55-44-1

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:

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?

Incorrect. You don't have to keep it to yourself. But, you also can't force me to listen as well. Just as the Klan cannot force me to come to the capital steps and listen to their hate. Just as I can't force you to listen to me. It is part of living in a free society. We don't live in a Communist country where people are forced to listen to Communist propaganda over a loudspeaker. We live in America where if we don't want to listen to Air America, we can turn the channel (as most people do... ).

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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.

That is justification?


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.

 

[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.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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.

Remember that if Joseph is correct and Hillary is elected in 2008.

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.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

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.

Remember that if Joseph is correct and Hillary is elected in 2008.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, I'll bite. What is that supposed to mean?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Ps104_33]

Arlen Specter who becomes the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January has vowed to block any openly pro-life judges.

You can go HERE and write an e-mail to your representative to block this move.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

No, you did not.

Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.

Did you think I missed this question the first time???

Did I or did I not separate your comments regarding your opinion from what you said about Neil Boortz? Yes or no.

Why do you keep repeating yourself?

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.

What in the world are you talking about? The only way you know an opinion is illegitiatem is because you have heard it. Perhaps I assumed too much in this discussion. I would have thought that would have been obvious You don't have to let the opinion have equal weight. You can say, "That is a stupid idea." It runs along the same lines as "Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." The fact that people come up with crazy ideas does not mean we should consider them. They should be immediately put aside.

So, you would deny the freedom of speech to anyone who has an idea that you would deem as "stupid" (your word, not mine)?

No, they can say it (didn't I already say that???) ... That doesn't mean they should be listened to or considered as legitimate. When someone says that the holocaust didn't happen, we should immediately laugh them from the room.

On what basis would the following be determined:
1. the validity of the argument
2. the appropriateness of the viewpoint

That is quite a long discussion that I don't have time to get into tonight.

If someone believes that America should become a communist state, then they should by all means be heard.

Please tell me you are kidding. This is a stupid idea that should not be heard. America's constitution and laws very clearly rule that out. This idea should not even be considered.

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)

Do you really think that we lack common sense? This is a lot easier than you are making it out to be.

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?

Not at all. In fact, it is philosophically correct. I don't have to listen to anything, much less everything. I can turn you off. I don't have to listen. The fact that you can voice an opinion does not mean anyone needs to listen to it.

 

[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.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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.

No, you did not.</font>[/QUOTE]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.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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]

Thank you!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Ok, I'll bite. What is that supposed to mean?

I'll let you decide what this is "supposed to mean."

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I give up. Why don't you just tell us instead of playing games?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

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.]

Then, when I said I didn’t know who Neil Boortz was so I didn’t know whether I agreed or not, you said,

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.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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]

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.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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.

You are still mistaken, Pastor Larry, and I will gladly show you.

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 ...

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.</font>[/QUOTE]I have VERY CLEARLY separated the statement in this reply.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

[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.

They ABSOLUTELY have the right. Furthermore, what is your basis for the exclusion of what is arguably a relative term?

My point is that not every idea is equal. There are some stupid ideas. Surely you don't disagree with that ...

I totally and completely "disagree with that." The people to whom you refer as "stupid" are entitled to have any point of view. It is disturbing that you would honestly offer this as a legitimate viewpoint. Nevertheless, you are entitled to your intolerance.</font>[/QUOTE]Notice that, once again, I separated your comments from your statement that you were unfamiliar with Neil. You cannot deny this.

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......

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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.

Whoa, hold on: I NEVER said that anyone has a right to "demand that people listen to you." Those are your words, not mine.
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.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I give up. Why don't you just tell us instead of playing games?

Oh, I am not playing games, Joseph. You are a smart guy, and you can figure it out.

 

[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?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

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?

Joseph:

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