there goes the 1st amend

[Wicked Pilot]

It's not worth the hassle to argue Azeron. One one hand he defends the Israelis murdering 34 U.S. servicemen. If you say that is wrong, he calls you an anti-sametic. One the other hand he wants to deport U.S. citizens who speak badly about their country. If you say that is wrong, he calls you anti-American.

[Azeron]

Ohhh you are mistaken, I call you antisemtic for calling for the murder of innocent jewish civilians, men women and children alike.

I call you Anti-American, becasue you want terrorists to blow up Americans and ram planes into buildings and detenoate radiation bombs in our cities. After all as you say "We have to let them kill lots of americans before we can arrest them"

[Durandal]

I happen to live and work in NYC. I saw the towers fall with my own eyes. I smelled the death that prevaded the city for a month later. You know what, if the FBI was waiting for these guys that rammed into the trade towers to do it, then I think they should be lined up and shot.

You have my sympathies, but that's not what I was referring to. New York City is an example of the diversity that America is all about.

The First Amendment does not cover all speech, every yell out "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Because that action violates others' rights and wastes the fire department's time.

Ahh yes expanded to cover terrorists plotting to kill americans. Somehow I think most americans would disaggree with that.

Strawman. I never said that the First Amendment should apply to conspiracies. I said that people who cheer for the other side in the War on Terror or talk about how much they wish Americans would die should not be arrested.

Specifically, I was replying to this quote.

You know, if you have such a huge problem, thinking that America is abolishing the first amendment by arresting people for cheering the other side of this war or talkign about how much they want to americans to be killed

Like it or not, people have the right to say such things. Ever hear of Vietnam?

It should be people like you paying with thier lives in mindless terrorist attacks. Invariablly its people like you, some snot nosed teen boppers living out in some shit hole of a city far away from where any terrorist would like to strike, knowing full and well that your city would not be the one nuked.

My permanent home residence is an hour outside of Chicago, and I have family in New York City.

"terrorists have rights too" NO THEY DON'T!!!!

Until they are tried and convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers, yes they do.

Some speech is acceptable, some isn't. discussing pention annuity laws, or corporate scandels is covered, inciting people to murder others, or conspiring to attack the US is not. Perhaps you really just disagree with about every legal out there. This is not controversial, except in you pea sized brain.

No one ever mentioned conspiracies. Are you done fucking this strawman up the ass, yet, or is your dick not slitted enough, yet?

<snip insults and pointless yammering>

I tire of your insults, your strawmen and your plugging for fascism. This is the last post I'm going to make here.

[Nick]

Ohhh you are mistaken, I call you antisemtic for calling for the murder of innocent jewish civilians, men women and children alike.

I call you Anti-American, becasue you want terrorists to blow up Americans and ram planes into buildings and detenoate radiation bombs in our cities. After all as you say "We have to let them kill lots of americans before we can arrest them"

Damn Azeron, how the fuck do you manage to jam so many strawmen into such a short post?

Oh, I forgot - you practice coming up with bullshit positions to shoot down because you can't handle a real argument. . .

[Crown]

[yoda mode]Insight, you have Nick[/yoda mode]

Shut up Azeron.

[Skelron]

hmm to debate with Azeron has been shown to be meaningless, yet I can't help myself, he's touched on a matter that I hold very seriously. Freedom of speech. Part of my Sig on another site contains this quote 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. (Voltare, little thanks goes out to Dragon, he may not be here at this site but he helped me with this quote, as I couldn't remember who said it) it puts in words the way I feel about the freedom of speech. I hold it too be vital to the Democratic process, it means I have to let people, who are spewing out what I hold to be garbage, speak, it also however means they have to let me!

But you say, some of these people want to remove your right to say it, they want to remove from you the very right that you defend, the very right that lets them say what they are saying. True they do, and yet I hold a principle of freedom of speech, I do not hold that such a freedom can be restricted to what is thought to be safe, thats not freedom of speech, thats the opposite. That others would deny you something is irrelavent, you cannot define your Values by what others will do with them, if they want to attack me with Words, I say let them I will defend myself and attack back with better words, because in the end I am safe in my belief that freedom of speech is better than the alternatives, I am safe in the idea that a Democracy, (Hopefully a Socialist one) is better than a dictatorship, and I believe in the ideal so much I am safe in the belief that the arguments I can bring forth, or those better skilled in debate and philosophy than I, can bring forth, will always in the end defeat the ideals of hate and fear. If your not Azeron then how can you defend America, a Democracy, when freedom of speech is a vital part of a Democracy? How can you claim America is your ideal country, after all you hate something it seems, so important to it's very core. Without Freedom of speech a Democracy dies.

Free Speech generates new ideas, Free Speech brings change, Change for the better, it's a hard process, it means you have to allow the worst things to be said, because without those bad things the good things won't be allowed to be heard. Martin Luther king would never have been heard and segregation would, in all likelyhood still be in place, as the very calls against it would be banned. (After all it would be critical of the 'American way of life' something you seem to want to ban.) Viatnam would have gone on much longer, with likely the same result, or worse, causing more deaths for no gain. (Because critising a war effort would be another thing you would ban) Politcal debates a thing of the past, and without them the real oppertunity to vote, after all critizing your opponments way of doing things is a key part of the whole election campaigning process, but how to you critize the governing party without running the risk of being accussed of Critizing the American way of life and being arrested. (Hard to imagine you may think... but if such a weapon was avaible, and you feared you would lose, in such a society where stabilty and safty are prized over KEY values... why I'd say it would occur.)

You want it seems a return to McCarthy and his Commitee of unAmerican activties, with all the losses that went with it, all the good people whose lives where destroyed because they wern't confirmists like yourself, but where free thinkers and oddballs. Maybe it's a simple case that in the end you've let the terrorists win with the memory of their Bombs, because they wished to destroy the ideal of democracy, and you seem content to let that happen.

In short therefore your being stupid, I won't say Shut up, as you have the right to speak your dribble, I will however say, grow up because I fear you really deserve that Title.

[Azeron]

Where to begin where to begin.

Talk about strawmen, all I hear from the other sied is Strawmen.

1)The type of speech you are trying to protect, is the speech with the sole intention of inciting violence against the body politic and overthrow in an undemocratic manner.(you know Joesph padilia)

2)That is different than arguing for the peacful transition through the system that established the body politic in which we can peacibily transition through democratic means of the position proposed.

#1 is illegal, #2 is legal. Its that simple.

The other side knows we woukld never democratically choose to go into thier twisted system, therefor they resort to violence and incitement of violence. Its the difference between Martin Luther King Jr. and Joesph Padila

What is the difference between and Outlaw and a Criminal?
A criminal acknowledges the righht of the state not only to exist but to have soveriegn right to enforce the laws it creates over the citzenery. An Outlaw does not recognize the legitimacey of the state to sit in judgement over them, so it is useless to act is if they did. The choice then becomes, to detain, to execute, or expell. However it is the responsibility of the outlaw, if he does not want to be subject to the legitiamte authority oif the state, to leave. If he/she fails to do so and then starts advocating the violent overthrow of the state, or starts to break the laws established through the pwoers granted to the state from the people, then the state may do with him as it wishes. The Decision to become an outlaw, is the decision to renounce the rights protected by the state. To accpet rights once you have renounced citizenship is the appex of hypocrisy. In effect this is what Socrates said to his friends when they came to set him free from his immient execution.

If the state does indeed violate what you beleive to be true, a fundemental precept, it is your responsibliity to leave, or accept the consquences of your actions. If the cause is noble and just, I applaud you resolution, if your cause is the violent overthrow of the state and establish a new state which the will of the people is not of paramount importance, or null effect of all, you are enemy of not only the State but of all citizens of good conscience, andd you must be removed and expunged lest you casue harm to the legimate authority of the people.

In other words, when you abandon the means given to you by the body politic to affect change to what you think things should be in favour of the sword, you can't cry foul when the body politic picks up the sword and opens up a can of whoop ass, and keep you from causeing harm to another, just as padilia's supporters can't claim foul when Padilia who has renounce his obligations to citizenship through the advocation of violent overthrow of the state is detained from harming the body politic indefintiely. This stopped being about ideas when they incited violence, it became about survival. You or me. the law of the jungle.

If you are so determined to let this man go free, Padila, will you vouch for him, and let us exact his punishment on you if he succeeds in harming members of the society? Knowing if he kills someone, that your life may be required to fufill his obligations? You woukld be dieing for an unmittigated right to free speech you are always yapping about. Somehow I don;t think you really have the convictions you say you do. You wrap yourselves in the flag, and talk real good about wiling to die. You talk about freedoms that have never existed in any state in the histroy of mankind (please I would like to know what state that allowed that if you know of it)

So now that this strawman about being concerned about the right to unlimited speach including the kind of speech about kiling your fellow citizens (I am sure if someone openly plotted to kill you, you would have us wait until he actually did kill you before we detained him) has been completely irrevocably trashed, what is the motiviation?

Lets see, he advocates the overthrow of the state, the murder of innocents to get thier way, all to establisdh a new order --- and you want him on the streets so he can accomplish this. You know, I think you don;t like the State. I think you are not misguided, I think you really do want to see the state overthown. You may not want to Padilias version come about, but you sure don't want America to survive. And your willing to see your fellow Americans killed to do it in senseless terrorist attacks. Thats why you are on the other side, becasue by every measure, yiou are cheering them on. Making excuses for thier murderous desires. Giving them every opportunity to kill your felllow citizens. This is inexcusable.

[Durandal]

1)The type of speech you are trying to protect, is the speech with the sole intention of inciting violence against the body politic and overthrow in an undemocratic manner.(you know Joesph padilia)

How is that a strawman? When did I accuse you of making a claim that you did not? Everything I've said about you is true. You are a fascist who would like to restrict free speech because it doesn't pander to the government's interests or because you don't like what is being said.

Get it through your head. If flag burning is protected as a part of free speech, cheering for the other side in a war is, too.

[Azeron]

Get it through your head. If flag burning is protected as a part of free speech, cheering for the other side in a war is, too.

Your statement speaks for itself.

[Durandal]

Your statement speaks for itself.

Yes, it does, because I've constructed it in such a way that people can easily extract a point from it. In other words, I can form a coherent argument.

