Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ...
15
23
24
25
26
27
... LastLast
  1. #481
    I don't think anyone is arguing about ideas in their purest forms. It is always against ideas manifested somehow, and ideas only manifest themselves (in regards to this topic) through people. Expression, speech, as in freedom of speech, is a manifestation of an idea, so it is not a pure harmless idea anymore. It is an action. It may derive consequences. One may argue that you should interject on the consequences, protecting the action of manifesting an idea, and that is fine. But I think it may happen in some cases that interjecting on the consequences is so much more inefficient, that some prefer to interject one step earlier and forbid an idea from being manifested at all.

    It is like castrating an idea. It still exists, but doesn't multiply.

  2. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheze View Post
    if people (firms) want to go to foreign countries they should abide by their laws!

    right guys?
    No, look at the immigrants pouring into Europe, they don't have to follow European customs or laws....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    I don't see that as inherent. You may be used to it, but only because you are allowed to express them. All rights are acquired or bestowed upon us, none is inherent.

    The action being punished is the expression of the idea, so you are punishing action.

    Silencing speech is about as Fascist as it gets.. Speech you do not like doesn't make it hate speech... Oh how easy it is these days to censor your political rival by saying he/she/they -is/are- using hate speech...... Hmmm, who else used these tactics? #feelings

  3. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by Gladius8 View Post
    No, look at the immigrants pouring into Europe, they don't have to follow European customs or laws....
    They certainly have to follow the laws.

  4. #484
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    I don't see that as inherent. You may be used to it, but only because you are allowed to express them. All rights are acquired or bestowed upon us, none is inherent.
    On the contrary, free speech, like the rights to life and free thought, is inherent. No one "bestows" that upon us. Now, you can make the argument some governments may not recognize certain rights, but a failure to recognize inherent rights is a failure on the part of that government and doesn't take away from the fact that you do actually have them. Keep in mind, governments exist at the consent of, and to serve, the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    The action being punished is the expression of the idea, so you are punishing action.
    This is silly.

  5. #485
    Quote Originally Posted by Gladius8 View Post
    Silencing speech is about as Fascist as it gets.. Speech you do not like doesn't make it hate speech... Oh how easy it is these days to censor your political rival by saying he/she/they -is/are- using hate speech...... Hmmm, who else used these tactics? #feelings
    Sure, you may think that way, but it still not inherent. It is actually pointing to it not being inherent, as you have a period in time and space where it was not a given right at all.

    If your political rival can't portrait their ideas without hate speech, I don't think they should be allowed to manifest themselves. Learn to adapt and be civil. In a land where terrorism is a crime, a Terrorist Party would be silenced as well. In a land where hate speech is a crime, a hate Speech Party is silenced. It's how I see it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    ]

    On the contrary, it, like the rights to life and free thought, is inherent. No one "bestows" that upon you. Now you can make the argument some governments may not recognize certain rights, but a failure to recognize inherent rights is a failure on the part of that government and doesn't mean you don't actually have them. Keep in mind, governments exist at the consent of, and to serve, the people.

    This is silly.

    You don't have an inherent right to live. Society organized itself in the form of a government that bestowed upon its citizens the right to live because this society in particular believes in it. And it's a fragile right at best, governments kill people all the time. If there is a place where a right to live doesn't exist, it is not inherent in any way.

  6. #486
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    You don't have an inherent right to live.
    Yes, you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    Society organized itself in the form of a government that bestowed upon its citizens the right to live because this society in particular believes in it.
    No, societies put together documents acknowledging inherent rights and making them officially recognized. See, well, any actual "rights" document.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    And it's a fragile right at best, governments kill people all the time.
    That doesn't make it any less wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    If there is a place where a right to live doesn't exist, it is not inherent in any way.
    So, you don't understand how "inherent" works?

  7. #487
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    So, you don't understand how "inherent" works?
    Could be? Just read a definition and it's exactly what I was expecting, so I don't think that's the problem.

    A right is a concept that exists or is created and when a government recognizes this right, it is bestowed upon its citizens. So it wasn't inherent or you wouldn't need to recognize it in the first place.

    If I create the concept of the right to fly and a government recognizes that right and gives backjets to everyone, that doesn't make it an inherent right.

    When a country declares war to another, it declares that some people of that country don't have a right to live anymore, so soldiers go there and kill enemies. The government of that country says they have a right to live and therefore you violated their rights and kill you right back. It's an intrinsic relation between a government and its citizens.

  8. #488
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    I copied exactly what you wrote, just because you add hate to the front of it doesn't change the premise. Either you like free speech or you don't, you can't choose what parts you want filtered out and made illegal.
    In the English language words may include spaces and still be considered one word.
    Cutting a quote in the middle of words and claiming not to have changed the meaning is a special kind of delusional.

  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by Noradin View Post
    In the English language words may include spaces and still be considered one word.
    Cutting a quote in the middle of words and claiming not to have changed the meaning is a special kind of delusional.
    I'm sorry but saying "hate speech should be illegal" and "speech should be illegal" is the same thing in my book. Adding justification doesn't change the fact that it is still censorship.

  10. #490
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    saying justification is censorship
    That about how your thought process works?
    Randomly droping parts of a quote doesn't change the meaning of the quote, that's what you claim, right?

  11. #491
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by LMuhlen View Post
    A right is a concept that exists or is created and when a government recognizes this right, it is bestowed upon its citizens. So it wasn't inherent or you wouldn't need to recognize it in the first place.
    A government's doesn't give rights. It acknowledges and protects them. This is where you're confused.


  12. #492
    Ohhhhhh ok, never mind them, it's a religious thing. Then it makes sense...

    I don't see us as having unalienable rights because I don't think a higher divine authority exists to give it to us. I see rights as something humans give to humans if they choose to.

    Also... only because someone says "you have inherent rights" it doesn't make so, unless you define human rights that way, but then you also need to change the definition of inherent. Unless you believe God gave rights to you. To me that's a pretty catch phrase void of meaning because it says that contradicting things are equal.

  13. #493
    So social media companies make sure none of their assets or employees are in countries where they can be reached by the EU, give EU residents a soft ban that they don't enforce, and tell the EU to go dig for money on their own rather trying to sue themselves into a sustainable governmental structure. This is little more than a tax on foreigners disguised as a law suit.

  14. #494
    step 1: remove your offices from EU member nations
    step 2: tell the EU to fuck off
    step 3: ???
    step 4: profit.

  15. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    A government's doesn't give rights. It acknowledges and protects them. This is where you're confused.
    Rights are invented by humans, introduced to government laws by humans for them to uphold. So yeah, they do give rights. If nobody came up with the idea of human rights and convincing others to give them to people then they wouldn't exist.

  16. #496
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    A government's doesn't give rights. It acknowledges and protects them. This is where you're confused.
    I think you're using "inherent" in confusing ways. Also, you're misusing "inalienable". "Inalienable" means a right can't be taken away from you. There is just justification the government could use to justify removing those rights.

    As for "inherent"; the way the UN treaties are written, it's meant to read that the rights are built-in to someone being a human being; they aren't an additional layer which you would need to otherwise qualify for. Citizenship and the rights relevant to that are such an additional layer. What they are not saying is that these rights somehow exist outside of a legal framework that supports them. Since they don't. As should be obvious, the moment you look at the world in, say, 1800. Humanity didn't change, so if rights were truly extralegal in nature, we'd still have human rights back in 1800, right?

    Nope. Clearly not. Given that the transatlantic slave trade was in high gear, women weren't legally considered "people" in a lot of places, and so forth.

    It took the UDHR and the UN's pushing for its adoption via treaties that really created a global sense that there should be some shared standards on this legal subject. But it's still a legal construct, and there are nations like Saudi Arabia that haven't signed onto these treaties, and others like the DPRK who've sought to withdraw from them (and maintain that they have, though the UN claims that they have not, since the CCPR and such don't have a clause that allows for withdrawal).

    If a country isn't obliged by treaty to honor these rights, and doesn't respect them itself, can people within that country really claim to hold those rights in the first place? The government won't treat them as if they do, and there's no legal grounds to contest that by any other country.


  17. #497
    The Unstoppable Force Bakis's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    24,644
    Quote Originally Posted by hrugner View Post
    So social media companies make sure none of their assets or employees are in countries where they can be reached by the EU, give EU residents a soft ban that they don't enforce, and tell the EU to go dig for money on their own rather trying to sue themselves into a sustainable governmental structure. This is little more than a tax on foreigners disguised as a law suit.
    Just cos the US got a president embracing neo nazis doesnt mean the EU have to put up with hate speech.
    But soon after Mr Xi secured a third term, Apple released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts.
    Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.

  18. #498
    Quote Originally Posted by Bakis View Post
    Just cos the US got a president embracing neo nazis doesnt mean the EU have to put up with hate speech.
    The EU is scared of their own tail and seeing neonazis behind every hedge. If they want to adopt more and more fascist limits on speech in order to protect themselves from fascists, all I can do is appreciate the irony and work to keep it on their side of the world.

  19. #499
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Under Your Spell View Post
    Rights are invented by humans, introduced to government laws by humans for them to uphold. So yeah, they do give rights. If nobody came up with the idea of human rights and convincing others to give them to people then they wouldn't exist.
    Governments acknowledge and protect rights. That's their role. Some rights are inherent, regardless of government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I think you're using "inherent" in confusing ways.
    No, I'm not. I'm using it exactly how it's defined. We, as humans, have some inherent, unalienable rights. Life and liberty being the foremost.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Also, you're misusing "inalienable". "Inalienable" means a right can't be taken away from you.
    Again, no, I'm not. The preamble bit I quoted refers to rights that inherent and inalienable. As far as the rest of your post goes, you still possess inherent rights regardless of whether or not a government recognizes them. If, by chance, they don't and act against them, they're violating them. Just because some warlord in BFE has slaves doesn't mean that those slaves' human rights aren't being violated.

  20. #500
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistame View Post
    Governments acknowledge and protect rights. That's their role. Some rights are inherent, regardless of government.
    No, you only have the rights that you are afforded by your government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •