55-44-1
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by ScottEmerson, Nov 4, 2004.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
The justification is that I have the right to not listen to you, therefore, you have no right to be heard.Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Therefore, freedom of speech does not involve the freedom to be heard. That is, unless you happen to agree with the speaker.
Thanks for clearing that up for us. -
It's like the freedom of the press. You have the freedom to produce 1,000,000 political tracts expressing your views, but I have the freedom to choose not to read it. Would you agree there?
Maybe you and Joseph are disagreeing on what "right to be heard" means, but Joseph correctly speaks here. Just because someone wants to talk doesn't mean that I have to listen. -
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It's like the freedom of the press. You have the freedom to produce 1,000,000 political tracts expressing your views, but I have the freedom to choose not to read it. Would you agree there?
Maybe you and Joseph are disagreeing on what "right to be heard" means, but Joseph correctly speaks here. Just because someone wants to talk doesn't mean that I have to listen.Click to expand...
Let me state it this way: someone has the right to be heard, but that does not override another person's right not to listen. The two are mutually exclusive. -
Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
It's like the freedom of the press. You have the freedom to produce 1,000,000 political tracts expressing your views, but I have the freedom to choose not to read it. Would you agree there?
Maybe you and Joseph are disagreeing on what "right to be heard" means, but Joseph correctly speaks here. Just because someone wants to talk doesn't mean that I have to listen.Click to expand...
</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, I'll bite. What is that supposed to mean?
Joseph Botwinick -
Arlen Specter who becomes the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January has vowed to block any openly pro-life judges.Click to expand...
-
Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Here is a direct question for you:
Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.Click to expand...
Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.Click to expand...
Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.Click to expand...
I disagree with this on the simple basis that we have no way of knowing unless the other side is "heard." What benefit is free speech when the opposition cannot be heard, especially if it can be disregarded simply on the perception of whether or not it is a legitimate point.Click to expand...
So, you would deny the freedom of speech to anyone who has an idea that you would deem as "stupid" (your word, not mine)?Click to expand...
On what basis would the following be determined:
1. the validity of the argument
2. the appropriateness of the viewpointClick to expand...
If someone believes that America should become a communist state, then they should by all means be heard.Click to expand...
Do you really want to live in a country where "stupid" (your word, not mine) ideas are silenced? ?Who decides what is "stupid" (your word, not mine)Click to expand...
Joseph has even divorced the right to free speech from the right to be heard. In other words, "you have the right to free speech, just keep it to yourself." Do you not find that idea disturbing?Click to expand... -
Interesting Thread.
Certaintly everyone has a write to express his or her political opinion in America no matter what it is. I think all political parties should be included in the Presidential debates. That however does not mean all political opinion is equal. Certaintly Communist and Nazi ideas are not equal to Jefferson and Madison's ideas on government BUT in America that person is allowed to express his philosophy as long as he or she does not call for others to espouse violence or murder. The US Constitution does give Americans the right to express their opinions and ideas no matter if it is intelligent or even idiotic or even if I agree or disagree with it.
The US Constitution also gives me the right if I choose, not to listen to that speech or idea. That is the American way. No one can force a individual to listen or read anything. -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Here is a direct question for you:
Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.Click to expand...
Yes I did, and it was very obvious. Go back and re-read the post.
It is right there in my post from last night. I VERY CLEARLY did this. -
Originally posted by Kiffin:
Interesting Thread.
Certaintly everyone has a write to express his or her political opinion in America no matter what it is. I think all political parties should be included in the Presidential debates. That however does not mean all political opinion is equal. Certaintly Communist and Nazi ideas are not equal to Jefferson and Madison's ideas on government BUT in America that person is allowed to express his philosophy as long as he or she does not call for others to espouse violence or murder. The US Constitution does give Americans the right to express their opinions and ideas no matter if it is intelligent or even idiotic or even if I agree or disagree with it.
The US Constitution also gives me the right if I choose, not to listen to that speech or idea. That is the American way. No one can force a individual to listen or read anything. [emphasis mine]Click to expand...