You can't.

[Azeron]

Yes, it does, because I've constructed it in such a way that people can easily extract a point from it. In other words, I can form a coherent argument.

You made your point alright.

[weemadando]

Wow. Statistics. Where from?

From what I could see those statistics were pulled directly from their own arses with appropriate sound-effects.

Though, I must admit that I don't doubt that several of them are an accurate representation of sentiments. But please, at least tell us where you got them from!

[weemadando]

Where to begin where to begin.

Talk about strawmen, all I hear from the other sied is Strawmen.

1)The type of speech you are trying to protect, is the speech with the sole intention of inciting violence against the body politic and overthrow in an undemocratic manner.(you know Joesph padilia)

Is it? Or is it merely the voice of opposition to the current government? Weren't Washington and the other founding fathers once those voices? Isn't that why they included that amendment?

2)That is different than arguing for the peacful transition through the system that established the body politic in which we can peacibily transition through democratic means of the position proposed.

#1 is illegal, #2 is legal. Its that simple.

Again. Was the call for change by the American settlers heeded? No. It took a war to gain independance. All around the world people have fought and died for the right to say what they believe. If you think you can classify political arguements as legal or illegal, solely on the basis of your own opinion, then you are a greater despot than Hitler or Stalin.

The other side knows we woukld never democratically choose to go into thier twisted system, therefor they resort to violence and incitement of violence. Its the difference between Martin Luther King Jr. and Joesph Padila

Is the incitement of violence really any different than what is often broadcast on various news networks? Calls for battle against Iraq or earlier against Afghanistan. Is it OK to incite violence if it is in favour of the state? You try make the concept of state-sponsored violence seem infallible. While the voices of opposition are required to only be pacifistic and sedate, and they are not allowed to try and utilise any 'unsavoury' tactics, let alone use violence to battle a state that seeks to actively oppress them (ref: Martin Luther King).

What is the difference between and Outlaw and a Criminal?
A criminal acknowledges the righht of the state not only to exist but to have soveriegn right to enforce the laws it creates over the citzenery. An Outlaw does not recognize the legitimacey of the state to sit in judgement over them, so it is useless to act is if they did. The choice then becomes, to detain, to execute, or expell. However it is the responsibility of the outlaw, if he does not want to be subject to the legitiamte authority oif the state, to leave. If he/she fails to do so and then starts advocating the violent overthrow of the state, or starts to break the laws established through the pwoers granted to the state from the people, then the state may do with him as it wishes. The Decision to become an outlaw, is the decision to renounce the rights protected by the state. To accpet rights once you have renounced citizenship is the appex of hypocrisy. In effect this is what Socrates said to his friends when they came to set him free from his immient execution.

Again, you attempt to uphold state-sponsored violence and deny others the ability to battle against what may be an oppressive regime in whatever manner may be available to them. The choice to become an outlaw (really a revolutionary, but I will retain your terminology) is the final step once all others have been exhausted. You make it seem that merely speaking out agains the state makes one an outlaw.

If the state does indeed violate what you beleive to be true, a fundemental precept, it is your responsibliity to leave, or accept the consquences of your actions. If the cause is noble and just, I applaud you resolution, if your cause is the violent overthrow of the state and establish a new state which the will of the people is not of paramount importance, or null effect of all, you are enemy of not only the State but of all citizens of good conscience, andd you must be removed and expunged lest you casue harm to the legimate authority of the people.

The will of which people? For a revolution to succeed it must have popular support. Though it is true that over time all regimes become corrupted, perhaps in some cases a clean slate is what is required. And why must someone be an enemy of the state if they oppose it? When is a cause noble and just? And when is it evil? You are too subjective in your primitive appraisals of these situations. Think back to the French revolution, which had massive popular support, but became obsessed with vengeance, and in the end led to a dictatorship (that was eventually overthrown and replaced with an early republic). What starts off as a noble cause can become just as corrupted and evil as any other.

In other words, when you abandon the means given to you by the body politic to affect change to what you think things should be in favour of the sword, you can't cry foul when the body politic picks up the sword and opens up a can of whoop ass, and keep you from causeing harm to another, just as padilia's supporters can't claim foul when Padilia who has renounce his obligations to citizenship through the advocation of violent overthrow of the state is detained from harming the body politic indefintiely. This stopped being about ideas when they incited violence, it became about survival. You or me. the law of the jungle.

Again, you advocate state sponsored violence while decrying the right to free speech by the opposition. And will you stop using such cliches as "the law of the jungle" it really is pathetic and doesn't further the arguement.

If you are so determined to let this man go free, Padila, will you vouch for him, and let us exact his punishment on you if he succeeds in harming members of the society? Knowing if he kills someone, that your life may be required to fufill his obligations? You woukld be dieing for an unmittigated right to free speech you are always yapping about. Somehow I don;t think you really have the convictions you say you do. You wrap yourselves in the flag, and talk real good about wiling to die. You talk about freedoms that have never existed in any state in the histroy of mankind (please I would like to know what state that allowed that if you know of it)

So you believe it is better to hold someone in detention, with the knowledge that at sometime in the future they may have participated in a crime, on whatever scale, without evidence and without trial. This again places you firmly in the despot category.

