|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 15:47:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 18:20:47 GMT -5
Is there a difference between banning correct ideas and banning wrong ideas?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 19:33:37 GMT -5
Is there a difference between banning correct ideas and banning wrong ideas?
No.
Once you start to ban ideas, the only criterion for determining which ideas are "correct" or "wrong" will be: Which ideas do the people in power want banned?
What's the matter McAnswer? Have you lost faith in Foucault's narrative about power being subtle and you are now ready for more overt forms of repression?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 14:20:35 GMT -5
Is there a difference between banning correct ideas and banning wrong ideas? No. Once you start to ban ideas, the only criterion for determining which ideas are "correct" or "wrong" will be: Which ideas do the people in power want banned? Non sequitur. You don't need to ask people in power to determine whether an idea is correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 14:21:49 GMT -5
What's the matter McAnswer? Have you lost faith in Foucault's narrative about power being subtle and you are now ready for more overt forms of repression? Bob
I'm against all forms of repression. I just think that your conception of government is inconsistent bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2019 15:09:27 GMT -5
No. Once you start to ban ideas, the only criterion for determining which ideas are "correct" or "wrong" will be: Which ideas do the people in power want banned? Non sequitur. You don't need to ask people in power to determine whether an idea is correct.
No. But you do need people in power if you want to ban ideas, don't you?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2019 15:13:16 GMT -5
I'm against all forms of repression. Well you have a funny way of showing that your against repression. Eliminating Free Speech is definitely repression, isn't it? Argument by Insult, presented without any supporting evidence at all.
Would you prefer the Soviet System where ideas that were considered "wrong" were banned and their proponents sent to the Gulag or the firing squad?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 17:20:58 GMT -5
Non sequitur. You don't need to ask people in power to determine whether an idea is correct. No. But you do need people in power if you want to ban ideas, don't you? Bob
Are you saying that there are no restrictions what a government can do? If there aren't, then why are you still advocating for a libertarian government?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2019 17:21:46 GMT -5
I'm against all forms of repression. Well you have a funny way of showing that your against repression. Eliminating Free Speech is definitely repression, isn't it? There is no such thing as free speech, just like there is no such thing as a free lunch. You asked me about my opinion, it's not my problem if you don't like my reply.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 10, 2019 19:01:16 GMT -5
Well you have a funny way of showing that your against repression. Eliminating Free Speech is definitely repression, isn't it? There is no such thing as free speech, just like there is no such thing as a free lunch. You must have been in a big rush when you posted that because you forgot to give any supporting evidence for your claim. You said "I'm against all forms of repression." Apparently you think that getting rid of Free Speech is not repression. Does that mean when you hear about some dictator locking up journalists, that your not upset at all because "there is no such thing as free speech"? You gave your "opinion" without any supporting evidence. Do you have any evidence or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 6:42:17 GMT -5
There is no such thing as free speech, just like there is no such thing as a free lunch. You must have been in a big rush when you posted that because you forgot to give any supporting evidence for your claim. I also didn't give any supporting evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist, I guess that means Santa must be real! Since there is no free speech, nobody is "getting rid" of anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 6:46:53 GMT -5
Is there a difference between banning correct ideas and banning wrong ideas? No. Once you start to ban ideas, the only criterion for determining which ideas are "correct" or "wrong" will be: Which ideas do the people in power want banned? So libel laws are wrong and must be struck from the law books?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 11, 2019 11:46:08 GMT -5
You must have been in a big rush when you posted that because you forgot to give any supporting evidence for your claim. I also didn't give any supporting evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist, I guess that means Santa must be real! Santa Claus was not under discussion. Free Speech was. And you gave no supporting evidence for your claims about Free Speech. Fine. So then you have no objection when journalists are arrested for criticizing the government, right? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 11, 2019 11:49:01 GMT -5
No. Once you start to ban ideas, the only criterion for determining which ideas are "correct" or "wrong" will be: Which ideas do the people in power want banned? So libel laws are wrong and must be struck from the law books?
Libel laws are civil matters between individuals. They are not Criminal Offenses where the government arrests and prosecutes people.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 11:50:55 GMT -5
I also didn't give any supporting evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist, I guess that means Santa must be real! Santa Claus was not under discussion. Free Speech was. And you gave no supporting evidence for your claims about Free Speech. So you are saying that I have to assume that Santa Claus exists until I have found evidence disproving his existence?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 11:52:55 GMT -5
So libel laws are wrong and must be struck from the law books? Libel laws are civil matters between individuals. They are not Criminal Offenses where the government arrests and prosecutes people. Bob
So it is okay if the law distinguishes between correct and incorrect speech, but only in civil matters. Does that mean the government shouldn't prosecute fraud as a crime?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 15:03:30 GMT -5
Fine. So then you have no objection when journalists are arrested for criticizing the government, right? These people are still being repressed by a government, so obviously I would object. Governments are evil and therefore must be resisted.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 20:03:35 GMT -5
Santa Claus was not under discussion. Free Speech was. And you gave no supporting evidence for your claims about Free Speech. So you are saying that I have to assume that Santa Claus exists until I have found evidence disproving his existence?
