Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Town Quixote's

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    So you think that a just society is one that practices censorship? Or is it your friend who does?
    I don't know how you got that from either of us. I explicitly said he wasn't saying it and I don't recall my saying it either. Unless you're mostly talking about self-censorship and the encouragement of friends.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life






    Comment


    • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      I don't know how you got that from either of us. I explicitly said he wasn't saying it and I don't recall my saying it either. Unless you're mostly talking about self-censorship and the encouragement of friends.
      The right to free speech is inalienable, no matter how offensive the exercise of the right is to anybody. There's everything right about challenging why someone is saying whatever they're saying, and it's wrong to make laws authorizing police to penalize people for saying something offensive. When the matter is making laws that support PCism, those who disagree with PCism get very sensitive, even to the point of thinking that what's being discussed is making laws that support PCism when it's not. Very sensitive indeed.
      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

      @Nee_Nihilo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
        The right to free speech is inalienable, no matter how offensive the exercise of the right is to anybody.
        It's exercise is often restricted in the balancing of competing rights and persons. So you can speak your mind, but not in my living room, by way of. And you can offer a long oratory, but not in a theater. That sort of thing.


        There's everything right about challenging why someone is saying whatever they're saying, and it's wrong to make laws authorizing police to penalize people for saying something offensive.
        What laws, in particular?


        When the matter is making laws that support PCism, those who disagree with PCism get very sensitive, even to the point of thinking that what's being discussed is making laws that support PCism when it's not. Very sensitive indeed.
        I think PC is stuff and nonsense, is the sort of thing people say before saying something that would and should embarrass them to say in church.
        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

        Pro-Life






        Comment


        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          It's exercise is often restricted in the balancing of competing rights and persons. So you can speak your mind, but not in my living room, by way of.
          Rather, it is lawful for you to do what you will with your own (Mt20:15KJV), and if it is your own living room, and if your guest is saying or doing something you find offensive, you've every right to demand that they leave. That doesn't affect anybody's inalienable right to free speech.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          And you can offer a long oratory, but not in a theater. That sort of thing.
          Supra.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          What laws, in particular?
          Laws that authorize police to penalize people for saying offensive things.
          Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          I think PC is stuff and nonsense, is the sort of thing people say before saying something that would and should embarrass them to say in church.
          I can't help that the only people out there who sound like they'd like to make censorship laws are PCism proponents.
          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

          @Nee_Nihilo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
            Rather, it is lawful for you to do what you will with your own (Mt20:15KJV), and if it is your own living room, and if your guest is saying or doing something you find offensive, you've every right to demand that they leave.
            There are places where you can't speak your mind whenever the urge strikes you.

            That doesn't affect anybody's inalienable right to free speech.
            Sure it does. It just did.

            Laws that authorize police to penalize people for saying offensive things.
            Profanity in public? In Church? Outside an elementary school?

            I can't help that the only people out there who sound like they'd like to make censorship laws are PCism proponents.
            "Sound like" is the problematic part (well, so is PC, but you already know what I think of that hooey). It doesn't have to be more than your bias filter at work. On the left they note "un-American" exercise and call that an effort to censure.

            I think both sides could relax a bit and apply a reasonable man rule of thumb to guide their own speech, including political rhetoric.
            Last edited by Town Heretic; June 9th, 2019, 10:37 PM.
            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

            Pro-Life






            Comment


            • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
              I don't know how you got that from either of us. I explicitly said he wasn't saying it and I don't recall my saying it either. Unless you're mostly talking about self-censorship and the encouragement of friends.
              You weren't endorsing censorship, you couldn't be more clear.

              I was remarking on how "all lives matter" wasn't a thing until "Black lives matter" came into being. I guess it sounded scary to certain Whites who had to look around real quick for some kind of protection from the scary idea.

              Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                There are places where you can't speak your mind whenever the urge strikes you.
                Like in court.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Sure it does. It just did.
                Nobody has an inalienable right to be in your own living room Town, so no.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                Profanity in public? In Church? Outside an elementary school?
                Who decides what is and what is not profane, and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from? I don't have any problem with obscenity laws, so long as what is defined as obscene doesn't favor one religion or theology over all the others, including Satanism. That's all part of the inalienable right to not be penalized by police for exercising free speech.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                "Sound like" is the problematic part
                "Perception is reality" is a fact. Message sent may not be the message received, and while the receiver has some burden so does the sender.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                (well, so is PC, but you already know what I think of that hooey). It doesn't have to be more than your bias filter at work.
                "It" being what?
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                On the left they note "un-American" exercise and call that an effort to censure.
                Mainly, I just wish that "the left" would support the right to bear arms, half as much as they do the right to get an abortion.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                I think both sides could relax a bit
                I think when someone sees inalienable rights being infringed, that is exactly when not to relax. And I say that even to those who I believe wrongly see rights being infringed.
                Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                and apply a reasonable man rule of thumb to guide their own speech, including political rhetoric.
                Who determines what a "reasonable man" is, and how do they decide what is and what is not a "reasonable man," and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from?

