My civil rights have been violated!

Jun 2018
236
12
U.S.
#72
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.
The question you asked wasn't a very good one. So I came up with a couple that were better. To which I say that if the government does it, private citizens should be able to do it too. Good or bad. And as for restrictions, I can't really think of anything that the government restricts, in reality. Because if you have the money, you can get away with anything.
 
Jun 2018
236
12
U.S.
#73
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.
To change my actions to receive different results would basically require me to bend over and allow somebody with a huge penis to ram it up my ass. That being the case, I am satisfied with the results I have been getting.
 
Jun 2018
236
12
U.S.
#74
When it comes down to law, it HAS to be written. That's the way that the law works. An officer can't come up and arrest you for having brown hair because he decided to make up that law that day. Some things don't have to be written to make them true, but that does not apply with law. It DOES have to be written to be true (and enforceable).

As a side note, when someone is giving you an example, you don't have to assume that the person believes that you would react the same way. The person upset because people laughed at him was an example. Another example would be a professional quarterback losing a sponsor because of something that he said. If the company does not want to be associated with that statement, they may choose to no longer pay the person. This is not an infringement of their civil rights.

Free speech does not mean free of consequences. It simple means free of consequences from the government.
The "law" is a pile of dogshit. At best! No matter how any law is written, it only means whatever those in power says it means. For example, a few years ago I decided to take a walk over to a drug store. Along the way there were a couple of assholes under a bridge who started making rude sounds to me. So I flipped them off. They kept doing so, so I took my jacket off and challenged them. They did nothing so I walked on. After going a little ways, I saw that they were following me. So I called the cops, told them where I was and that I was about to be assaulted. I faced them down and eventually fought with one of them. After the fight, a cop finally showed up. He went over to them and talked to them. Then he let them go. Maybe they told him that I surrounded them. I don't know. But as the law is written, assault is probably against the law.

Here is something else about the "law." I was watching some program about it. Apparently the law we use was originated in ancient Rome. In that law, sometines you have to use another word to describe an original word. Sometimes you have to use another word to describe the second. And sometimes you have to use yet another word to describe the third word.

It is all just a load of legalese dogshit. Meant to confuse the issue and try to get one over on the poor. Or if you are wealthy enough, weasel your way out of responsibility for some action. I saw it happen once with some rich transvitite who cut up a body and disposed of it. They never found the head. So apparently they couldn't PROVE that it was murder. But the way I see it, even though it probably isn't written down anywhere, if you cut up a body and dispose of the pieces, it can safely be assumed that you murdered that person.

Also, I have a song suggestion for you. It speaks of an interesting lapse in the law. It is by Frank Zappa. It is called "The Illinois Enema Bandit."
 
Feb 2008
1,851
365
Minnesota
#75
To which I say that if the government does it, private citizens should be able to do it too. Good or bad.
That is just absolutely silly. The government makes laws that apply to everyone. Should I as a private citizen be able to make laws that apply to everyone? The government builds jails and throws people in them when they break the laws. Should I be able to build a jail and imprison someone who breaks one of my laws? Your whole notion fails the test of logic.
 
Nov 2005
7,270
1,900
California
#76
Just because being a slave may be working out for you, don't expect me to do what you do. Also, what if somebody invited you over to their house. But said that once inside, you had to behave exactly as they told you. Would you go?
The analogy you just gave has an obvious conclusion. You are free to leave if you don't like the rules.
But you don't want to do that. You want others to ignore their rules for their purchased property and yield to your dictates...


Also, as I said before, the government itself won't allow itself to limit freedom of speech. Those they rule over shouldn't be allowed to either.
Also, as I said before, this is your personal pet dream.
It in no way reflects the reality of the world around us. What you describe is not how "civil rights" work.


Next, what if there was no forum where the truth was allowed to be spoken. (Which basically, there isn't) But the truth is important to you. Does that mean you shouldn't at least try to speak it? Even if it isn't allowed? Maybe this basically makes me a law breaker. Ever hear the Judas Priest song "Breakin the law."
You are free to try, but your problem is this whining you do when others enforce their rules on their property.


