• 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!

[W:640] Why People Shouldn't Carry Guns

Marrybore said:
Although the US likes to go on about "free speech", most countries in the Western World - the UK, the EU - have the same amount of free speech. The only difference is in the US nazism is an officially accepted political ideology, while in Germany it's illegal to do the Nazi Salute. But generally, the state of free speech in the Western World is fine.
Click to expand...

I think you better rethink that. Canada and the UK have some pretty strict hate speech laws to the point where disagreement or criticism becomes hate speech.
 
Last edited:
OpportunityCost said:
I think you better rethink that. Canada and the UK have some pretty strict hate speech to the point where disagreement or criticism becomes hate speech.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with laws restricting hate speech. And I don't believe it is the case in these countries that hate speech is defined as disagreements or criticism. Disagreement with what, exactly?
 
Marrybore said:
There's nothing wrong with laws restricting hate speech. And I don't believe it is the case in these countries that hate speech is defined as disagreements or criticism. Disagreement with what, exactly?
Click to expand...

So you don't respect rights, just the ones you agree with.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So you don't respect rights, just the ones you agree with.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone respect rights they don't agree with? If someone claimed they had the right to do something I didn't agree with, for instance kill children, I would not respect that right, because I don't agree that it should be their right.
 
Marrybore said:
Why would anyone respect rights they don't agree with? If someone claimed they had the right to do something I didn't agree with, for instance kill children, I would not respect that right, because I don't agree that it should be their right.
Click to expand...

I don’t agree with everything everyone says. But I respect their right to say it.

I have disagreements with people at work on a daily basis. I still respect their opinion.

You present a very self centered perspective.
 
Marrybore said:
Why would anyone respect rights they don't agree with? If someone claimed they had the right to do something I didn't agree with, for instance kill children, I would not respect that right, because I don't agree that it should be their right.
Click to expand...

As long as their rights do not harm another they should retain that right. You are showing you don't even understand the framework of what should and should not be a right.
 
Marrybore said:
Although the US likes to go on about "free speech", most countries in the Western World - the UK, the EU - have the same amount of free speech.
Click to expand...
No they don't.
The only difference is in the US nazism is an officially accepted political ideology, while in Germany it's illegal to do the Nazi Salute. But generally, the state of free speech in the Western World is fine.
Click to expand...
Not as free as it is in the US. Sorry.
 
Marrybore said:
There's nothing wrong with laws restricting hate speech.
Click to expand...
That's a restriction on free speech.
And I don't believe it is the case in these countries that hate speech is defined as disagreements or criticism. Disagreement with what, exactly?
Click to expand...
The fact that they define it at all means they don't respect free speech.

If you define some speech as hate speech and issue punishment that is not free speech.
 
Marrybore said:
Why would anyone respect rights they don't agree with?
Click to expand...
if you disagree with everyone else's rights but the ones you agree with you don't believe in rights.
If someone claimed they had the right to do something I didn't agree with, for instance kill children, I would not respect that right, because I don't agree that it should be their right.
Click to expand...
That isn't the right someone has. So you aren't disagreeing with someone else's rights.
 
Aberration said:
I don’t agree with everything everyone says. But I respect their right to say it.

I have disagreements with people at work on a daily basis. I still respect their opinion.

You present a very self centered perspective.
Click to expand...

You can respect someone's right to have an opinion. But if the opinion itself is obviously wrong, deluded, or factually inaccurate, you have no reason to respect it.
Obviously I present a very self-centred perspective. If I'm right about an issue, and someone else disagrees with me, then in my opinion they're wrong - not because I'm prejudiced, but because it's logical. I should maintain an open mind, yes, but you don't have to pay "respect" to every stupid belief.
 
OpportunityCost said:
As long as their rights do not harm another they should retain that right. You are showing you don't even understand the framework of what should and should not be a right.
Click to expand...

I never attempted to define what should and what should not be a right. I said if I think something should not be a right, I will not respect that right because in my opinion it does not count as a right. The rights I particularly like to disrespect are one that harm other people.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No they don't.
Not as free as it is in the US. Sorry.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "free" anyway? How do you measure different levels of "freedom" or "freeness"?
 
CLAX1911 said:
That's a restriction on free speech.

The fact that they define it at all means they don't respect free speech.

If you define some speech as hate speech and issue punishment that is not free speech.
Click to expand...

OK - so you support hate speech because it is free speech?
 