So now that this strawman about being concerned about the right to unlimited speach including the kind of speech about kiling your fellow citizens (I am sure if someone openly plotted to kill you, you would have us wait until he actually did kill you before we detained him) has been completely irrevocably trashed, what is the motiviation?

Did he openly plot to kill? Or was he a convenient scapegoat? Do you not need evidence in this day and age before you can put someone on trial, let alone imprison them?

What you appear to advocate is the use of terror against your own citizens in order to maintain the status quo for your own advantage. You don't care about the people, you just care about preserving YOUR agenda. This is one of the circumstances that is guaranteed to bring about such revolutionary or at the very least reformist sentiments that you are attempting to destroy.

Lets see, he advocates the overthrow of the state, the murder of innocents to get thier way, all to establisdh a new order --- and you want him on the streets so he can accomplish this. You know, I think you don;t like the State. I think you are not misguided, I think you really do want to see the state overthown. You may not want to Padilias version come about, but you sure don't want America to survive. And your willing to see your fellow Americans killed to do it in senseless terrorist attacks. Thats why you are on the other side, becasue by every measure, yiou are cheering them on. Making excuses for thier murderous desires. Giving them every opportunity to kill your felllow citizens. This is inexcusable.

I'm an Australian, and as any ASVSer will tell you, a lot of the time I can be openly seen not giving a shit about the downfall of the US. But the fact that you are so vehemently opposed to any other viewpoints and are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents (not just those who may die in attacks, but those who are imprisoned, die in retaliatory strikes against other nations and those whom are discriminated against as a result of your views) makes you no better than the people whom you claim to oppose.

In my view the right to free speech is integral to society. Without it any number of wrongs can go unpunished and those whom have the ability to control what is said become infallible and despotic.

[Azeron]

weemadando,

It amazes me, how you can have the audacity to say you support self determination, democratic government, freedom of the press in one breath, and support the most totalitarian reigemes, (Iraq and Afganistan) and the violent overthrow of a democratic government in the next. Y ou call me a facist, I have gone out of my way to point out the only legitamite government is a democracy directly responsible to the people. You seem to think Iraq's military juanta has some great right to exist, equal to that of a democracy. I suppose you think that women in America have a good given right to let the sun shine on thier face, but in afaginstan women don't have that same god given right. (Atheists, substitute "natural" for "god"), that they deserve to have the shit beat out of them if they dare show some ankle flesh.

THATS FACISM YOU JACKASS!!!

Did you even bother reading what I wrote before you posted? Because half of what you say I posted was directly contradicted by the directly quoted material, or by some other part of my post. You make references to thngs I never said!! You contradict yourself!! You Advocate a campaign against the very people you are supposed to govern!!! Don't you think that you shouldn't be mindlessly killing the very same people you want to govern? I'm the despot? You murder when you have recourse in a democracy? Why becasue people don't things the way you see them, so you decide its alright to push aside the will of the people, and impose your own? yah that sounds democratic.

look reread the post and try to say something, I don't know.......SANE!!

PS, here is a little hint, if your little "revolution" needs to resort to unsavory tactics, you are probably on the wrong side of the issue.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes, it does, because I've constructed it in such a way that people can easily extract a point from it. In other words, I can form a coherent argument.

You made your point alright.

Yeah, he did. Damn shame you dont get it, or rather you do in some abstract way, but the idea that the rest of the world or your own country may not agree with you causes your brain to reset and spew the same damn thing again untill such time as you get the response you desire.

[Stuart Mackey]

weemadando,

It amazes me, how you can have the audacity to say you support self determination, democratic government, freedom of the press in one breath, and support the most totalitarian reigemes, (Iraq and Afganistan) and the violent overthrow of a democratic government in the next. Y ou call me a facist, I have gone out of my way to point out the only legitamite government is a democracy directly responsible to the people. You seem to think Iraq's military juanta has some great right to exist, equal to that of a democracy. I suppose you think that women in America have a good given right to let the sun shine on thier face, but in afaginstan women don't have that same god given right. (Atheists, substitute "natural" for "god"), that they deserve to have the shit beat out of them if they dare show some ankle flesh.

THATS FACISM YOU JACKASS!!!

Did you even bother reading what I wrote before you posted? Because half of what you say I posted was directly contradicted by the directly quoted material, or by some other part of my post. You make references to thngs I never said!! You contradict yourself!! You Advocate a campaign against the very people you are supposed to govern!!! Don't you think that you shouldn't be mindlessly killing the very same people you want to govern? I'm the despot? You murder when you have recourse in a democracy? Why becasue people don't things the way you see them, so you decide its alright to push aside the will of the people, and impose your own? yah that sounds democratic.

look reread the post and try to say something, I don't know.......SANE!!

PS, here is a little hint, if your little "revolution" needs to resort to unsavory tactics, you are probably on the wrong side of the issue.

Do you have a hay barn in your back yard? I ask this as I have rarly seen so many strawmen posted by one person.
To me, you seem to have the idea of 'My country, right or wrong'. and when any one argues with you on this, you tell them that they advocate governance or revolution against the will of the people.

[Nick]

weemadando,

It amazes me, how you can have the audacity to say you support self determination, democratic government, freedom of the press in one breath, and support the most totalitarian reigemes, (Iraq and Afganistan) and the violent overthrow of a democratic government in the next.

OK Azeron, I'm going to quote somebody. He has already been quoted in this thread. We are going to forget about Iraq, Afghanistan, and that guy you feel should be arrested for being a fuckwit. We are going to talk about the quote.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Got that? Guy named Voltaire? Little quote which is seen by many people as defining the very essence of what free speech is all about?

Can you see how you are badly confusing two issues? That arguing that someone has the right to say stupid shit, is not the same as actually agreeing with that stupid shit? Is this concept really too difficult for you to grasp?

We can discuss your inability to grasp the difference between current reality and hypothetical conjecture some other time. . .

[Azeron]

Nick, Stuart,

It is obvious that you hate America, and what is stands for, and you want to see it destroyed. Just admit it and come out into the open, so everyone may see your agenda for what it is. It has nothing to do with free speech, and your position has been thoroughly trounced, taking your refusal to seriously rebutt my position.

Is all speech equal, acceptable and protected? No.
Did Voliatre beleive that all speech was protected? No.
Did the Founding Fathers beleive that incitment to violent overthrow of the government was protected speech? No.
Is there any state in the world or the history of mankind where such speech is acceptable? No.

There are many reasons for why not all speech is protected. Speech expresses ideas, and ideas have consqences. When you say that you want to kill your fellow countrymen, and detonate an irradiation bomb, you express an idea, your are communicating that idea to through that speech. We then through the magic of nueral proccessing parse the sentance and deicpher the menaing through our "langauge codex".

When we evaluate your idea, we come to some conclusion:
1) You hate your country
2) You want to kill us
3) You achknowledge that the body politic does not aggree with you after evaluating the circumstances, and you beleive that violence is the only way to get people to do what you want
4) You have renounced your citzenship, and declared the authority of the state, derived from the will of the governed does not apply to you
5) You have announced your intention to engage in war against the body politic to impose your will


The State then accepting its obligations to protect the people it was formed to protect from those hostile to the society, picks up its sword, and engages in battle, meeting the enemy on the terms given.

What you argue next is most puzzling, you seem to suggest that the state does not have the right to engage/kill/detain/expell those that seeek to destroy it through violence, and not through the legitimate forums provided by you for such revolution by the body politic. This is absurd. The state not only has the right to defend itself, to detain/kill/expell those who seek to destroy, but has an obligation to do so. You cannot cry foul when it does do this, because you have by your declaration have entitled yourself free from the restraints imposed by the body politic, the same restraints placed on everyone else, and deemed yourself worthy to kill without regard to the guilt of the people you intend to kill. (yes an irradiation bomb is designed to kill people regardless of thier political affiliation and beleifs)

In other words, by resorting to violence, or to the incitement of violence, in a democratic state, you undermine the credibility fo what your advocating, becasue you are not trying to impose democracy, by democratic proccess for change, you are trying to impose your will by force. You are despot, a facist, and you are imposing a state that is contrary to the will of the people. It has to be contrary to the will of the people, because if it weren't, you would get what you want because the body politic would demand it, and the state will acceed to the will the of the people.

Thats why your point is unattenable. Thats why you are on the other side of this conflict. Thats why you are the facists. What you advocate is against the will of the people, so you want to kill enough people to get what you want.

[weemadando]

weemadando,

You rang?

It amazes me, how you can have the audacity to say you support self determination, democratic government, freedom of the press in one breath, and support the most totalitarian reigemes, (Iraq and Afganistan) and the violent overthrow of a democratic government in the next. Y ou call me a facist, I have gone out of my way to point out the only legitamite government is a democracy directly responsible to the people. You seem to think Iraq's military juanta has some great right to exist, equal to that of a democracy. I suppose you think that women in America have a good given right to let the sun shine on thier face, but in afaginstan women don't have that same god given right. (Atheists, substitute "natural" for "god"), that they deserve to have the shit beat out of them if they dare show some ankle flesh.

When at any time in my previous post do I mention Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone voice support for a military junta?

THATS FACISM YOU JACKASS!!!

Indeed, religious "fundamentalism" is highly objectionable to us in the West. However for many in the world it is their traditional way of life, and like it or not you have to respect it.

Did you even bother reading what I wrote before you posted? Because half of what you say I posted was directly contradicted by the directly quoted material, or by some other part of my post. You make references to thngs I never said!! You contradict yourself!! You Advocate a campaign against the very people you are supposed to govern!!! Don't you think that you shouldn't be mindlessly killing the very same people you want to govern? I'm the despot? You murder when you have recourse in a democracy? Why becasue people don't things the way you see them, so you decide its alright to push aside the will of the people, and impose your own? yah that sounds democratic.

Yes I read your post. Did you read mine? Probably. Did you pay attention? Probably not.

Anyhow. When do I advocate a campaign against the people whom I seek to govern? I do mention that they might be unfortunate casualties of such a campaign, but how do you expect to win the support of the people if you are actively attacking them?


[quote:Azeron]look reread the post and try to say something, I don't know.......SANE!!