Thank you! -
Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Ok, I'll bite. What is that supposed to mean?Click to expand... -
I give up. Why don't you just tell us instead of playing games?
Joseph Botwinick -
You are mistaken, Pastor Larry.
Yes I did, and it was very obvious. Go back and re-read the post.
It is right there in my post from last night. I VERY CLEARLY did this.Click to expand...
Alright, let’s look at see. First, in response to my initial comments, you said:
Liberty means that one has a right to be stupid, if one so desires. You even have the right to be closed minded and intolerant. [I suppose you agree with Neil Boortz's egregious statements on the radio yesterday.]Click to expand...
I absolutely contend that the whole idea that we don't have the right to a particular viewpoint is EGREGIOUS. This is tantamount to thoughtcrime in Orwell's novel 1984.Click to expand...
You have falsely accused me this whole thread of saying that people don’t have a right to a viewpoint. (I never said that and don’t believe it.) You accused me of saying the same thing Boortz said (which I have no way of knowing) and then you called it Orwellian. I do not see any place where you made any distinction. If you did, then please show it to me. -
Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kiffin:
Interesting Thread.
Certaintly everyone has a write to express his or her political opinion in America no matter what it is. I think all political parties should be included in the Presidential debates. That however does not mean all political opinion is equal. Certaintly Communist and Nazi ideas are not equal to Jefferson and Madison's ideas on government BUT in America that person is allowed to express his philosophy as long as he or she does not call for others to espouse violence or murder. The US Constitution does give Americans the right to express their opinions and ideas no matter if it is intelligent or even idiotic or even if I agree or disagree with it.
The US Constitution also gives me the right if I choose, not to listen to that speech or idea. That is the American way. No one can force a individual to listen or read anything. [emphasis mine]Click to expand...
Thank you! </font>[/QUOTE]I am confused as to why you are thanking him. He said exactly what I said and you disagreed with me ... You have a right to hold your opinion. You do not have a right to demand that people listen to you. The right to free speech does not include the right to a hearing. -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Now, please show me where you made any difference between what he said and what I said. I see no qualifications or defining comments that separate my comments from his. If they are there, then please show me.
You have falsely accused me this whole thread of saying that people don’t have a right to a viewpoint. (I never said that and don’t believe it.) You accused me of saying the same thing Boortz said (which I have no way of knowing) and then you called it Orwellian. I do not see any place where you made any distinction. If you did, then please show it to me.Click to expand...
I couldn’t help but notice that you accurately reproduced your post to the discussion; however, you did not accurately reproduce mine. Here is my response to your comments, taken from this very board. I posted it on November 5th, posted @ 6:19 PM (the one I told you to re-read, remember?).
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I have no idea who Neil Boortz is so I don't know if I agree or not. Calling them "egregious" doesn't help any though ...Click to expand... -
[Continued]
That is demonstrated by picking up mid-paragraph with the next reply to you:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My point is not that they don't have a right to be stupid.Click to expand...
My point is that not every idea is equal. There are some stupid ideas. Surely you don't disagree with that ...Click to expand...
But don't take my word for it, go to page two and read it for yourself. It is the fifth post from the top of the page...... -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I am confused as to why you are thanking him. He said exactly what I said and you disagreed with me ... You have a right to hold your opinion. You do not have a right to demand that people listen to you. The right to free speech does not include the right to a hearing.Click to expand...
In fact, I never said that at all. I simply said that they have the right to be heard. We differ on the simple point that I do not divorce the right to free speech from the right to be heard. I have maintained this from the beginning. -
Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I give up. Why don't you just tell us instead of playing games?Click to expand... -
I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are implying, so why don't you just quit playing games and say what you mean outright?
Joseph Botwinick -
Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are implying, so why don't you just quit playing games and say what you mean outright?Click to expand...
I have said it before, so I will say it again as you are apparently missing the point. I am not playing games. It really is that simple: I am not playing games. Stating it in perpetuity does not lend any credence to the claim. Go back and read what you have said in the past. Then consider the concept of divorcing the right to freedom of speech from the right to be heard.
Have a great Sunday,
BiR
Page 3 of 5