                I think it's reasonable and commendable to fight for the rights of people.
                "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                @Nee_Nihilo

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                  Like in court.
                  One of many places where what you can say and when you can say it is reasonably and necessarily limited.

                  Nobody has an inalienable right to be in your own living room Town, so no.
                  You don't appear to get my aim with that one. I said there are other rights and parties exercising them that impact your speech. In that case, my property right impacts it. In another, your participation in a theater where you have a right to be is impacted when you interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other patrons. There are a number of ways the exercise of right can be amended and subjugated to other concerns. That's the point.

                  Who decides what is and what is not profane, and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from? I don't have any problem with obscenity laws, so long as what is defined as obscene doesn't favor one religion or theology over all the others, including Satanism. That's all part of the inalienable right to not be penalized by police for exercising free speech.
                  Profanity tends to be a reflection of community standards. Some words, relating to sex and ancestry, tend to be universal prompts as fighting words. And those aren't expressions that are permitted in given situations and places, another example of speech restrictions.

                  "Perception is reality" is a fact.
                  In the same way that strawberry is a horrible flavor for ice cream.

                  Message sent may not be the message received, and while the receiver has some burden so does the sender.
                  I think that goes to a reasonable man standard. It's not my burden if your perception is steeped in the unreasonable, the paranoid, etc.

                  "It" being what?
                  Your perception.

                  Mainly, I just wish that "the left" would support the right to bear arms, half as much as they do the right to get an abortion.
                  Very different considerations. You could argue a pure stance in favor of life would lead you to oppose both. I'm against abortion and support the right to bear arms, though not the right to bear every kind.

                  I think when someone sees inalienable rights being infringed, that is exactly when not to relax.
                  I think it's important to realize the difference between someone having a right stripped from them and the natural balancing of interests we see in the speech/theater or right to bear arms/tank mitigation.

                  And, of course, it's important to understand that objecting to offensive speech isn't itself an act of censorship absent some force that compels it from without. If that objection compels the other from within, it's nothing more or less than the impact of a call to conscience.

                  Who determines what a "reasonable man" is, and how do they decide what is and what is not a "reasonable man," and which standard are they using, and where did that standard come from?
                  The trier of fact will determine it, subject to review upon appeal.

                  "A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care,skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
                  The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care
                  than is an ordinary person." Online Legal Dictionary


                  So, would the average person be moved to respond as the person being considered acted?
                  You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                  Pro-Life






                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    One of many places where what you can say and when you can say it is reasonably and necessarily limited.


                    You don't appear to get my aim with that one. I said there are other rights and parties exercising them that impact your speech.
                    But it doesn't impact my speech, if you object so much to it that you expel me from your own living room. That's your right, as owner of your living room, and you've nobody to answer to for your free choice to expel me from your own living room. My right is not infringed by that, as I can just as well say what I want to say out on the sidewalk, so long as I'm not committing a noise disturbance, which would be infringing upon people's right to not suffer hearing damage.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    In that case, my property right impacts it.
                    No it does not. No police are going to penalize me for saying what I say, even if they do penalize me for trespassing on your property.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    In another, your participation in a theater where you have a right to be is impacted when you interfere with the quiet enjoyment of other patrons.
                    That's again a case of the property rights of the theater's owners to expel me, for whatever reason they have.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    There are a number of ways the exercise of right can be amended and subjugated to other concerns. That's the point.
                    These examples don't make that point, since they're easily handled through understanding the rights of owners (cf. Mt20:15KJV).
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Profanity tends to be a reflection of community standards.
                    It does, but that means that a community of Southern Baptists are going to makes laws incongruent with laws made by a community of Satanists, and this incongruence is incompatible with uniform laws that ought to exist all throughout a nation governed by one Constitution.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Some words, relating to sex and ancestry, tend to be universal prompts as fighting words.
                    Compare and contrast what a community of Amish people would consider "fighting words" with a community of Satanists then. They aren't the same. The law must walk the line and not favor one religious or theological tradition or school over any others.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    And those aren't expressions that are permitted in given situations and places, another example of speech restrictions.
                    The reason being that people have a right to not be harmed, and any supposed exercise of a right that does harm others, is not an exercise of a right, but is a crime.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    In the same way that strawberry is a horrible flavor for ice cream.
                    Nope. Every reasonable man knows that perception is reality.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I think that goes to a reasonable man standard. It's not my burden if your perception is steeped in the unreasonable, the paranoid, etc.
                    Experience proves you wrong here. What makes things happen in the world is not some idealized abstract notion of the truth, but what people perceive the truth to be. As is expected, this fact results in legislative chaos, which is why it is paramount to identify, recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc., rights.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Your perception.
                    Ah.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    Very different considerations. You could argue a pure stance in favor of life would lead you to oppose both.
                    Anybody can argue anything. The important thing is to defend rights, which is the genius of the American founders, in preemptively protecting the weak and the minorities from tyranny of the majority and powerful.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I'm against abortion and support the right to bear arms, though not the right to bear every kind.
                    I support the right to abortion. Abortion is killing, but so then is using lethal force in self defense or in the defense of your family, friends, neighbors, and other innocent of capital crimes people.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    I think it's important to realize the difference between someone having a right stripped from them and the natural balancing of interests we see in the speech/theater or right to bear arms/tank mitigation.
                    I think it's important to recognize that everyone not imprisoned possesses all the same rights as everybody else, and that if we are wary of recognizing someone's rights and all of them, then we should imprison them for the protection of innocent people, which will tend to ward off pressure on innocent people to break the law in their own defense.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    And, of course, it's important to understand that objecting to offensive speech isn't itself an act of censorship absent some force that compels it from without.
                    Absolutely agreed. It's part of the right.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    If that objection compels the other from within, it's nothing more or less than the impact of a call to conscience.
                    Yes, I'm fine with that.
                    Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                    The trier of fact will determine it, subject to review upon appeal.

                    "A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care,skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
                    The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care
                    than is an ordinary person." Online Legal Dictionary


                    So, would the average person be moved to respond as the person being considered acted?
                    And so the answer is that judges determine just what a "reasonable man" is.
                    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

                    @Nee_Nihilo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                      But it doesn't impact my speech
                      Oh, well if you don't feel not being able to speak your mind wherever you please is an infringement, then I'd apply the same idea to other rights and we're getting where I mean for you to be, only using different language to describe it.

                      if you object so much to it that you expel me from your own living room. That's your right, as owner of your living room, and you've nobody to answer to for your free choice to expel me from your own living room.
                      My living room. Your business. Our town square. You seeing the connection?

                      No it does not. No police are going to penalize me for saying what I say, even if they do penalize me for trespassing on your property.
                      They can penalize you in the street. Supra.

                      These examples don't make that point, since they're easily handled through understanding the rights of owners
                      All property and every space is owned, either by individuals or by government. And all rights are subject then to other rights in exercise, which has been a point I noted earlier.

                      It does, but that means that a community of Southern Baptists are going to makes laws incongruent with laws made by a community of Satanists, and this incongruence is incompatible with uniform laws that ought to exist all throughout a nation governed by one Constitution.
                      Rather, laws frequently reflect community standards, but there are fairly universal understandings on some words, just as there are for certain actions. Now there will always be some group that has a different standard, just as there are some people who would react violently to fairly innocuous behavior.

                      Compare and contrast what a community of Amish people would consider "fighting words" with a community of Satanists then. They aren't the same. The law must walk the line and not favor one religious or theological tradition or school over any others.
                      Laws proscribing conduct on religious grounds would run afoul of Constitutional protections, but community standards that aren't recodified dogma can and do survive that scrutiny, however we ascribe the root of the standards subjectively. The reasonable man is the average man and so the exceptional, be they Satanist or Amish, will not prevail by claiming exception.

                      The reason being that people have a right to not be harmed, and any supposed exercise of a right that does harm others, is not an exercise of a right, but is a crime.
                      As I say, there are reasons for limiting the exercise of right.

                      Nope. Every reasonable man knows that perception is reality.
                      Rather, there is what is and then how we value and relate to it. So the former is not always the same animal as the latter, depending on what part of it you grab (see: blind men circling an elephant). Also, every man should then understand that values are inherently subjective, as with ice cream flavors.

                      Experience proves you wrong here. What makes things happen in the world is not some idealized abstract notion of the truth, but what people perceive the truth to be.
                      That's not really a rebuttal that proves my observation wrong. Rather, a racist's perception of the reasonableness of a black man smiling at a white woman might ring true for him, as his action in response would seem warranted. The reasonable man, unburdened by his subjective ire, would not.