CLAX1911 said:
if you disagree with everyone else's rights but the ones you agree with you don't believe in rights.

That isn't the right someone has. So you aren't disagreeing with someone else's rights.
Click to expand...

The problem is when I disagree with someone on whether something is their right. You may think it's your right to own as many guns as you want. I disagree. It is not your right. The harm caused by this outweighs the fact that it gives you a certain freedom (the same with the concept of hate speech). A murderer may think it's their right to kill people, but I disagree. I refuse to respect non-existent rights.
 
CLAX1911 said:
By what you are able to do without reprocussion from a government entity.
Click to expand...

This leads onto another question: is freedom in the sense you define it a good thing? To a certain extent, yes. But total freedom would mean no laws. You need to know that if ou commit a crime, you will face repercussion from the government. So once again it comes down to at what point we draw the line. As long as you're not an anarchist, you'd supposedly agree that the government must regulate society, and stop people from, basically, doing bad things.
 
Marrybore said:
The problem is when I disagree with someone on whether something is their right.
Click to expand...
Your agreement doesn't matter.

You may think it's your right to own as many guns as you want. I disagree. It is not your right.
Click to expand...
The bill of rights disagrees with you as does the supreme Court. So yes it is my right.

The harm caused by this outweighs the fact that it gives you a certain freedom (the same with the concept of hate speech).
Click to expand...
It causes no harm to own fire arms. Hate speech is just a way to try and control what people say.

A murderer may think it's their right to kill people, but I disagree. I refuse to respect non-existent rights.
Click to expand...

Your agreement doesn't matter. People have rights to say things you think are hateful they have the right to own guns.
 
Marrybore said:
This leads onto another question: is freedom in the sense you define it a good thing? To a certain extent, yes. But total freedom would mean no laws. You need to know that if ou commit a crime, you will face repercussion from the government. So once again it comes down to at what point we draw the line. As long as you're not an anarchist, you'd supposedly agree that the government must regulate society, and stop people from, basically, doing bad things.
Click to expand...

This is a moronic argument. Supporting freedom within certain limits does not mean you support total anarchy.
 
Marrybore said:
You can respect someone's right to have an opinion. But if the opinion itself is obviously wrong, deluded, or factually inaccurate, you have no reason to respect it.
Obviously I present a very self-centred perspective. If I'm right about an issue, and someone else disagrees with me, then in my opinion they're wrong - not because I'm prejudiced, but because it's logical. I should maintain an open mind, yes, but you don't have to pay "respect" to every stupid belief.
Click to expand...

Ironic.
 
I basically disagree with everything you just said.
CLAX1911 said:
Your agreement doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion, which I don't agree with. And, what, are you dismissing my right to free speech now? If voicing my opinion doesn't matter, what's the point?
The bill of rights disagrees with you as does the supreme Court. So yes it is my right.
Click to expand...
So you're basing your definition of a right off the US Constitution. Why base it off the law? Shouldn't every human in the world have the same set of rights? Non-Americans will not have the same legal rights as you do. Arguing "it's the law in America" doesn't affect what actually should and should not be a right. If the Constitution is wrong, try your best to get it changed.

It causes no harm to own fire arms. Hate speech is just a way to try and control what people say.
Click to expand...
It causes no harm to own nuclear weapons either. This isn't about ownership, it's about what people do with the dangerous weapons they own.
And hate speech is about stopping people from using hate speech.



Your agreement doesn't matter. People have rights to say things you think are hateful they have the right to own guns.
Click to expand...
Opinions are tricky things. Someone who holds an opinion automatically thinks that opinion is right, and so from my point of view, saying things that are hateful is not your right. Even if you do not face harsh consequences, it should at least be strongly discouraged.
 
CLAX1911 said:
This is a moronic argument. Supporting freedom within certain limits does not mean you support total anarchy.
Click to expand...

And supporting government regulation within certain limits does not mean you support total government control and a dictatorship.
The issue is we disagree just how much a government should control society.
 
Aberration said:
Ironic.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. You have a right to your opinion, you have a right to voice your opinion as long as it is not unduly harmful, and I have a right to totally disregard it if in my opinion it's not worth considering.
 
Marrybore said:
And supporting government regulation within certain limits does not mean you support total government control and a dictatorship.
The issue is we disagree just how much a government should control society.
Click to expand...
Spending freedom of speech is about as totalitarian dictatorship as you can get. That's how you control thought.

Sorry I don't support this no matter how you apologize for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom