Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/19/09 07:55 PM, fatape wrote:

the united states of america isn't a free country nor are most countrys in this world.

in that case. If you can't shoot people you don't like, then you don't live in a free country.

by your standards, the only definition of "free country" would be total anarchy. it's been tried, and anarchy doesn't work, thanks to negative human emotions, like greed, jealousy, and anger.

Even in a free country, you do have to have laws, that goes without saying. I'm talking about how strict it's gotten is insane. You can't talk about 911, every airport treats muslums as if they were terrorists, and they can't speak out against it because people wont let them. Racism is bad when it passes a point, but I don't think you shouldn't be sued because you hurt someone's feelings. If we actually are able to express eachothers' differences, then in the long run, we may be able to come closer, but people are using race to their advantage and ignoring what the other person is saying, just to get someone in trouble. I believe in 100% freedom of speech, not this bullshit, if you're a minority, you have the right to say whatever you want.

At 6/20/09 07:01 AM, fatape wrote: 1. fundamentaly free is misleading it's like saying your cake is fundamently roach free if only 5 percent of it has roaches in it.

No, that's pragmatics. A completely "free" state would be anarchism, and there has never been a stable, long-term anarchist society in history.

Fundamentally free means that for the 99.99999% of the rest of us, we are able and free to live and function with minimal interferences, and with generally beneficial trade-offs, in a society where just because hookers and heroin aren't found on every corner, that doesn't discredit the fundamental character of our nation's principles.

At 6/20/09 08:58 AM, stryker1500 wrote: You can't talk about 911,

Yes you can, i.e. Sept. 11 was a terrible tragedy, and I am personally saddened that we, as a nation, still have not come to a conclusion of how to use these events in a way that does not perpetuate more pain and suffering.

every airport treats muslums as if they were terrorists, and they can't speak out against it because people wont let them.

Every airport treats EVRYONE as a suspected terrorist, willing or not. Why do you think we still have to take off our shoes, and why we can't bring shampoo and toothpaste on the planes?
Additionally, many people DO speak out about it. There have been countless books and new reports about the unfair treatment that goes with racial profiling, as well as the faulty methodology that goes into these suposed "security checks" at airports.

Racism is bad when it passes a point, but I don't think you shouldn't be sued because you hurt someone's feelings.

Most of the time, litigation doesn't occur JUST because someone's feelings were hurt, but because some basic laws/civil rights were actually violated. If a woman working at Wal*Mart is denied a promotion because her superiors don't think women are capable of high-level responsibility, while yes her feelings are probably hurt, this stiuation does invovle legal violations, as well as business ethics violations.

At 6/20/09 10:52 AM, DiaLady wrote:

At 6/20/09 07:01 AM, fatape wrote: 1. fundamentaly free is misleading it's like saying your cake is fundamently roach free if only 5 percent of it has roaches in it.

No, that's pragmatics. A completely "free" state would be anarchism, and there has never been a stable, long-term anarchist society in history.

no it wouldn't

a compeltly free state isn't one without rules it is one where you aloud to do anything you want as long as you aren't imposeing on others freedoms.

Fundamentally free means that for the 99.99999% of the rest of us, we are able and free to live and function with minimal interferences, and with generally beneficial trade-offs, in a society where just because hookers and heroin aren't found on every corner, that doesn't discredit the fundamental character of our nation's principles.

I have to disagree I belive it dose.

At 6/20/09 10:52 AM, DiaLady wrote:

At 6/20/09 07:01 AM, fatape wrote: 1. fundamentaly free is misleading it's like saying your cake is fundamently roach free if only 5 percent of it has roaches in it.

No, that's pragmatics. A completely "free" state would be anarchism, and there has never been a stable, long-term anarchist society in history.

I don't consider anarchy as a completely free state. In fact, it's the second worst thing to a dictatorship. To have no laws creates no consequences on behalf of those whose freedoms were robbed. There is no such thing as freedom in anarchy if you're a victim. There do need to be laws, but just enough to state that you cannot use your rights to violate other rights.

At 6/20/09 08:16 PM, fatape wrote: a compeltly free state isn't one without rules it is one where you aloud to do anything you want as long as you aren't imposeing on others freedoms.

And how is this achieved without any sort of governing interference? Furthermore, how do you account for policies that are not enforced by a legal system, but from social acceptance?

What you are describing as a purely "free" state WOULD be anarchism--i.e., no external legislative interference to individual liberties. You contradict yourself in the same sentence by saying it "isn't one without rules", but it *is* "one where you [are] aloud[sic] to do anything you want".

Look, I'll try to meet you where you are. Give me a CONCRETE example of what you consider to be a "free" state.

At 6/20/09 11:39 PM, AbstractVagabond wrote:

I don't consider anarchy as a completely free state. In fact, it's the second worst thing to a dictatorship. To have no laws creates no consequences on behalf of those whose freedoms were robbed. There is no such thing as freedom in anarchy if you're a victim. There do need to be laws, but just enough to state that you cannot use your rights to violate other rights.

No, "anarchy" is the antithesis to "authortarian" (dictatorship)--one places control solely to the individual, where the other places a singular entity in-control. The moral/ethical labels we place on "consequences" has no bearing on the factual poli-theoretical state of governance.

At 6/21/09 12:14 PM, DiaLady wrote: The moral/ethical labels we place on "consequences" has no bearing on the factual poli-theoretical state of governance.

How so?

At 6/20/09 08:58 AM, stryker1500 wrote: I believe in 100% freedom of speech, not this bullshit

i like how you just defined freedom of speech on your own terms.

Tancrisism wrote:

To have no laws creates no consequences on behalf of those whose freedoms were robbed. There is no such thing as freedom in anarchy if you're a victim.

Things like who is/not a "victim" are non-issues to the facts of what is a political ideology. Anarchism argues purely fo the right to the individual to decide how his own actiosn are to be interpreted, i.e. by a governing body. There will always be consequences to every action, but whether you ascirbe an abstract concept like "freedom" to "consequences" is not part of the fundamental tennants of anarchism as a political ideology.

At 6/21/09 01:36 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/20/09 08:58 AM, stryker1500 wrote: I believe in 100% freedom of speech, not this bullshit

i like how you just defined freedom of speech on your own terms.

Alright,
Freedom of speech: One has the ability and allowance of saying what he/she wants without fear or
prosicution, Only at extremes should one be conflicted against and dealt with according to the severity of the offence.

So no censoring of the small shit (shit, ass, damnit), only major offences should be considered being removed, (fuck, pornography in public places).

I know some censorship is needed, but things have gotten out of hand, the FCC controls everything, if you do something 1 person there doesn't like and all that money that you invested into that is gone. I'm just wanting a loosened grip on the censoring, stop censoring every little thing that you deem offensive or abusive (language wise). The language is gonna find ways out no matter what, and trying to stop people from doing it is only going to make them want to do it even more. If it can be loosened somewhat, people will stop cussing as much because once everybody does it, it's not as impacting and cursing will be less of a habit.

At 6/25/09 11:27 AM, stryker1500 wrote: Alright,
Freedom of speech: One has the ability and allowance of saying what he/she wants without fear or
prosicution, Only at extremes should one be conflicted against and dealt with according to the severity of the offence.

basically; the way things are now.

So no censoring of the small shit (shit, ass, damnit), only major offences should be considered being removed, (fuck, pornography in public places).

censoring those from where? and really, swearing is a tiny issue as far as freedom of speech is concerned.

I know some censorship is needed, but things have gotten out of hand, the FCC controls everything...

yes the FCC is ridiculous, but a number of broadcasters enforce their own rules as well and this falls back on private companies, their own rules.
and really, looking to TV for examples of freedom of speech? people want brain dead entertainment. (so hey, maybe they'll relax on the swearing, violence and sex! what a win for our freedoms! /sarcasm)

At 6/21/09 12:14 PM, DiaLady wrote:

At 6/20/09 11:39 PM, AbstractVagabond wrote:

I don't consider anarchy as a completely free state. In fact, it's the second worst thing to a dictatorship. To have no laws creates no consequences on behalf of those whose freedoms were robbed. There is no such thing as freedom in anarchy if you're a victim. There do need to be laws, but just enough to state that you cannot use your rights to violate other rights.

No, "anarchy" is the antithesis to "authortarian" (dictatorship)--one places control solely to the individual, where the other places a singular entity in-control. The moral/ethical labels we place on "consequences" has no bearing on the factual poli-theoretical state of governance.

In no way am I saying that it's like dictatorship. My belief is closer to anarchy than dictatorship, yet I know that anarchy is equally as damaging. It's total slavery vs total chaos and neither should be entertained. Still, anarchy does have that individual mindset that I promote. The proper amount of government should always be big enough to keep that individualism from descending into chaos, but small enough to keep individualism from descending into communities. You can see where we're currently failing.

At 6/25/09 03:36 PM, AbstractVagabond wrote: In no way am I saying that it's like dictatorship. My belief is closer to anarchy than dictatorship, yet I know that anarchy is equally as damaging. It's total slavery vs total chaos and neither should be entertained. Still, anarchy does have that individual mindset that I promote. The proper amount of government should always be big enough to keep that individualism from descending into chaos, but small enough to keep individualism from descending into communities. You can see where we're currently failing.

I tink I would agree with you on the moral principle, and my objection beforehand came from your post sounding like you didn't think freedom had any factual basis in anarchy. We can argue the subtleties of what "freedom" means, but it still remains that anarchy =/= dictatorship.

