• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Do We Tolerate Voliations of the BOR such as the 1st Amendment

Why do We the People of the United States put up with the government violating our constitution and violating our rights? For instance, the First Amendment gives us freedom of speech and yet the government will punish people for saying stuff. Why do we put up with that? We are allowed to say whatever we want without repercussions.

Please cite who is being prevented from saying anything.

Our rights end, where other peoples' rights begin.
 
Please cite who is being prevented from saying anything.

Our rights end, where other peoples' rights begin.

As I said in an earlier post, a boy in school got in trouble with the law for saying he was going to kill a bully.
 
With the 1st Amendment comes freedom of expression. That being said, if I decide to express myself by saying I would like to smash so and so's head like a watermelon I shouldn't get in trouble for saying that.
What about threatening to kill someone unless they give me all their money? What about calling in a (false) bomb threat or claiming you committed a serious crime, even to the point of lying in court to get you convicted?

What about private or personal information individuals may have access to – publishing your medical records, banking details or personal legal details? What about sharing military secrets with the enemy?

I could go on but you must get the point. Free speech (any freedom in fact) can’t be unconditional.
 
Because the left has been conditioning society to have such delicate, super sensitive feelings. Just look at "hate speech." Wtf is that, hate speech? There is no such thing. There is just speech.
 
I could go on but you must get the point. Free speech (any freedom in fact) can’t be unconditional.

Here is the problem. When we allow the government to put conditions on our rights and freedoms than they can add any and all sorts of conditions until the rights become practically non existent, which is not much different than not even having the rights in the first place. For instance, lets say we allow the government to put conditions on the right of free speech or any of the other rights in the BOR, that way they can make conditions such as that the right only applies if you're white or it only applies if you're a man or it only applies if you're name is Alfred E. Neuman or, you get the point.
 
Here is the problem. When we allow the government to put conditions on our rights and freedoms than they can add any and all sorts of conditions until the rights become practically non existent, which is not much different than not even having the rights in the first place.
Government doesn't create the conditions, we do - government is jut the representatives of the people after all. Now if that system doesn't work properly (as you can certainly argue), that's a different problem to address.

For instance, lets say we allow the government to put conditions on the right of free speech or any of the other rights in the BOR, that way they can make conditions such as that the right only applies if you're white or it only applies if you're a man or it only applies if you're name is Alfred E. Neuman or, you get the point.
We did have those conditions, in law and later (arguably still) in practice but people pushed back against that. It's far from perfect but perfection is impossible. You didn't actually address my questions but surely they demonstrate that the free-for-all your position implies would be much worse than were we are now.
 
Well I do know of a case of a boy getting in trouble with the law for telling a bully he was going to kill him. This bully in school was constantly harassing the boy until finally the boy said, "Knock it off, Im gonna kill you!" The boy got in trouble not only at school but also with the law for saying he was going to kill the bully.
:bs If this ^^ even happened, no way the police had any way to do anything.
 
Because if you oppose them, they kill you?
Because people have been brainwashed to believe the government is good and necessary?
Because people are retarded and believe without a slave master they'd be less free?

While it's a really nice fantasy that an anarchistic society could work, it's folly and goes against basic human nature. Even if you had such somewhere for a time, eventually someone would murder folks or steal things, or a harvest would be bad one year and there's be shortages or a famine, and what then? In human society the strong always subjigate the weak. The survival instinct in time of famine too, people will always fend for their own first. Hoarding of goods, thieving, murder for lands, fearing others not like you or unknown to you. it's all basic human nature. No society could survive without a way to defend against such. No, I'm not arguing that government is always great or even good sometimes, but at least to a large degree it allows for some basic order, without which we couldn't have prospered or advanced so far as we have.

Mankind in and of itself is neither good nor bad, we are only the dominant species on the planet currently, we can choose to be "good" or ":bad", but slefishness and self interest complicate things. Human nature in reality is much too "game of thrones" for the governmentless fantasy to ever be more than childish folly.:roll:
 
While it's a really nice fantasy that an anarchistic society could work, it's folly and goes against basic human nature. Even if you had such somewhere for a time, eventually someone would murder folks or steal things, or a harvest would be bad one year and there's be shortages or a famine, and what then? In human society the strong always subjigate the weak. The survival instinct in time of famine too, people will always fend for their own first. Hoarding of goods, thieving, murder for lands, fearing others not like you or unknown to you. it's all basic human nature. No society could survive without a way to defend against such. No, I'm not arguing that government is always great or even good sometimes, but at least to a large degree it allows for some basic order, without which we couldn't have prospered or advanced so far as we have.

Mankind in and of itself is neither good nor bad, we are only the dominant species on the planet currently, we can choose to be "good" or ":bad", but slefishness and self interest complicate things. Human nature in reality is much too "game of thrones" for the governmentless fantasy to ever be more than childish folly.:roll:

It would be just as wrong of me to demand that you be an anarchist, or be part of some anarchist society, as it is for you to demand that I be part of your government. My goal is to point out the immorality of your position, and ask to be left alone due to that. That's called panarchism.
 
It would be just as wrong of me to demand that you be an anarchist, or be part of some anarchist society, as it is for you to demand that I be part of your government. My goal is to point out the immorality of your position, and ask to be left alone due to that. That's called panarchism.

It's not about demands, it's about power, who has it, who wields it and how, always has been always will be, despite our protestations of what is "right or wrong" what is, simply is, like it or not.
 
It's not about demands, it's about power, who has it, who wields it and how, always has been always will be, despite our protestations of what is "right or wrong" what is, simply is, like it or not.

I can't change everything at the snap of my fingers, no. But, realizing what is right or wrong is a necessary first step. It's important to have a goal, even if you don't fully complete the journey.

And, stating that's the way things have always been is a defeatist's attitude, and the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
 
Back
Top Bottom