Next, the quote means what it means. Also, if we lived in communist Russia back in the time of Lenin, it wouldn't apply. Because they basically had no civil rights. But we do. And if back in Lenin's time they had computers and political discussion forums, they would almost certainly have been run by the Bolsheviks. And secretly so if they were against the Bolsheviks.
This has nothing to do with your actual demands. :wacko:
You might as well be proclaiming you are worse off than a Jew surrounded by Hitler's nazis in a concentration camp because you can't force others to allow you to say what you like on their property...


Next, if it isn't a business or charity, what is it. A hobby? Or as is most likely, a way for the powers to be to let Americans think they are exercising freedom of speech without actually doing so.
It's their property.
And as I have already addressed, you create a false dilemma in trying to pretend it has to be either a business or a charity.
This forum is not a business.
This forum is not a charity.
It is dumb to pretend it is either by insisting on that limiting question.


Next, no. Those weren't the times that I was able to recognize that I was proven wrong.
It's funny how you say "no", but we actually agree that you were not capable of recognizing you were proven wrong in the other situations...


Those were the only times that I was proven wrong. Next, civil rights aren't determined by any written law. They are determined by what is in fact right or wrong. You could also view it as a basic, inalienable human right.
No. "Civil rights" are definitively not determined by what you claim is right and wrong.
The fact that you think you equate "civil rights" with "right or wrong", which are moral evaluations only underlines the futility of your demands and failure to comprehend the reality around you.


Next, I just proved my civil rights. And nothing I have said anywhere has been "made up." It is cold, hard fact.
No. You didn't.
You gave opinions. Your opinions are not fact.


Next, I do more than just hit the reply button. Next, nothing I say is based on emotion. It is based on reality. Which does in turn cause a wonderful hatred. And I do recognize the reality around me. Such as slavery. It is you who is living in a fantasy world.
It's your reality and you fail to comprehend you alone are claiming your opinions as reality.
The legal system does not work as you wish it would.

The truly lazy thing about your approach is that the logical recourse would be for you to buy your own forum space so you could speak your opinion.
But again, you want to demand others post your opinion regardless of their rules.


Next, my rules are truth. That isn't something I made up. Next, no. I don't choose to share in your slavery reality. Next, if I said anything anywhere that you think is untrue, (besides the civil rights thing which you can't grasp) you just let me know.
I have been letting you know.
You have done nothing in response other than throwing out meaningless metaphorical claims like "slavery" because you are not allowed to do as you please on somebody else's property.


Next, earlier there was somebody who replied to me. If it wasn't you, it was somebody like you. They told me to start my own forum. Which I don't have the money to do. So what that was basically saying is that the poor don't dererve a voice.
No. It isn't.
Forums are not the only method to express a voice.
You could stand on a street corner and speak your opinion, but you don't want to do that.
You don't want to do the options that you are actually entitled to.
You want to use somebody else's property regardless of their actual choices.
 
Feb 2007
3,221
1,576
New York
#77
To change my actions to receive different results would basically require me to bend over and allow somebody with a huge penis to ram it up my ass. That being the case, I am satisfied with the results I have been getting.
No, it would simply require you to remember the three C's of debate: Civil, Cogent, Concise. Treat other people with respect, Make coherent arguments and keep you posts short enough to be interesting.

There is no excuse for an adult with normal faculties not following these basic rules. You know what is expected of you and you agreed to it in order to sign up for this board. It doesn't cost you anything to be polite. If you violate the rules, you face the consequences as you have on other boards. You claim that you are satisfied with the results while at the same time you are complaining about your civil rights being violated? Does that even make sense to you?
 