No. I am saying that you have to back up your claims about Free Speech instead of constantly trying to change the subject.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 20:18:53 GMT -5
Libel laws are civil matters between individuals. They are not Criminal Offenses where the government arrests and prosecutes people. So it is okay if the law distinguishes between correct and incorrect speech, but only in civil matters. Your question is incoherent. Libel law does not distinguish between "correct and incorrect speech." Definition of Slander: "noun LAW 1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." www.google.com/search?q=slander+definition&oq=slander+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7703j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8So Slander has nothing at all to do with "Correct" or "incorrect" speech Slander has to do with speech that produces damage to a person's reputation. Fraud is not Slander or Libel. Different words, different meanings. "Fraud noun wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." www.google.com/search?q=fraud&oq=fraud&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4311j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8"Deception intended to result in financial gain" is simply another form of theft. And theft is a crime. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 20:21:40 GMT -5
Fine. So then you have no objection when journalists are arrested for criticizing the government, right? These people are still being repressed by a government, so obviously I would object. Governments are evil and therefore must be resisted.
How are these reporters being "repressed" for writing articles against the government?
On June 10 at 6:21 PM, you posted "There is no such thing as free speech, just like there is no such thing as a free lunch."
So how are these reporters being "repressed?"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 21:52:02 GMT -5
These people are still being repressed by a government, so obviously I would object. Governments are evil and therefore must be resisted. How are these reporters being "repressed" for writing articles against the government?
On June 10 at 6:21 PM, you posted "There is no such thing as free speech, just like there is no such thing as a free lunch." So how are these reporters being "repressed?" Bob
You just said that they were being imprisoned. Were you lying about that?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 22:15:25 GMT -5
How are these reporters being "repressed" for writing articles against the government?
On June 10 at 6:21 PM, you posted "There is no such thing as free speech, just like there is no such thing as a free lunch." So how are these reporters being "repressed?" Bob
You just said that they were being imprisoned. Were you lying about that?
You said they were being "repressed", not me. Take a look at my posts. I put "repressed" in quotation marks.
I did that because I was quoting you.
Can't you tell the difference between what you said and what I said?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 12:15:34 GMT -5
No, I actually can tell the difference. Can you? Here's a refresher, in case you're doing your moron dance again: Fine. So then you have no objection when journalists are arrested for criticizing the government, right? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 13:49:14 GMT -5
No, I actually can tell the difference. Can you? Here's a refresher, in case you're doing your moron dance again: Fine. So then you have no objection when journalists are arrested for criticizing the government, right? Bob
Why didn't you bother to post your reply to my above question? On June 12 at 921 PM, you replied:
"These people are still being repressed by a government, so obviously I would object."
So you did say that the reporters were being repressed, didn't you?
But if there is no such thing as "Free Speech", then how can you claim they are being "repressed?"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 16:30:51 GMT -5
I don't know, clearly I can only believe that imprisoning people is only bad if I believe in Randianism!
You [Expletive deleted by Admin] moron. Of course imprisoning people is repression.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 18:34:24 GMT -5
I don't know, clearly I can only believe that imprisoning people is only bad if I believe in Randianism! You [Expletive deleted by Admin] moron. Of course imprisoning people is repression. Insults mean you don't have a good answer.
You say that there is no Freedom of Speech. Yet you get upset when reporters are thrown in prison for exercising their Freedom of Speech.
And you call me a moron?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:45:13 GMT -5
I don't know, clearly I can only believe that imprisoning people is only bad if I believe in Randianism! You [Expletive deleted by Admin] moron. Of course imprisoning people is repression. Insults mean you don't have a good answer. You say that there is no Freedom of Speech. Yet you get upset when reporters are thrown in prison for exercising their Freedom of Speech. I don't "get upset". I am simply calling it repression, because, as I have already said but you ignored it as usual, throwing people in jail is repression. Maybe try reading occasionally?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 10:40:00 GMT -5
Insults mean you don't have a good answer. You say that there is no Freedom of Speech. Yet you get upset when reporters are thrown in prison for exercising their Freedom of Speech. I don't "get upset". I am simply calling it repression, because, as I have already said but you ignored it as usual, throwing people in jail is repression. Maybe try reading occasionally?
Well Duh! If there is no Freedom of Speech (which you claimed) then how do you stop people from pretending there is?
Easy one. When people try to exercise their non-existent Freedom of Speech, the government throws them in jail.
You can't have it both ways McAnswer.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 11:42:12 GMT -5
Riddle me this, Bobby boy:
How exactly does it prove the existence of free speech when journalists are being thrown into jail?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 12:27:39 GMT -5
Riddle me this, Bobby boy:
How exactly does it prove the existence of free speech when journalists are being thrown into jail?
You have to be kidding. My point was if there is no such thing as Free Speech, then why are you complaining that journalists are being thrown in jail?
What exactly are you claiming is being "repressed" if not their Right of Free Speech?
Bob
|
|