PS, here is a little hint, if your little "revolution" needs to resort to unsavory tactics, you are probably on the wrong side of the issue.[/quote]

Unsavoury tactics? Like the type that you are far to happy to allow your government to use against people all over the world? The same tactics that have inhibited (but not ended) free speech in the media and led to such wide-spread dissent?

And when the revolution does come, I'll make damn sure you're at the wall next to the boys from Sirius Cybernetics.

[Durandal]

It is obvious that you hate America, and what is stands for, and you want to see it destroyed.

America stands, in part, for freedom of speech to the extent that that speech does not hurt anyone or violate anyone's rights. Some jack-ass on a soapbox yelling about how much he can't stand America or how much he wishes Bush would drop dead is protected speech. Flag burning is protected speech.

So, it isn't Nick and Stuart who hate America; it's you. I'd like to see America reformed, but not destroyed, because it's based on a system which allows for reform, so why destroy that system?

Just admit it and come out into the open, so everyone may see your agenda for what it is. It has nothing to do with free speech, and your position has been thoroughly trounced, taking your refusal to seriously rebutt my position.

*Yawn* You've failed to demonstrate why anti-American speech is not protected speech for reasons other than your fascist, "Because it's un-American" bullshit.

Is all speech equal, acceptable and protected? No.

The speech that we are discussing is.

Did Voliatre beleive that all speech was protected? No.

To the extent that I stated? Yes.

Did the Founding Fathers beleive that incitment to violent overthrow of the government was protected speech? No.

Yes, because they themselves once engaged in similar activities to overthrow the British government. You've provided no reason why anti-American speech is not protected.

Is there any state in the world or the history of mankind where such speech is acceptable? No.

Yes, there is. It's called America. We let people burn our flag, here.

There are many reasons for why not all speech is protected. Speech expresses ideas, and ideas have consqences. When you say that you want to kill your fellow countrymen, and detonate an irradiation bomb, you express an idea, your are communicating that idea to through that speech. We then through the magic of nueral proccessing parse the sentance and deicpher the menaing through our "langauge codex".

Slippery slope fallacy. You assume that because some guy is talking about how much he hates America, that everyone will automatically pick up and start trying to overthrow the government.

Don't you realize that people sometimes just want to vent in public? Are we to censor George Carlin because he ruthlessly criticizes the American government and America, in general?

When we evaluate your idea, we come to some conclusion:
1) You hate your country

Only what you would have the country become: a fascist dictatorship where only speech that is pro-American is considered "free speech."

2) You want to kill us

That's a very large leap in logic. I see that you've fallen for Bush's attempts to incite paranoia in the general populace. You automatically assume that anyone who isn't licking America's ass is out to kill Americans.

3) You achknowledge that the body politic does not aggree with you after evaluating the circumstances, and you beleive that violence is the only way to get people to do what you want

Where the Hell are you getting all this from?

4) You have renounced your citzenship, and declared the authority of the state, derived from the will of the governed does not apply to you

We're exercising our right to free speech. I'll let you know when I renounce my citizenship and buy a sniper rifle with the intent of killing Bush, though. I'm sure that you'll climax if I tell you.

5) You have announced your intention to engage in war against the body politic to impose your will

Massive paranoia.

The State then accepting its obligations to protect the people it was formed to protect from those hostile to the society, picks up its sword, and engages in battle, meeting the enemy on the terms given.

Self-righteous, metaphorical imagery.

What you argue next is most puzzling, you seem to suggest that the state does not have the right to engage/kill/detain/expell those that seeek to destroy it through violence, and not through the legitimate forums provided by you for such revolution by the body politic. This is absurd. The state not only has the right to defend itself, to detain/kill/expell those who seek to destroy, but has an obligation to do so. You cannot cry foul when it does do this, because you have by your declaration have entitled yourself free from the restraints imposed by the body politic, the same restraints placed on everyone else, and deemed yourself worthy to kill without regard to the guilt of the people you intend to kill. (yes an irradiation bomb is designed to kill people regardless of thier political affiliation and beleifs)

So, the state has the right to lock up a guy on a street corner who says that he hates America? Why? Because your paranoia and fallacious leaps in logic tell you that that man must be out to kill every American he sees? I've got a big list of people that I hate, but I don't intend to kill any of them.

In other words, by resorting to violence, or to the incitement of violence, in a democratic state, you undermine the credibility fo what your advocating, becasue you are not trying to impose democracy, by democratic proccess for change, you are trying to impose your will by force. You are despot, a facist, and you are imposing a state that is contrary to the will of the people. It has to be contrary to the will of the people, because if it weren't, you would get what you want because the body politic would demand it, and the state will acceed to the will the of the people.

Fascists restrict free speech on the grounds that it doesn't agree with what they think. The only person who can be labeled a fascist here is you.

Your paranoia could almost be considered amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. You automatically assume that everyone is out to get America if they're not singing its praises, hence you subscribe to Bush's black-and-white, crusader view of "If you're not with us, you're against us." Such rhetoric may be suitable for pandering to public bloodlust, but it's no way to run a government.

[Enlightenment]

Your paranoia could almost be considered amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. You automatically assume that everyone is out to get America if they're not singing its praises, hence you subscribe to Bush's black-and-white, crusader view of "If you're not with us, you're against us." Such rhetoric may be suitable for pandering to public bloodlust, but it's no way to run a government.

It's rather worrying that people like the Village Idiot are more than merely a tiny minority. Idiots like him are a dime a dozen. Pretty much everywhere I've seen the ABM system discussed online there's at least one rightwingnut leaping up and down screaming that anyone who opposes BMD is a closet admirer of North Korea, al Qaida, the Sept 11 attacks, or all of the above.

I must admire the Republicans' brainwashing techniques, however. All of their nationalist nutbars debate in exactly the same way and resort to exactly the same straw men when they're backed into a corner. The party must be mass producing cookiecutter morons by the hundreds of thousands.

[Durandal]

That's the truth. The Republican party has brainwashed all of its members into believing that fully functional nuclear weapons can be readily bought and sold on the Black Market. Not one of the people plugging for this ridiculous ABM system has any clue as to how difficult it is to obtain any of the components and personnel required to build or even operate a nuclear weapon, yet the deceptions stand unchallenged because of the catch-all "Black Market" buzzword excuse.

Everyone seems to forget that there are far cheaper, easier and more effective ways to kill a few million people. Biological and chemical weapons are far more desirable for terrorists than a nuke. They're cheaper and some, like anthrax, can even occur naturally. Of course, no one ever mentions that part, because the government knows that there's no effective defense against such a weapon, should the terrorists unleash it.

The solution? Create this nuclear attack strawman and knock it down with a multi-billion dollar defense system so that the public can feel secure. The reality is a lot worse.

[Vertigo1]

Does anyone else think Azeron was dropped on his head as a child?


Or got beaten with the stupid stick?

No, you see he fell from the top of the moron tree and hit every branch on the way down.

[Stuart Mackey]

Nick, Stuart,

It is obvious that you hate America, and what is stands for, and you want to see it destroyed. Just admit it and come out into the open, so everyone may see your agenda for what it is. It has nothing to do with free speech, and your position has been thoroughly trounced, taking your refusal to seriously rebutt my position.

First of, you are aware that I am a New Zealander?
As it happens, I do not hate America, quite the contrary actually, even if it does have some unsavory aspects, but every nation has those. Most Americans I know or have met are good, desent people. Now if you say I hate America, Iwould like ou to prove this, ie quote me.
As for rebuting you, thats easy.

"Yes I alawyas suppory the invasion and domination of a forigen people and thier rich cultural heritage."
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 27&start=0

So here we can see that you do not exactly syand for anything American.


At no point have you trounceed anything I have said.

Is all speech equal, acceptable and protected? No.
Did Voliatre beleive that all speech was protected? No.
Did the Founding Fathers beleive that incitment to violent overthrow of the government was protected speech? No.
Is there any state in the world or the history of mankind where such speech is acceptable? No.

So long as you do not print or say in public untruths, libel or slander, about another then you can say anything, even the advocation of the violent overthrough of the state. This is quite legal, the New Zealand communist party has advocated it for decades. The beuty of a democracy is that for such a thing to be possible it musyt be supported by a large section of the people, and its a testement to democracy that it has never happened in the main democratic nations.

There are many reasons for why not all speech is protected. Speech expresses ideas, and ideas have consqences. When you say that you want to kill your fellow countrymen, and detonate an irradiation bomb, you express an idea, your are communicating that idea to through that speech. We then through the magic of nueral proccessing parse the sentance and deicpher the menaing through our "langauge codex".

You are aware that such a threat would have to be concidered malicious for a prosicution to take place? otherwise you would just be written off as a crackpot. That you cannot distinguish between a malicious threat to other people and freedom of speech is a true testimaent to your Idiot status here.

When we evaluate your idea, we come to some conclusion:
Snip blatant strawman

Will you quit it with these strawmen? its kind of tireing.

The State then accepting its obligations to protect the people it was formed to protect from those hostile to the society, picks up its sword, and engages in battle, meeting the enemy on the terms given.

What you argue next is most puzzling, you seem to suggest that the state does not have the right to engage/kill/detain/expell those that seeek to destroy it through violence, and not through the legitimate forums provided by you for such revolution by the body politic. This is absurd. The state not only has the right to defend itself, to detain/kill/expell those who seek to destroy, but has an obligation to do so. You cannot cry foul when it does do this, because you have by your declaration have entitled yourself free from the restraints imposed by the body politic, the same restraints placed on everyone else, and deemed yourself worthy to kill without regard to the guilt of the people you intend to kill. (yes an irradiation bomb is designed to kill people regardless of thier political affiliation and beleifs)

In other words, by resorting to violence, or to the incitement of violence, in a democratic state, you undermine the credibility fo what your advocating, becasue you are not trying to impose democracy, by democratic proccess for change, you are trying to impose your will by force. You are despot, a facist, and you are imposing a state that is contrary to the will of the people. It has to be contrary to the will of the people, because if it weren't, you would get what you want because the body politic would demand it, and the state will acceed to the will the of the people.

Thats why your point is unattenable. Thats why you are on the other side of this conflict. Thats why you are the facists. What you advocate is against the will of the people, so you want to kill enough people to get what you want.

