they don't want to hear what's coming out of their booth.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. (That's an English expression that means "if you demand others be quiet, don't complain when you are told to be quiet.)
 
Back
Top