At 6/25/09 12:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

basically; the way things are now.

Hell no, "Only sever offences" doesn't include that you should get sued because you hurt someone's damn feelings by calling them "fatass".

censoring those from where? and really, swearing is a tiny issue as far as freedom of speech is concerned.

No, I'm not talking about censoring, I'm talking about anything thats deemed "offensive". You can't call any other race a racial slur on television, yet you can say "honkey", "cracker", "whitey", and anything else that comes to your mind about a white person, everyone, but 1 race can say what they want about racism. Notice you never see (for ex.) an African American being racial against a hispanic on the news, it's always a white person getting in trouble, and I know it's not because we're the only ones who use racial slurs at times. Why isn't there an organization to help white people, there's the NAACP for colored races, but, where's the organization for white people?

yes the FCC is ridiculous, but a number of broadcasters enforce their own rules as well and this falls back on private companies, their own rules.

and really, looking to TV for examples of freedom of speech? people want brain dead entertainment. (so hey, maybe they'll relax on the swearing, violence and sex! what a win for our freedoms! /sarcasm)

Yeah, it actually is if you really think about how deep censorship actually goes into our lives.
Racism, violence, nudity, swearing, calling someone something mean, if you use these in public places, you'll get sued,(potentially) lose your job, go to jail, have organizations watching you for now on, and you could lose everything, all because you hurt some asshole's feelings.

Racism:
-No one died from being called some slur
-It's a situation where you could easily walk away from
-All races should be able, or none at all, not this double standards bullshit

Nudity:
-Parents shouldn't complain to playboy because their child went through dad's "hidden stash" and looked at some mags
-Is only justified based on the kind of media, sculpture:amazing, pencil and paper: perverted

Cursing:
-Again, parents are over dramatic about it, so what if your kid heard the word "shit" on television, you can't say "shit", yet you can discrase a whole religion by saying "goddamnit"

At 6/26/09 12:26 AM, stryker1500 wrote:

"No, I'm not talking about censoring,"

I actually meant to say, "I'm not talking about swearing"

On this topic, I can agree at some points, yet freedom of speech should have its limits. But still then, it's not that they are officially forbidden or anything, I think. Most people just get pissed off personaly and they are right to do so.

Suppose your mother dies in a car crash, you wouldn't want people to come over to the funeral telling people how much of a slut she was and how good it was that she finally died and how this driver is a hero of mankind. It's still freedom of speech, but you wouldn't appreciate it then.

If someone shoots a few people in your family and is openly telling other people they should follow their example and shoot the rest of you, you would want them to be put away, wouldn't you?

As it comes tto nudity, also there might be some nuances. I can agree with that basic nudity isn't so wrong. But I don't think that a couple of guys shitting in eachothers mouth should be appropriate to confront a child audience with. Pedagogically it is unacceptable.

I always say, there is a difference between porn and erotics. Hence the difference between a sculpture and pen and paper.

At 6/26/09 11:02 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: If someone shoots a few people in your family and is openly telling other people they should follow their example and shoot the rest of you, you would want them to be put away, wouldn't you?

You make good points but there's still the argument that it's unconstituonal, but that could be an implied limit, I suppose.

As it comes tto nudity, also there might be some nuances. I can agree with that basic nudity isn't so wrong. But I don't think that a couple of guys shitting in eachothers mouth should be appropriate to confront a child audience with. Pedagogically it is unacceptable.

Of course that isn't basic nudity. I can't argue with that.

I always say, there is a difference between porn and erotics. Hence the difference between a sculpture and pen and paper.

Great metaphor.

I completely agree. As a matter of fact, america is the most squeamish country that i know of. Censorship is basically a bunch of paranoid people telling everyone that if they don't want to see it, nobody should. The way i see it, all of these people can start minding their own business and leaving other people alone and let them make their own choices.

well i don't know what your talking about censoring on the computers even after you say that your 18 and over but some parents want there kids to have a good clean mind and save there virginity till marriage. some parents want to personally tell there kids, not have them learn it from the t.v.

My biggest beef with the impeding of freedom of speech is political correctness. As people said before, if you are offended by what people say to you you can simply walk away and move on. But people have to get butt hurt about it and complain, thus you're getting people to urge people to call a group of people something less offensive (e.g Blacks are now to be referred to as African Americans, midgets are to be refered to as vertically challenged ect.) I believe you have the right to call people whatever you want. In return the people you're labeling have the right to say whatever they want back.

At 6/26/09 12:51 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 6/26/09 11:02 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I always say, there is a difference between porn and erotics. Hence the difference between a sculpture and pen and paper.

Great metaphor.

That's a TERRIBLE metaphor! "Erotica" is defined as sexual material that is not found to be objectionable, and "porno[graphic" is defined as sexual material that IS [patently] offensive.