You are the one that proposes that any one who disageees with you should leave America, this sort of thing was a hallmark of the Soviet Union. If a state represes its citizens, then who desides what is legitimate? the state who repress its citizens, or those citizens who would revolt against tyranny? How government was put in power is irrelivant next to its actions in such circumstances. What you propoe above is nothing better than Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.
You really are a moron, Azeron, if you cannot realise this.

[Nick]

Nick, Stuart,
It is obvious that you hate America, and what is stands for, and you want to see it destroyed. Just admit it and come out into the open, so everyone may see your agenda for what it is. It has nothing to do with free speech, and your position has been thoroughly trounced, taking your refusal to seriously rebutt my position.

We have pointed out that your position is a strawman. You are failing to recognise the significant distinction between genuine threats, backed up by the resources to carry them out, and the ravings of moronic idiots.

Moreover, you have wilfully discarded the concepts of natural justice:
"Let no citizen be considered guilty, until they have been judged so by a jury of their peers"

Do you know what they call a state in which unverified accusations, or public criticism of the government, are seen as grounds for arrest and arbitrary detention? Here's a hint: Nazi Germany was such a place. So was Stalinist Russia.

Now, funnily enough, I think that its commitment to free speech and natural justice are two of the greatest things about America. Must be thinking of somewhere other than the fascist state you seem to believe you live in.

Is all speech equal, acceptable and protected? No.
Did Voliatre beleive that all speech was protected? No.
Did the Founding Fathers beleive that incitment to violent overthrow of the government was protected speech? No.
Is there any state in the world or the history of mankind where such speech is acceptable? No.

Bullshit. Certain forms of public speech may be deemed sufficiently offensive to be banned, but the speech is only banned from certain forums, it is not made grounds for arrest and arbitrary detention. The question of the proper limits of censorship is an entirely different one from the arbitrary detainment and deportation you are proposing. Quit trying to equate the two issues.

There are many reasons for why not all speech is protected. Speech expresses ideas, and ideas have consqences. When you say that you want to kill your fellow countrymen, and detonate an irradiation bomb, you express an idea, your are communicating that idea to through that speech. We then through the magic of nueral proccessing parse the sentance and deicpher the menaing through our "langauge codex".

No. Moronic ideas influence only the gullible and the morons. If ideas persuade sufficiently large numbers of the population, then this is commonly known as 'democracy in action'. Fortunately, most of the really scary idiots are too out there to persuade even the general populace of the United States.

The censoring of speech (or the detainment of a speaker solely for reasons of their speech) is an admission by the government that they don't believe their citizens have the right to receive that information. For most of these crackpots, the ideas are just so fucking stupid that censoring them (or arresting the speakers) would just start people wondering "Hey, why did the goverment react like that? What are they afraid of? Maybe that guy wasn't full of shit after all!". Governmental over-reactions would simply give them a legitimacy they currently lack.

When we evaluate your idea, we come to some conclusion:
1) You hate your country

I hate Australia? Since when? (Hey Az, see that thing over to the side there that lists my name? It also shows where I live)

2) You want to kill us

I think fuckwits have the right to spout crap, therefore I want to kill you all? Doing well on the logic front there, Az!

3) You achknowledge that the body politic does not aggree with you after evaluating the circumstances, and you beleive that violence is the only way to get people to do what you want

I see a difference between censorship and arbitrary detainment, and in your fucked up world that is something 'most people' disagree with.
I believe fuckwits have the right to speak (despite being moronic fuckwits), and in your fucked up world, this is something 'most people' disagree with.

Furthermore, you say that, despite believing the above two things, I intend to use violence to force my view onto everyone else. Fucking hell Azeron, you can't even create strawmen that avoid being self-contradictory.

4) You have renounced your citzenship, and declared the authority of the state, derived from the will of the governed does not apply to you

I renounced my Australia citizenship? Oh that's right, this is more of your strawman bullshit. See above.

5) You have announced your intention to engage in war against the body politic to impose your will

That's a spectacular stretch even for you, Az.

The State then accepting its obligations to protect the people it was formed to protect from those hostile to the society, picks up its sword, and engages in battle, meeting the enemy on the terms given.

If the State fails to establish proper grounds for suspicion, then the State is acting in a fascist manner. And sorry, being an Arab who thinks the current American government is run by a bunch of fuckwits does not establish proper grounds for suspicion.

What you argue next is most puzzling, you seem to suggest that the state does not have the right to engage/kill/detain/expell those that seeek to destroy it through violence, and not through the legitimate forums provided by you for such revolution by the body politic. This is absurd. The state not only has the right to defend itself, to detain/kill/expell those who seek to destroy, but has an obligation to do so.

And once again, you fail to make the distinction between fuckwits full of hot air and actual terrorists.

The state does have the right to do those things, but only through due process of law. Not because some government official decided to cry 'Terrorist!' because they didn't like someone's attitude. They need little legal niceties like 'grounds for suspicion' or 'evidence' or perhaps even (*shock*) 'a case'. Unless, of course, we're talking about a fascist state, in which case they can do whatever the fuck they want.

::snip the repetition of Azeron's strawman bullshit::