55-44-1

BiR,

Do you think you have a Constitutional right to be heard? Please show that to me in the Constitution. You have every right to go to the Capital Steps and say whatever you want. I have every right to not show up and to ignore you. I don't have to listen and you do not have to be heard.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I have been very clear about my feelings regarding this concept. I am not sure why you are asking me to repeat the same answer again, but here goes: "Yes, I do. It's called the First Amendment."

That is precisely correct, and I have even stated this myself. The fact that I have every right to go to the Steps and say whatever I want is the very point I am making - the right to be heard.

Where we disagree is that you are seemingly implying that the right to be heard somehow "mandates" (to borrow the word from VP Cheney) that everyone has to listen. I do not believe that, and I am not sure why you are seemingly making this claim. Freedom of speech is the right to be heard, regardless of how "stupid" (again, Pastor Larry's word, not mine) the idea/concept/thought/platform may be. That is liberty - the right to be stupid.

Now, perhaps you can explain to me how the right to be heard is mandating that everyone absolutely has to listen? I have never claimed that it has.
The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

 

If nobody wants to listen to you, then who is going to hear you? You have the right to speak, but no right to be heard.

Joseph Botwiinck

 

I have VERY CLEARLY separated the statement in this reply.</font>[/QUOTE]So where did you separate the comments? You made no distinction. In fact, you did not reference any difference between mine and his. Sorry, BIR, perhaps you thought you ssaid something you didn't. You did not separate my comments from his. I am sorry that you think you did. You made no distinction.

And you are still misguided on what I actually said, but I suppose that distinction is too fine for you. I did not say that people had no right to a particular viewpoint. You keep thinking I did say that. I said that some ideas are stupid and do not deserve to be heard in every forum. If you can get someone to listen, fine. But all ideas are not equal. You called my view intolerant. You were wrong, but you are entitled to that. I think your view is uninformed and I think you don't really hold it. I think you actually agree with me that not all ideas are equal ... that some are stupid. But you will probably not admit that.

I did not change the content or point of your comments. You made no distinction. But all that is irrelevant to the main point at hand.

So if no one is listening to you, where is your right to be heard? Someone has to listen in order for you to be heard. And if everyone chooses not to listen, you can do nothing about it. You have a right to speak, not a right to be heard. You maintain a false union between speaking and being heard. The two are not the same

The right to speak does not include the right to be heard. You can show up on the capital steps and speak. But if no one is there, you will not be heard. And you admit that you cannot compel anyone to listen to you.

 

You are still mistaken, Pastor Larry.
Again, I VERY CLEARLY made a separation.

You are still mistaken, Pastor Larry.
I VERY CLEARLY made a separation. It is all there on Page 2, fifth post from the top.

 

Okay, Joseph: one more time.
Show me how the right to be heard "mandates" that we must listen. You keep repeating this, but you still cannot show how the two thoughts:
1. The right to be heard
2. The "mandate" that all must listen

are not mutually exclusive.

 

My apologies, as I missed this one:
You are mistaken, Pastor Larry.
It is right there on Page 2, fifth post from the top.

The right to be heard does not mandate that anyone has to listen. You keep stating and stating and stating and stating and stating that the right to free speech does not give the right to be heard. I disagree with you on this.

 

[Continued]

So if a tree fell in the woods, and nobody hears it, then it didn’t make a sound. The right to be heard does not mandate that anyone is forced to listen to you.

NO, I said that we have the right to be heard, nothing more. The right to be heard does not mean that anyone has to listen to you. A street preacher has the right to free speech, and has the right to sit on a street corner and be heard. We are not forced to listen to him. The same can be said for Speaker Square, over in the U.K.

Yes, and you made this claim three sentences ago. Free speech does indeed give the right to be heard, and nothing more. Just because you have the right to be heard does not mean that anyone has to listen to you. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

Scott, that is exactly what I am saying. You have the right to be heard. I have the right not to listen.

hope this post finds you well,

BiR

 

First, BIR, I challenege you to show me where you made any distinction. Your claims ring very hollow since there is no evidence of any distinction. I have read the fifth post on page 2 numerous times and see no distinction. I guess the question is, Did you read it? But again, that is a mere side issue ... a distraction from the real problem ...

The bigger problem is actually funnier than that one is ... You say, Just because you have the right to be heard does not mean that anyone has to listen to you. Perhaps I am confused, but if no one is listening, then you are not being heard ... (I am assuming you are not dumbing this down to a mere level of noise) ... You want to say you have a right to be heard, but no one has to listen. That doesn't even make sense. You do not have a right to be heard. You may have a right to speak ... but even that has limitations. You might show up at the Senate tomorrow and your right to speak will be summarily dismissed. You will not be heard. You can go out to the steps perhaps, but even then you will likely not be listened to.

Free speech and right to be heard are the mutually exclusive things ...

 

So if everyone exercises their right not to listen, how is he being heard? (Perhaps that question will illustrate the problem your position has.)

 

So if a tree fell in the woods, and nobody hears it, then it didn't make a sound. The right to be heard does not mandate that anyone is forced to listen to you. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it made a sound, but nobody heard it.

That is exactly the point.

If nobody is listening to you, then you are not being heard.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Let's take a vote on this. It's time for us in the Red Zone to move on!

 

Again, you are mistaken, Pastor Larry.
You can challenge me all you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that I broke out your comments from my statement concerning Neil Boortz. I posted it then, and I reposted it this afternoon. If you have indeed re-read that post, then even you cannot deny that I broke out the first two sentences of your point, and addressed them. Then I quoted your belief and replied to that. You can choose to ignore the evidence, but the simple fact of the matter is that I went out of my way to separate my commentary on Neil from your comments. It is right there on page two, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it.

I still say that the right to free speech is the right to be heard. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. What does not make sense is this bizarre notion that the right to be heard implies that we all must listen. I have never said this, nor do I agree with that premise. You are more than welcome to show us how the right to free speech can be divorced from the right to be heard, but you haven't convinced me yet with what you have offered thus far. The right to be heard DOES NOT imply that we have to listen.

Then why can you not prove this contention? How are they mutually exclusive? All you have offered in perpetuity is that nobody has the right to make someone listen to a point of view/opinion/platform. On that point nobody disagrees with you. Yet somehow, you have deduced that this translates to mean that we do not have the right to be heard. Like I said, you have only reinforced the point that nobody has the right to make you sit there and listen.

 

So if everyone exercises their right not to listen, how is he being heard? (Perhaps that question will illustrate the problem your position has.) </font>[/QUOTE]Hearing someone is not a requisite for having the right to be heard. As I have said before, the right to be heard does not imply that we are required to hear them. Why is it that you have to hear them for the other person to have the right?

I had the good fortune to see President George H. W. Bush when he was President. There were several people who were demonstrating out front (about what I cannot remember). I walked right by them and did not even pay attention. They had the right to be heard. I had the right not to listen.

Later, I had the good fortune to see President Clinton. Again, there were people demonstrating out front. I remember this because they were screaming about Monica. They had the right to be heard. I had the right not to listen.

 

That is precisely related to the fact that your right to be heard does not override my right to listen. Thanks for repeating what you said in the previous post.

 

BIR, If, by your comments, you meant to separate your opinioin about me from your comments about Boortz, you did a very poor job of it. The post in question contains no such indication of your intent in that matter. Sorry ...

As for the real issue, it is ludicrous to insist that there is a right to be heard. There is not. To prove it, all you need to do is understand the difference between speaking and hearing. You actually agree with me when you say that no one can force to you listen to them ... That is a hearing. I don't understand why are ignoring the obvious.

If no one is listening (i.e., every has exercise their right not to listen), then you are not being heard, no matter how loud you might shout. I think if you sat down and thought about this for a bit, you would laugh at how simple it really is. You are trying to make a distinction between a hearing where someone listens and a hearing where nobody listens. But if no one is listening, you are not being heard. Again, sorry ...

 

You are mistaken, Pastor Larry.
You wrote a paragraph addressing multiple points. I separated each point and addressed it.

Here is your quote again:

I separated the first two sentences and specifically addressed them. You cannot deny that. I then separated the second sentence and responded to that. You cannot deny that. Lastly, I specifically responded to the last three sentences. You cannot deny that either.

Because the tree still makes a sound when falling regardless of whether anyone heard it. That is the great thing about this Land of ours: you have the right to be heard, while I simultaneously have the right not to listen.

That is because you are seemingly implying that one must listen to another in order to validate their right to be heard. This is the point upon which you and I disagree.

 

BIR,

I am not sure why this is difficult for you. You quoted me, and then made comments apparently about what Boortz said. I don't care what you think you did. You did not clearly separate my comments from your opinion about his. But I don't really care about that.

I am still laughing about the difference you are trying to make. If a tree falls and makes a sound, that doesn't mean it is heard. For you to have a right to be heard, someone has to be listening. If no one is listening, you are not being heard. I cannot imagine the possible grounds (apart from not losing this debate) on which you base your idea.

I am not seemingly implying that. I am denying that a right to be heard generically exists. You have a right to be heard in a court matter to which you are a party. You do not have a generic right to be heard.

But I repeat again, if everyone has the right not to listen, then you do not have the right to be heard. You have the right to speak, and those are two entirely different things.

If no one is listening, how are you being heard?