Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights

Civil Rights Civil and Political Rights Forum - Civil rights and liberties


Thanks Tree39Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 10th, 2018, 01:48 PM   #51
Banned
 
fandango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: U.S.
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You can express any opinion and follow the rules.

You will follow the posted rules. You agreed to do that.

I'm holding you to it.
Maybe I can express any opinion and follow the rules. But not to any meaningful degree. So then, what would be the point. Next, I am seething with hatred. Don't you think that is a human right. It is like being annoyed. Don't you think people have a right to be annoyed? And to express that annoyance anywhere people can comminicate with each other? Stating an annoyance is allowed. Stating a haterd, forums call "racism" Or "offensive." Or "spam." When it is only expressing an annoyance.

You want me to say penis instead of cock. Or fornicate instead of fuck. Or african american instead of nigg... That's right. That's right. The "N" word. You know what I mean. We are both probably thinking the word right now. (I know I am) With all that being the case, why not just allow me to say it. Because some might find it "offensive?" If anybody doesn't like the kinds of things I might say, they don't have to read any of it. That is their right. How about allowing them the "right" to exercise that right.
fandango is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 01:56 PM   #52
Banned
 
fandango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: U.S.
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm View Post
Does this work for positive actions the government takes as well as restrictions? For example, the government can print money. If the government can do it, then shouldn't the people the government rules also be able to print money?
There is quite a bit of difference between currency and freedom of speech. This would be a better question. If it is ok for the government to operate gambling, such as with the lottery, shouldn't private citizens be allowed to also? Or how about this. If it is ok for the government to use the military to kill people, shouldn't it be ok for private citizens to kill people also? For example, by hanging around near the U.S.-mexico border with a high powered rifle and shoot mexican invaders entering into our country.
fandango is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 02:14 PM   #53
Banned
 
fandango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: U.S.
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho View Post
The exact point is that is does NOT stand to reason. The US Government is NOT a citizen of the United States. The Bill of rights is a list of things that the government CAN NOT do to citizens. It makes no comment upon what citizens can do to each other.



That it doesn't say that private citizens must do the same means EVERYTHING. An individual speaking his mind is free speech; another individual (or the whole group) laughing at him and telling the first that his opinions are crap is ALSO free speech, even if the first believes that he is being punished for having an opinion.



You say SHOULD a lot. When it comes to law, should does not apply. It is either written in black and white or it doesn't exist.

Ethical and legal don't always coincide. When we are talking about rights, we are talking about what is legal, not necessarily ethical.
You are right. The U.S. government is not an American citizen. Basically, it is every American citizen. Next, something doesn't have to be written to make it true. For example, dinosaurs existed. No humans were needed to say they existed for them to exist. Listed or not listed, if there is something that it is wrong for a government to do, it should also be wrong for any citizens of that government to do also.

Next, that the consitution doesn't say that all citizens must do the same as the government says EVERYTHING. Also, I don't care if people laugh at me or whatever. That isn't punishing me. And if they try to disprove anything I say, that would likely change. (Unless they are just insane) The point is in having the freedom to say whatever.

Next, it seems we agree on something. The law is a load of crap. My opinion of why that is is because it is mainly written by the rich for the rich. Legal and ethical are indeed often two separate things.
fandango is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 02:21 PM   #54
Banned
 
fandango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: U.S.
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightOfSappho View Post
So essentially you come onto a site, ignore the rules, hurl accusations and call people names and then whine when you are banned.

Gotcha.

There is a saying that I head a long time ago:
If one man calls you an ass, ignore it.
If five men call you an ass, buy yourself a saddle.


If you want to sit around and blame everyone else for your actions, it is your right to do so; just don't expect to be taken seriously.
First, if I hurl any accusations at any forum, they are well founded. People whi disagree with them can debate me over them. And if I call anybody names (not that I would be allowed to do so to the degree I would like) they are deserving of it. But most often my insults are just replies to insults. As for your little quote, consider this. How many people does it take to be right.
fandango is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 02:22 PM   #55
Banned
 
fandango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: U.S.
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
sorry, we cant allow for personal definitions
If you ever disagree with any of my definitions, just let me know.
fandango is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 02:25 PM   #56
Banned
 
fandango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: U.S.
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
you mean your wife lets you behave as you like?
I don't have a wife. But if I did, she would probably allow me to do what I want. Because it wouldn't be unreasonable.
fandango is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 03:32 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
noonereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: NYC
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by fandango View Post
If you ever disagree with any of my definitions, just let me know.
I did not disagree. I pointed out you were mistaken.
Thanks from RNG and Hollywood
noonereal is online now  
Old July 10th, 2018, 04:05 PM   #58
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by fandango View Post
I don't have a wife. But if I did, she would probably allow me to do what I want. Because it wouldn't be unreasonable.
Most women don't like men (or in your case, boys) who are "seething with hatred". Maybe you could try to pick one up at the RNC in a couple years?
Thanks from RNG and noonereal
GluteusMaximus is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 06:00 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Bookworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by fandango View Post
There is quite a bit of difference between currency and freedom of speech. This would be a better question. If it is ok for the government to operate gambling, such as with the lottery, shouldn't private citizens be allowed to also? Or how about this. If it is ok for the government to use the military to kill people, shouldn't it be ok for private citizens to kill people also? For example, by hanging around near the U.S.-mexico border with a high powered rifle and shoot mexican invaders entering into our country.
Asking different questions is not the same as answering I one I asked you. Sure, there's a difference between currency and freedom of speech. You could say the same about ANY example I might give, but my question is still a valid one. You were making the point that if something applies to the government, then it should apply to the people the government is ruling as well. Does this apply to positive actions the government takes as well as to restriction? Feel free to also answer the questions you asked. I'm interested in your answers.
Thanks from imaginethat
Bookworm is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 03:18 AM   #60
Senior Member
 
KnightOfSappho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 2,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by fandango View Post
First, if I hurl any accusations at any forum, they are well founded. People whi disagree with them can debate me over them. And if I call anybody names (not that I would be allowed to do so to the degree I would like) they are deserving of it. But most often my insults are just replies to insults. As for your little quote, consider this. How many people does it take to be right.
If you have, as you said, been banned from multiple forums, you need to examine what YOU are doing wrong instead of saying that they are all wrong. If you are receiving the same result over and over, it is time to change your actions so you can get a different result.
Thanks from imaginethat
KnightOfSappho is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights

Tags
civil, rights, violated



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HELP our rights were violated by a state police officer havocms Crime and Punishment 3 December 20th, 2017 11:35 AM
My civil rights were violated. What next? Fishface425 Civil Rights 6 June 28th, 2017 03:16 PM
Do you think DMV violated Civil Rights? Peter Forsberg Opinion Polls 26 June 23rd, 2014 01:28 AM
Senate Rejects Civil Rights Nominee For Defending Civil Rights skews13 Current Events 6 March 5th, 2014 08:38 PM
First Amendment rights being violated no rights Freedom of Speech 63 August 1st, 2008 02:26 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.