                      As is expected, this fact results in legislative chaos, which is why it is paramount to identify, recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc., rights.
                      Rather, ir results in the necessary application of principle and reason, as it should.

                      Anybody can argue anything.
                      Not rationally though, not defensibly as an operation of ethic and logic. The proffer I gave was both, or could be easily expanded into perfect Amish harmony.

                      The important thing is to defend rights, which is the genius of the American founders, in preemptively protecting the weak and the minorities from tyranny of the majority and powerful.
                      To defend and to negotiate the reasonable exercise. Because rights without that are just another form of tyranny to the person injured by their exercise.

                      I support the right to abortion.
                      Without limitation of any sort?

                      Abortion is killing, but so then is using lethal force in self defense or in the defense of your family, friends, neighbors, and other innocent of capital crimes people.
                      That's no real argument for abortion absent the mother's life being in jeopardy though, is it.

                      I think it's important to recognize that everyone not imprisoned possesses all the same rights as everybody else
                      Not entirely, but mostly true among adults.

                      and that if we are wary of recognizing someone's rights and all of them, then we should imprison them for the protection of innocent people, which will tend to ward off pressure on innocent people to break the law in their own defense.
                      I'm not entirely sure of what you're after with that part.

                      Absolutely agreed. It's part of the right.
                      Yes, I'm fine with that.
                      Good. That's all my friend was really arguing for, a restraint born of conscience.

                      And so the answer is that judges determine just what a "reasonable man" is.
                      Most laws have standards built into them, so the application of a reasonable man standard is fairly limited. Where it exists it's no more or less problematic that reasonable doubt. That is, past any point where the stakes are high enough human judgment, a weighing of sorts, will come into play, subject to review by men and women learned in the law and having exceptional skill in applying critical though processes to the whole.

                      And even then, now and again, there will be failure. That's the human component, I suppose, in anything.
                      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                      Pro-Life






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        Thinking of my old friend today and one of his favorite bits...so this is for Patrick.

                        ....

                        And goodnight sweet prince. May flights of angels sing thee, and never route you through Atlanta.
                        Whew, took me a bit of reading, but now I'm in too! I'm sure he enjoyed it.
                        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                        ? Yep

                        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                          From a friend of mine elsewhere on the topic of PC speech and whether, as another friend suggested, it was a call for censorship:

                          "It's not the words that are politically incorrect [that is the problem] it's the implied meaning they are given when used in a certain context. For example, if someone says, "Black lives matter," and another person responds with, "All lives matter," they are using that phrase to diminish the first statement [and not to uplift the larger group]. It's not calling for censorship, it's calling for decency." John Michael Daw
                          Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                          You weren't endorsing censorship, you couldn't be more clear.

                          I was remarking on how "all lives matter" wasn't a thing until "Black lives matter" came into being. I guess it sounded scary to certain Whites who had to look around real quick for some kind of protection from the scary idea.
                          I didn't see a call for censorship, perhaps self-censoring with 'decency.'

                          Responded here
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • And is it wrong that if I'm still alive when Jennifer Grey dies I know that the first thought through my noggin will be, "Nobody puts Baby with a coroner."

                            It's wrong, isn't it...
                            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                            Pro-Life






                            Comment


                            • Working with the wife on fine tuning classic video, board, and card games for long term couples who need a playful way to work out the trials of relationships...first up, Mortal Kombat, the Marriage Edition, where the fatalities can be particularly embarrassing.

                              Other ideas in the hopper under the Marital Games Edition brand include: Thin Iced, where the cubes you hammer-tap have descriptions like, "In-laws drop in for a week!" and "Baby's got a fork!"; Marital Jenga, the "Oh, so you can build that five feet high but you can't fix a shower curtain," game of relationship construction; Risked--You've conquered the world, now what about that checkbook?; and everyone's favorite, Clueless, "Guess what you did and where you did it this time."

                              Coming soon for card enthusiasts, Crazy Ates.

                              Marital Games*, where our motto remains, "This is so much cheaper than a lawyer!"


                              *Rules not included.

                              You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                              Pro-Life






                              Comment


                              • And it's time for another, if down beat, "One sentence Movie Reviews."

                                Aladdin: You'll wish they'd made a better movie.

                                Men in Black International: Answers the question, "Why don't more summer movies win Oscars?"
                                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                                Pro-Life






                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X