Likes: 1 person
Feb 2007
3,221
1,576
New York
#78
The "law" is a pile of dogshit. At best! No matter how any law is written, it only means whatever those in power says it means. For example, a few years ago I decided to take a walk over to a drug store. Along the way there were a couple of assholes under a bridge who started making rude sounds to me. So I flipped them off. They kept doing so, so I took my jacket off and challenged them. They did nothing so I walked on. After going a little ways, I saw that they were following me. So I called the cops, told them where I was and that I was about to be assaulted. I faced them down and eventually fought with one of them. After the fight, a cop finally showed up. He went over to them and talked to them. Then he let them go. Maybe they told him that I surrounded them. I don't know. But as the law is written, assault is probably against the law.

Here is something else about the "law." I was watching some program about it. Apparently the law we use was originated in ancient Rome. In that law, sometines you have to use another word to describe an original word. Sometimes you have to use another word to describe the second. And sometimes you have to use yet another word to describe the third word.

It is all just a load of legalese dogshit. Meant to confuse the issue and try to get one over on the poor. Or if you are wealthy enough, weasel your way out of responsibility for some action. I saw it happen once with some rich transvitite who cut up a body and disposed of it. They never found the head. So apparently they couldn't PROVE that it was murder. But the way I see it, even though it probably isn't written down anywhere, if you cut up a body and dispose of the pieces, it can safely be assumed that you murdered that person.

Also, I have a song suggestion for you. It speaks of an interesting lapse in the law. It is by Frank Zappa. It is called "The Illinois Enema Bandit."
You do realize that your civil rights are also part of the law don't you? Clearly it isn't all bad.

Your trip to the drugstore actually explains a lot. You are a very angry person and you feel diminished if you don't respond to or challenge even the tiniest perceived slight. A more adult reaction to the rude noises would have been thinking "Wow. They have nothing better to do with their time. Sad." and moving on down the road. I believe that you have no grounds for assault since you are the one that turned and faced them down; you began the interaction. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.

I don't mean to sound unkind but this attitude is going to get a lot of doors slammed in your face, so to speak. I strongly suggest working on that and/or seeking the help of a quality therapist to shed these demons before they destroy your life.
 
Likes: 2 people
Oct 2010
64,226
25,265
Colorado
#79
The "law" is a pile of dogshit. At best! No matter how any law is written, it only means whatever those in power says it means. For example, a few years ago I decided to take a walk over to a drug store. Along the way there were a couple of assholes under a bridge who started making rude sounds to me. So I flipped them off. They kept doing so, so I took my jacket off and challenged them. They did nothing so I walked on. After going a little ways, I saw that they were following me. So I called the cops, told them where I was and that I was about to be assaulted. I faced them down and eventually fought with one of them. After the fight, a cop finally showed up. He went over to them and talked to them. Then he let them go. Maybe they told him that I surrounded them. I don't know. But as the law is written, assault is probably against the law.

Here is something else about the "law." I was watching some program about it. Apparently the law we use was originated in ancient Rome. In that law, sometines you have to use another word to describe an original word. Sometimes you have to use another word to describe the second. And sometimes you have to use yet another word to describe the third word.

It is all just a load of legalese dogshit. Meant to confuse the issue and try to get one over on the poor. Or if you are wealthy enough, weasel your way out of responsibility for some action. I saw it happen once with some rich transvitite who cut up a body and disposed of it. They never found the head. So apparently they couldn't PROVE that it was murder. But the way I see it, even though it probably isn't written down anywhere, if you cut up a body and dispose of the pieces, it can safely be assumed that you murdered that person.

Also, I have a song suggestion for you. It speaks of an interesting lapse in the law. It is by Frank Zappa. It is called "The Illinois Enema Bandit."
I've got it. Get you a Winnebago and move to San Ber'dino. They got dark green air and you can choke all day. That's right.

Let's-a go down down down
Down in San Ber'dino
Wouldja be'lieve it
San Ber'dino
San Ber'dino
(got to call it)
San Ber'dino
(C'mere)
San Ber'dino
Etc., etc., etc
The rest of their lives
In San Ber'dino........
 

Similar Discussions