TheScout

I didn't say that made you less . . .

I think they make communication easier. Isn't that that why "Left" and "Right" in terms of the political spectrum were introduced in the first place?

How would you describe a socialist position without using the word "socialist?"

I guess you are one of those people who hate "labels." All such terms simplify a position in some way, but they make communication easier.

I is easier to say "socialist" then the say "an economic system involving pubilc ownership of large segments of the means of production is a society."

Perhaps. I don't claim to be an expert on Rousseau. How would you say I am wrong?

I am suprised you have never heard of statism. I assure you sir I did not make it up.

Statism generally means the government having a large role in the economy.

I think you misunderstand my position. I am not making an anarchist argument against government by any stretch. Rousseaus's "general will" ideas are scarey. I like Locke a lot more his conceprt of the social contract is more consistent with private ownership and individual freedom in my humble opinion.

Rousseau's Social Contract is a very statist document. His praise of the "general will" is scarey to me.

In part it said "each of us would put "his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we [would] receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole." The resulting sovereign, "being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither [would have] nor [could] have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power [would] need give no guarantee to its subjects. In his imagined world, "[t]he Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, [would] always [be] what it should be."

Sounds a bit Marxist to me.

SR540Beaver,

If you read all I said, I never said that the moderator did not have the right to ban it. I was just arguing the propriety of it.

Eagle1977,

I don't think it is "ok" but I think someone can burn it if they wish.

I like the words of the 1989 Supreme Court decision on the matter in Texas vs. Johnson:

"Precisely because it is our flag that is involved, one's response to the flag burner may exploit the uniquely persuasive power of the flag itself. We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by -- as one witness here did -- according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

I like the words. Though I disagree with the opinon itself. That has more to do with the legal aspects of it, considering the scope of the 10th and 14th Amendments and the proper role of the federal courts.

I guess it gets me some grief, but somebody has to speak out for liberty. It is easy for you all to preach free speach when we talk about nice things. It really comes into play. If you really believe in it, if you let people talk about such vile thing this poster did.

Perhaps collect attendance reports from the PL.

Did you ask the SPL and the PLC? What administrative tasks do they need done?

Hmmm, well I in no way would stop anyone from posting due to their content. Only a suggestion that perhaps they should check their spelling.

Say whatever you want, just make a tiny effort to spell things right!

So what theory is more in line with freedom of speech?

There should be a rule that some people check their spelling before posting.

Do you have any bumps, bruises? Bleeding at all? Still have all your property? Any of it stolen, or trashed?

I didn't think so.

You seem ok.

So if anyone claims their "soul" is damaged we can regulate another's speech.

"freedom of speech is open discussion of ideas, freedom to speak out against precieved wrongs at a time and place appropriate."

Thats nice. Too bad it seems you are all so willing to put restrictions on the liberty of others.

By limited speech to "percieved wrongs" at certain times and places look at all the limits you create.

Who determines whether they are percieved wrongs.

Who determines what the place is?

Who determines what the time is?

The whole time I have said in a private forum such as this the owner has the right to do so. However should he? Or should he promote liberty and not decide to make such decisions.

I chose liberty. Too bad you don't.

"I was harmed by what was said. Something was stolen from me in what was written."

LOL what does that mean? I am quite sure you are being dramatic and you are quite ok.

Of course whoever runs this community can make rules. But the bigger question is, should they exist in the form that they do. Do we want to endorse the halting of the freedom of speech like you, or should be do the most to promote liberty.

I chose liberty.

"I believe there are limits on free speech."

Then its not really free then, is it? People should only be free to speak if you agree with what they say.

"I believe we have a greater responsiblity to protect our children and ourselves."

I wasn't harmed. Were you? Any educated young citizen should know nonsense of he or she sees it.

"I did not say that the offender should not be allowed to speak but I do believe that it must be in a reasonable time, place and manner."

Its nice for you to place conditions on the speech of others. Placing such conditions can basically take away the ability of one to speak for all practical purposes.

"Do you believe that it is appropriate to use obscene, inflamatory or prejudicial language no matter what the audience?"

I don't believe it is. I believe in personal liberty however. As long as one does not harm another, I think we should be able to say what we wish.

"I have chosen this forum as a safe place to air ideas. If the desire is to turn it into a sewer, then I will go elsewhere. But why must those of us who believe in common courtesy be the ones who must limit ourselves."

You don't have to limit yourselves. In any public place however you must be able to accept others. Too bad you want to shut down ideas not consistent with your own.

"I believe that free speech is a right with responsibilities. We must be willing to limit our speech when it is dangerous."

Limiting speech when dangerous - that has been the call of every dictator throughout history who has done the same.

"Political speech is not what we are addressing here but language that is purposefully inflammatory and degrading."

But its a slippery slope. And who decides what exactly is political speech and what is not? Should you?

"There are natural limits to free speech that has nothing to do with my personal preferences."

No there are really no natural limits. Nature does not stop anyone from saying something. Men coerce other men to.

"I do not demand that everyone agree with me. But I do ask that others respect me as well."

No you just don't ask. You want to shut down someone who speaks things you do not like.

"Your free speech ends at my ears. I have the right not to have to listen. The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. It doesn't require us to listen."

Umm . . . this is the whole point. I can speak. Close your ears. Don't listen. The Constitution says people can speak. If you don't like it, don't listen.

Lisa,

Perhaps left unchecked that would be the result. But a few small posts are laughable and just make one look like a censor.

Sheldonsmom,

Obviously the constitution has nothing to do with this. This is a private forum and he can do as he wishes. This is not like yelling "fire," nobody could be harmed. Free speech is being able to say whatever you want in a work place. Not letting someone do that is infringing on their freedom of speech . . . duh.

I am not challenging your free speech by criticizing you. I don't know where you got that from. We criticize each other all the time. I did not say you can not make such statements. Simply that they are not consistent with free speech.

But you never answered my questions"

Just like you change channels and don't read books you don't like, why can't you just not read threads that you don't like?

Why shut off others' speech?

Do you not really believe in free speech?

Or is that just cool when you find the speech appropriate?

Just like you change channels and don't read books you don't like, why can't you just not read threads that you don't like?

Why shut off others' speech?

Do you not really believe in free speech?

Or is that just cool when you find the speech appropriate?

But what I don't get is - if it is that ridiculous, why are we afraid the scout will see it?

Don't we trust our young citizens are educated enough to be able to interpret something they read on the internet and know it is ridiculous?

But to me anyway, thats the whole point!

Its easy to champion free speech when we talk about mundane issues and debate the same topics over and over again.

If you can champion free speech even when it is "obscene, infammatory, and predjudiced," then we can see thats what you REALLY believe.

If not you what we call freedom of speech is just a shadow of freedom.

If what someone says is that ridiculous let the thoughts die on their own lack of merits.

A patch for going to a presentation . . .

If they were that stupid, let them stay. Nobody would take it seriously anyway?

What is the harm in that?

I don't like censorship.

It is easy to say you don't like censorship and let people debate things that do not matter much. But that is not really freedom. Freedom really exists when people are allowed to question things that are most important to our established order.(This message has been edited by TheScout)

I don't like censorship.

I am reminded of two Jefferon quotes:

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.

-Thomas Jefferson

The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together.

"the world is moving and changing. if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem."

What does that mean? It could be changing for the worst. You offer no argument.

I just did.

Also at the Annunciation, Saint Gabriel greets Mary with the words, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." "Full of grave" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene which means completness or perfection.

Anyway, again, you focus too much on the Bible alone which you are not qualified to interpret. . .

"No reading of the scriptures could possibly come to the conclusion that that's how God works in the world."

As all Protestants you focus on the scriptures too much (Which you don't have the authority to interpret) and ignore the tradition that the Church has also harbored as part of the deposit of faith.

"And certainly not so a childless man can pass judgment excluding the mother from the sacraments of Christ for makin' the hard decision to save the life of her innocent 9-year-old girl."

And who better to make such decisions than the Pope? This one in particular is a very educated and learned theologian.

"think that bishop in Brazil is an imbecile"

What a very rude thing to say. Where is the respect to such a high office?

Your homework is to read the history of the Roman Empire and let me know how it was doing in 600?

Genesis 3:15 is a good start:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed"

It is a prophecy. God promised to send a savior to mankind. That is the seed. Mary is the woman. She is also referred to as that in the Gospels. There is enmity or complete opposition of Mary to Satan - the Serpant.

There are other passages in the Bible as well. Such as the parts about the Annuciation.

It is a very old theory. Saint Severus in the 6th Century, who was the Bishop of Antioch wroet "She . . . formed part of the human race, and was of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate."