(03-25-2017 11:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote: (03-25-2017 11:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-25-2017 11:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote: (03-25-2017 10:46 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote: (03-25-2017 06:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote: Reeducate people to be tolerant to others. I like to see no more mean nasty spirited name calling and all that. It hurts when I was a kid when they called me a retard and all that. I will never stoop that low and call people mean spirited names.
So, open-mindedness is contingent of people accepting your world view? Re-education of those that you don't deem tolerant. You must be freaking kidding me. Freedom of speech is just that, and I know of no Constitutional right that protects you from being offended by what I say or what I think. You scare me. Boogeyman DavidSt, as your thoughts are dangerous and totalitarian. No thanks.
Yup.
There's no Constitutional Amendment ensuring your feelings don't get hurt.
David wants thought police like Hitler and Stalin.
Doesn't mean you should condone or promote actions that hurt feelings either. And there should be no problems in telling the people who state those things that they are idiots. You are automatically assuming that the concept of "reeducation" is solely a governmental issue, and if it were your stating it would be like Hitler and Stalin would be more on point.
Reeducation can also consist of private actions of private individuals to tell those who perform such acts or verbiage that they are idiots -- a type of social reeducation. And with this form your drawing on Hitler and Stalin is completely misplaced.
He was clearly speaking on behalf of the theoretical government he was theoretically elected to lead.
Perhaps you can point out where he mentions government action. I can't find that "clear" statement there. Or does anybody saying 'anything' automatically mean government intervention in your mind?
Sorry the words themselves dont point out anything of the sort 'clearly' at all.
Quote:But honestly you aren't much better. You just replaced government tyranny with personal tyranny.
So for me to say that someone is being an a-hole is "personal tyranny". Wow. I have never heard *that* stretch before.
Sorry to tell you that the right of free speech (both legally and morally, since there is no legal right under the 1st amendment with solely private (non-government) actors) has no "personal tyranny" exception. The same right that gives an a-hole the right to be an a-hole accords the right to call out an a-hole. But somehow that is "personal tyranny" when one does the calling out.... That seems to fundamentally reject the entire intrinsic notion that the "right" (as explained before no legal right without a governmental suppression) is pretty much absolute and bilateral. But you seemingly dont agree that it is bilateral. Otay...... this should be interesting going further.....
Quote: You have absolutely no right to impose your beliefs on another no matter how right you may feel they are.
You are correct if I "impose" my personal beliefs. But I enjoy the same rights (as does *anyone* else, and including those same a-holes mentioned above) to be free of government intervention to state my personal beliefs to whomever I wish. Including someone being an a-hole. And fundamentally and equally to those calling out a-holes (your "personal tyranny" thingy...) And yep, the calling out of a-holes, or trying to reason with a-holes, is a form of "social reeducation". But somehow that is "tyranny" to you......
And those same people to whom I express those beliefs have a similar right to not listen, or simply walk away, or if I am on their property, they can revoke my right to be their guest.
But if you feel that my right to self-expression is in anyway less than any other person, including in the type of "social reeducation" described above, you are greatly mistaken. Both legally and morally. But your right to disagree. :)