55-44-1

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

Here we are on November 8th, and you are STILL mistaken, Pastor Larry.
One more time, anybody can see from my post that I VERY CLEARLY separated the comments and addressed each point. The facts are on page two, and to claim otherwise is abject fatuity. The fact that you "don't really care" still does not change the simple fact that I VERY CLEARLY separated the comments. You cannot dispute hard evidence.

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.

Aside from discussing the physics of the sense of hearing, please show me how hearing someone speak validates the right to be heard. The right to free speech implies a right to be heard. What good is free speech when the person is not afforded the right to be heard? You have repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated that since you don't have to listen, then the person does not have the right to be heard. One more time, how is the right to be heard validated by whether or not someone chooses to listen? I have asked you that a few times now, and your response every time is "if I am not listening to you, then you do not have the right to be heard." As I have said several times, this is the point upon which you and I disagree.

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.

I guess you repeated this one more time (albeit in a different manner) "for good measure."

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.

Yet another time "for good measure."

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

Oh, one more time......

[ November 08, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

One more time, how is the right to be heard validated by whether or not someone chooses to listen?

Nonsense about what you did or didn't do about my comments aside, answer me this:

What does "right to be heard" mean? Doesn't "hearing" demand someone "listen"?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One more time, how is the right to be heard validated by whether or not someone chooses to listen?

Nonsense about what you did or didn't do about my comments aside, answer me this:

What does "right to be heard" mean? Doesn't "hearing" demand someone "listen"? </font>[/QUOTE]"Nonsense aside?"
How convenient for you that your blatant misrepresentation of my comments can be dismissed as "nonsense." I can only surmise that this is somehow an attempt to evade the simple fact that I VERY CLEARLY separated those statements. If this is true, then you are still mistaken, Pastor Larry.

Despite explaining this in perpetuity, you still do not grasp the concept. I have answered this question several times now, but here goes:

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. This implies the right to be heard. This does not mandate that anyone is required to listen, it simply gives one the right to get up and speak one's mind.

As I have stated prior to this post, I do not agree with your seeming assertion that if I don't listen to you, then you don't have the right to be heard. Once again, this is where you and I differ.

<a href="http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hrifirstamendment.htm" target="_blank">"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that 'Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press...' Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. In the United States, both the freedom of speech and freedom of press are commonly called freedom of expression."
</a>[emphasis mine]

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Just directly answer this question:

If nobody listens to you, then how are you going to be heard? Who is going to listen to you?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

I just did.

You have already established that you believe that the right to be heard can be negated simply by not listening. Perhaps you could offer some evidence as to how the right to be heard is negated in this manner. Please note that you have already offered the argument that "if I don't listen to you, then you don't have the right."

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

5. No trolling. Trolling consists of provoking large volumes of responses by posting absurdities

http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

Baptist In Richmond,

Since it seems obvious to me that you are not interested in a serious conversation, this is my last post on this.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 5. No trolling. Trolling consists of provoking large volumes of responses by posting absurdities

http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

Baptist In Richmond,

Since it seems obvious to me that you are not interested in a serious conversation, this is my last post on this.</font>[/QUOTE]That was what you offer as proof for the contention that if I don't listen to you, then you don't have the right to be heard?

That is your choice, but your argument basically boils down to the claim that "If I ain't listening, your right ain't validated." [sic] You have said this time and time again, and have offered nothing else to support such a claim. This is basically the old "if the tree falls and nobody hears it, then it didn't make a sound" principle. The claim that I am "trolling" is another example of abject fatuity. Perhaps if you offered something else in the way of proof, then we can have "a serious conversation."

Let me try it again: the right to free speech implies the right to be heard. This right to be heard does not mandate that anyone has to listen to you, it simply means that one can be heard.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=13259

http://www.marshallparthenon.com/news/2002/10/17/Opinion/First.Amendment.Differing.Views.Beauties.Of.America-299763.shtml

[ November 08, 2004, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Baptist in Richmond ]

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Would it help if, instead of saying that everyone has a "right to be heard", we said that everyone has a "right to speak out"?

 

[Pastor Larry]

BIR,

You did not separate the statements clearly. You and I both know that. You may have done that in your mind, and you may have intended them to be understood that way, but it was not clear. Stop the nonsense. It doesn't make any difference now.

On to the actual topic. YOu said,

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. This implies the right to be heard. This does not mandate that anyone is required to listen, it simply gives one the right to get up and speak one's mind.

Your last sentence undermines your whole proposition. You can get up and speak your mind, but since no one is required to listen (a fundamental part of being heard is listening), you do not have a right to be heard.

Listen very closely: You are not being heard if no one is listening. Since you cannot require anyone to listen, you have no right to be heard. You do have a right to speak.

PJ,

that is the point I have been making from the beginning and have pointed out numerous times. One can certainly speak out. That is free speech. But not has to listen. That means he does not have a right to be heard.

It is so simple. I can't understand why BIR is doing this.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You did not separate the statements clearly. You and I both know that. You may have done that in your mind, and you may have intended them to be understood that way, but it was not clear. Stop the nonsense. It doesn't make any difference now.

You are still mistaken, Pastor Larry.

Let's look at it again:

Your quote:

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 ... My point is not that they don't have a right to be stupid. My point is that not every idea is equal. There are some stupid ideas. Surely you don't disagree with that ...

My reply:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
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.

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]As I have shown yet again, I VERY CLEARLY separated the comments and addressed each point. To imply otherwise (or state it in this particular case) is pure foolishness. I VERY CLEARLY separated these comments. Now you may choose to once again make the hilarious charge that "I did not separate the statements clearly;" however, "You and I both know" (along with everyone else that has come along for the ride) that I VERY CLEARLY separated them. You cannot deny this, and I have wasted even more bandwidth demonstrating that this VERY CLEARLY is the case. You are either in denial, or are deliberately misrepresenting what actually happened. Neither case changes the simple fact that you are mistaken, Pastor Larry. Therein lies the "nonsense."

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Your last sentence undermines your whole proposition. You can get up and speak your mind, but since no one is required to listen (a fundamental part of being heard is listening), you do not have a right to be heard.

Listen very closely: You are not being heard if no one is listening. Since you cannot require anyone to listen, you have no right to be heard. You do have a right to speak.

PJ,

that is the point I have been making from the beginning and have pointed out numerous times. One can certainly speak out. That is free speech. But not has to listen. That means he does not have a right to be heard.

It is so simple. I can't understand why BIR is doing this.

One more time:


<a href="http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hrifirstamendment.htm" target="_blank">"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that 'Congress shall make no law....abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press...' Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. In the United States, both the freedom of speech and freedom of press are commonly called freedom of expression."
</a>[emphasis mine]