Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well what are your thoughts on that?
Should it be absolute freedom. Should something be forbidden? If yes, what?

Freedom of speech is idiotic, there are tons of limitations that should be in place in my opinion. I won't start to name them all, but there will be prolly be a lot more than most forum members agree with. Freedom of thought is absolute freedom of speech is not

Yeah well this is one opinion, though one question who decides what is supposed to be limited and what not?

preciseley, fire. the large masses of population are too easy influenceable for their own actual good. they should be protected, again, for their own good, from some of those influence causes...like a certain individual's random idea on ..anything

Freedom of speech is the most important things we can have. To use freedom of speech to commit crimes is wrong. If we didn't have freedom of speech Who knows what things would be censor. And censorship has proven to be the most unjust things a group of people can do.

Well the way a democracy decided everything. everyone goes to vote on election day (making election attendance mandatory) they choose represintatives through a very proportionat system (not the first past the post stuff like they have in the UK or in the US, the german system aint bad tho) and those elected officials form a government which then makes laws about what is and is not allowed.

Well heres the other site, so I think WD is right FoS is important without any limitations. Of course there can be bad things promoted by some groups, but wwho are we to decide what these bad things are?

Well, as I mentioned in the other thread...

1. Incitement to crime

2. Slander

3. Harrassment

Three examples where literal freedom is justly restricted. The term 'Freedom of Speech' is conceptual and embodies something beyoind just a literal reading of the words.

The point is that speech should not be restricted on the grounds that other people my find it distasteful. It should only be restricted if it will actively cause harm.

freedom of speech is essential to liberty imho.
if you can be stopped from saying something, even if it inflicts no harm
or danger on anyone...where does it stop? how is the line drawn?
slippery slope

What if someone like Hitler would get elected, I mean its possioble so he has the right to decide what is wrong? Is that fair? So maybe Gays are not allowed to speak anymore. Or everyone isn't allowed to speak aboot Martin Luther King, is that ok?

as I said the elected government officials, if they f*ck up bad enough, the people (atleast in Belgium will make it obvious enough)

But these matters should be determined nationaly. a lot depends on the population their own relation to the laws and all. FoS always has had limits in Belgium so far, very few people care about it. I am sure that if they would go too far they would get into serious trouble.

Belgian politics always seemed to me as a bit different then other countries in the world

Well but the problem is to decide what is what

In a representative system no one man has that much power. If he has, then that system has been destroyed, as happened to the Weimar Republic.

Incidentally, there is nothing less likely to help proper democracy than proportional representation...

that pretty much wraps it up imho.

*looks at post above*

as said before the general public has ways to bring the government down pretty fast. I also said belgium is a weird country envolving politics. you would need to own 66% of the national parliament and senat to even have a chance of changing the laws about Freedom of Speech (won't happen easily)

You dont believe in proportional Representation Ush?

*coughbushcough*

This is not true, the Weimarer Republic had a problem that it had no real unchangebal laws, but except for that it worked like any other system. The Nazis got a majority and according to Fires Definition they then could chose what is right and what is wrong

indeed, but as I said in Belgium (I'm willing to explain our entire political system but it will take a while) the chances of that happening are slim.

Besides an unchangable constitution is something I don't believe in

(as far as I know the american system is not very proportionat) almost half the people able to vote don't do it

Only with assent from the people, which is what they got but only because the people had become intimidated and mis-led.

The Republic failed. The system fell apart, and became something it was never intended to be.

It is only an example of a FAILED democracy, not a peril OF democracy.

Well we got a few unchangable parts I mean I don't like all of it but one its our first Amendment so to say "The dignity of the human is unviolable"

that's a nice one, We changed our constitution in 97 or so, as far as I know we can change everything it (as I said you need 66% in both houses and a lot of other stuff as well) doesn't happen unless like 90% of parliament agrees with it

Well it could happen again. Not in germany we took care of that .
And especially if you say it shoukld be decided by the leaders. What do you think Bush would cut in the freedom of speech?

Same with us we need 66 % to change anything in the constitution and the first 20 parts are absolutely unchangable.

Bush was elected on fair principle in a system entirely designed to prevent him ever having too much power. One of the problems in US politics is ever getting ANYTHING done at all, with the number of checks and balances it has. What is happening in the US is absolutely democracy in action.

Except for this the winner gets it all thing I agree.

But I am not argueing agains Bush I am saying no one can really decide what to limit in the FoS

Idd he was elected by the rules and regulations of their system, altho the dude goes on and on about the "mandate" he got I mean not even 40% of the people who are allowed to vote voted for him

Exactly but oh well he won according to their rules. But he shouldn't be allowed to cut back on any freedoms (oh wait he did)

Well that patriot act is a big joke IMO, but well their country their rules.
Bardock what kind of political system do you believe in (you like your german two vote system?)

Its ok, not the best but I like it a lot more. I can't think of a better at the moment though

it's quite a good one, I wonder how the actual formula works tho

YOu mean how we vote or what?

I know about the first vote and the second vote thingy, I also know that the parties who get less in the first vote get more chairs in the second vote (nice idea) but I wonder how they actualy assign the chairs to the parties (I know how the Belgian formula works, disappointingly easy)

Well I think we go after the percentage, first parties need to get over five percent to go to parlament anyway Then there is a given amount of seats they can get and so every party has seats and for the people that get voted with our second vorte, I am actually not sure how exactly that works but I think they get the other half of the seats. So one the one hand we vote for a party we support and then for people we want to have in the parlament. Actually pretty neqat I think.

I knew that, but the whole idea about the parties who score low in the first system get more seats in the second system is just weird.

IWell thats not true, it depends, its possible for a party that doesn't get above 5% to still get seats in the first vote as long as 3 candidates of that party get voted into parlament.

weird rule, entirely weird system, well I assume they'll teach me how it works at uni

Yeah they should its good because, you can vote for the ideas of a certain party but at the same time for someone you know that you think wopuld be good in parlament, it is like the midway between two extremes.

True, but as I said before to people, in belgium that regional bonding is not really cared for that much

Oh well, we just thought it was usefull when we created the system, doesn't mean its right

True, altho with the german history in mind. I think it's regional ties are far more important than in belgium

Yeah actually our whole system is based on the idea that something like Nazi Germany should never happen again

yea it's a tad harder now

Well there are some things wrong with our system but at least it is safe

hehe, I just explained most of the belgian political situation to Ush, I hope it was clear enough

Can you copy paste maybe?

okie sure, mind you I have not put in all details

Belgium is a federal country, which consist out of 3 regions, named Flanders and Wallon and The Brussels capital region, and out of 3 Communities: the flemish community, the french community and the german community.

Flanders and the flemish community are exactly the same territory, but they take care of different aspects. They both have the same government and parliament tho

Wallon consists out of the french community and the german community
Who each have a different government and parliament with their own little part of jurisdiction.

The Brussels capital region (completely surrounded by Flanders) is an indepent region which also has it's own government and parliament.

Then Belgium is divided into 11 provinces

For the national elections there are different parties in Flanders and Wallon. Both parties from Flanders and Wallon are represented in Brussels

There are a 150 seats in the chamber of representatives who are determined by proportional voting within each province, (the more people live in it, the more seats there are to be devided)

In the senate there are 71 seats
which are allocated a following: 40 of them are chosen directly, from lists that stretch out over the entire communities.
10 are selected by and from the parliament of the flemish community
10 are selected by and from the parliament of the french community
1 is selected by and from the parliament of the german community
10 more senators are co-opted (chosen by parties already in senat)

The national government consists out of 15 secretaries, of which 7 have to be from Wallon and 7 have to be from Flanders (the prime ministes is usualy from Flanders but he could also be a wallon)

Well I know that they did't get to power just by election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened more or less according to possibilities granted by the Republic. Of course it is true that it was caused by the debt of the Treaty of Versailles even thougbh I fail to see the point in this arguement.

And I think there shouldn't be any limitaqtions of the freedom of speech but there should be a protection of the belifs of a society, like we have it in Germany.

I'm not allowed to say what I think about freedom of speech....

why? Because you are big gay and a kirk?

yea Bardock but because Brussel doesn't have different parties in the national elections he would be considered a wallon or a Flemish guy

Ah I see, you got a german leader so far?

Nope, since they are far too small (only a few ten thousand people) their politicians generaly work in wallon parties

They're not known enough in the whole of belgium to get a shot as prime minister (but that might change, altho the unofficial rule is that the prime minister is flemish because we have a numeric superiority over the others)

Well now some french or german guy could be better, so you have to keep open minden.

The Patriot Act is, IMO, complete bull...

There's something about Freedom of Speech in the US that most people don't understand...it DOES have limits, and the limits it has are there for good reason. Now, I'm all for FoS, being a very outspoken person. But I also understand that some minimal limitation is needed to keep order.

In the US you have rights until you infringe upon the rights of others. So basically you have FoS until you use it to abuse the rights of another person; then it can be taken away from you. Also, what are known as "fighting words" are not allowed. An example of this would be if you were to go out into a street and yelling "Kill all the (insert racial slur here)". If doing this would incite a riot and cause violence, YOU would be arrested and held responsible, because your words caused the violence to occur. Also, you can't walk into a crowded place and yell "Fire!" or call in fake bomb threats, because this can cause a panic.

But are we allowed to go out and say whatever we want about the government? Of course. I talk a lot about how I feel about our current administration (and 99.999% of the time it's not in very nice terms either). When FoS starts getting restricted because someone doesn't agree with someone else...that's when we have problems. And already we're starting to have problems with that because of censorship (which I am totally against...just pay attention to what your damn kids are watching on TV instead of whining about it later! It's not that hard!).

I agree SS as long as the limitations are indeed minimal.

Legitimate 'freedom' is absolute.

I know man I know but it aint up to me

Wel, you got a vote, thats good

of course and still i highly doubt there's absolute freedom of speech anywhere.. media really matters to ppl... and they'd believe anything that it says...

I want to discuss this notion of 'freedom of speech'.

Just like all ideas it has its pros and its cons.

Free speech means that people can say what they please (and today this includes pictures and visual arts), be it in political or social terms, and this obviously is the pro of the freedom of speech... but what about the cons?

What about racism and hate groups? What about people promoting ideas which are homophobic?

Technically, people who speak against certain groups or ideas are also practicing freedom of speech, yet for most their freedom of speech is unfavourable in todays society, yet if one rule apples, then it applies to all.

What are your views on this? Is there a way to go about it, or does it, much like many other ideas, come with cons which cannot be overcome by means other than education?

Is freedom of speech in your opinion a good idea overall? And if so, should it be absolute, or should be it controlled? But then again, if so, who decides what is to be said and what is not to be said...

Edit - found a same thread, so i merged it.

The law in Canada is you can't go on public waves (radio,tv and such) and make start saying racist things. The owner of the station can lose its license as some people have seen happen in Quebec. However public demonstration of so called "white power, Nazi groups are legal" but won't happen because it started one big fight last time.

So if i go on radio and saw Jews drink the blood of baby's, the radio has to cut that out and cut that person off. If not the station is charged. I heard otherwise in the US where all sorts of people call each other many names on the radio. It should be controlled because who wants to hear the bull crap of neo-nazis groups and such.

Every Western country should have equality rights section in their Constitution. Lol they most oddest people are those who say whites have no power. Ha HAHHAHA Thats the dumbest thing i heard. STupid racist idiots!

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I want to discuss this notion of 'freedom of speech'.

Just like all ideas it has its pros and its cons.

Free speech means that people can say what they please (and today this includes pictures and visual arts), be it in political or social terms, and this obviously is the pro of the freedom of speech... but what about the cons?

What about racism and hate groups? What about people promoting ideas which are homophobic?

Technically, people who speak against certain groups or ideas are also practicing freedom of speech, yet for most their freedom of speech is unfavourable in todays society, yet if one rule apples, then it applies to all.

What are your views on this? Is there a way to go about it, or does it, much like many other ideas, come with cons which cannot be overcome by means other than education?

Is freedom of speech in your opinion a good idea overall? And if so, should it be absolute, or should be it controlled? But then again, if so, who decides what is to be said and what is not to be said...

Edit - found a same thread, so i merged it.

Freedom of Speech, as it is defined in the US Constitution, grants the right to say what you please until it infringes upon the rights of another person. Most American's don't realize this, though, which is why we have problems with racist groups who say that they're only practicing their freedom of speech. Truth is, promoting such ideas as hate organizations generally do is infringing upon the freedoms that the people they speak out against have.

The one thing that really bothers me is censorship. Pay attention to what your ****ing kids are watching on TV and stop bitching.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I want to discuss this notion of 'freedom of speech'.

Just like all ideas it has its pros and its cons.

Free speech means that people can say what they please (and today this includes pictures and visual arts), be it in political or social terms, and this obviously is the pro of the freedom of speech... but what about the cons?

What about racism and hate groups? What about people promoting ideas which are homophobic?

Technically, people who speak against certain groups or ideas are also practicing freedom of speech, yet for most their freedom of speech is unfavourable in todays society, yet if one rule apples, then it applies to all.

What are your views on this? Is there a way to go about it, or does it, much like many other ideas, come with cons which cannot be overcome by means other than education?

Is freedom of speech in your opinion a good idea overall? And if so, should it be absolute, or should be it controlled? But then again, if so, who decides what is to be said and what is not to be said...

Edit - found a same thread, so i merged it.
-I was writing a long reply and I accidentally erased it... here I go again-

I do believe in freedom of speech but as you said it does have it's pros and it's cons.

When it comes to general media, it should be allowed, even radical groups such as the KKK, and the Nazis. If you do not wish to read, watch, hear it then you just don't and however stupid these groups might be, those who wish to hear, watch, read, etc. should be able to.

Now when it comes to political secrets, I think only if the 'secret' puts in immiate danger to an individual, it shouldn't be 'released'.

And I know there would be people offended, but they should really think about it, if they want their culture, believes and ideals to be public, isn't it right for others to have the same rights? I know, 'our believes do not include killing every jewish man on earth' but having the ideals published don't kill people, people kill people.

Sadly, the spreading of such ideas DOES kill people.

Besides, by any logic it should be illegal to incite illegal acts.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sadly, the spreading of such ideas DOES kill people.

Besides, by any logic it should be illegal to incite illegal acts.
everybody knows the existance of such radical groups! and it's not very hard to find a way to sign up, plus isn't there already a KKK channel?

how about the Anarchist cook book... it's not illegal in the states.

Regardless, incitement is still an issue.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Regardless, incitement is still an issue.

It is, and the main one as regards freedom of speech.

From a civil liberties perspective- we can do that which is not outlawed- there often appear to be infringements upon our freedom of speech, and that is generally when people begin to question the correctness of impediments to free speech.

In the human rights paradigm, as in the UK, there is a more amenable balance. Freedom of speech is protected under Article 10 of the HRA, but it must be balanced against other rights such as Article 8, the right to privacy and family life.

One right against another.

The same concept is at the heart of incitement laws, which also technically limit freedom of speech, but with a view to preventing harm.

To this extent there must be limits. It would be impossible to have complete freedom of speech in any case, because it would also overlap with many other offences, such as abetting, counselling or procuring.

I'm absolutely sure that there should be frredom of spech! Each person has a right to express his point of view

A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.

How in the world is that right!? That is against our FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!This is a complete outrage!

Should be in the Religion or General forum

Originally posted by ThePittman
Should be in the Religion or General forum 86 the wink smilie though.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.

How in the world is that right!? That is against our FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!This is a complete outrage!

That's why I'm an atheist.


Also, like Casey said, this should be in the Religion Forum.

A topic off topic in the Off Topic forum?

Originally posted by Impediment
That's why I'm an atheist.


And it's not about religion it's about freedom of speech which that bill will take away.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
A topic off topic in the Off Topic forum?



And it's not about religion it's about freedom of speech which that bill will take away. That is why I said in the religion or general forumOriginally posted by Thorrin
86 the wink smilie though. pitt_blank

Double post

Originally posted by ESB -1138
A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality.

How in the world is that right!? That is against our FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!This is a complete outrage! There was already a thread on this bill, and the claim that it would outlaw pastors speaking against homosexuality was proved completely wrong

Observation:
There is no freedom of speech, nowhere to be found is there a place where you can say absolutely anything you want. Far from it. On average you could be thrown out for saying so much as the N word. Let alone a full-blown rant that might offend someone.

Statement:
This country has no idea what it wants.

It wants a capitalist society, a society where the hardworking and intelligent get ahead and screw the deadbeats.

But it also wants a socialism, it wants a nation that handles all the problems of the poor and desitute.

It wants absolute freedom, the freedom to love, to hate, to say, to do.

But it also wants those freedoms confined, so that nobody can hurt them, exploit them, or just endanger thier life as a whole.



Conclusion:
Americans don't know what the hell they want. Freedom of speech is being able to yell theatre in a crowded fire, that's how useless and retarded the American concept of free-speech is.

You can say what you want in the South Pole.

Originally posted by HK47
Observation:
There is no freedom of speech, nowhere to be found is there a place where you can say absolutely anything you want. Far from it. On average you could be thrown out for saying so much as the N word. Let alone a full-blown rant that might offend someone.

Statement:
This country has no idea what it wants.

It wants a capitalist society, a society where the hardworking and intelligent get ahead and screw the deadbeats.

But it also wants a socialism, it wants a nation that handles all the problems of the poor and desitute.

It wants absolute freedom, the freedom to love, to hate, to say, to do.

But it also wants those freedoms confined, so that nobody can hurt them, exploit them, or just endanger thier life as a whole.



Conclusion:
Americans don't know what the hell they want. Freedom of speech is being able to yell theatre in a crowded fire, that's how useless and retarded the American concept of free-speech is. By that very same token there is not country in the world that has a true freedom of speech either.

Originally posted by ThePittman
By that very same token there is not country in the world that has a true freedom of speech either.
Statement:
True, but no other country claims to have freedom of speech. Atleast not like we do.

Originally posted by HK47
Statement:
True, but no other country claims to have freedom of speech. Atleast not like we do.

A lot of western country's claim that. And freedom of speech can usually go really far, but there have to be limits unfortunately at least if you want a prospering society. Allowing people to ask others to go out and commit crimes, is just making sure society loses stability. Such things should be stopped.

Originally posted by Fire
. Freedom of thought is absolute freedom of speech is not

freedom of thought is personal, freedom of speech is social, so freedom of thought is by no means absolute.

Freedom of speech is a nice idea, but until people can learn to live together, any type of interactive freedoms will bring hard ache, but thats not to say we shouldnt try

Originally posted by HK47
Statement:
True, but no other country claims to have freedom of speech. Atleast not like we do. But we do not claim that our freedom of speech is absolute. There are limits.

i agree...everything has its own limitations. can you imagine country without limitations?. i don't want to think about it coz it would be the worst country ever.

Originally posted by gingercaily
i agree...everything has its own limitations. can you imagine country without limitations?. i don't want to think about it coz it would be the worst country ever.

I doubt that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I doubt that.

You must not have studied worl history then. take a trip to mexico city and come back and tell me how it was.

No, I am just pretty sure that a country with lots of limitations can be worse. 1984 style.

Originally posted by gingercaily
i agree...everything has its own limitations. can you imagine country without limitations?. i don't want to think about it coz it would be the worst country ever.

If done properly, it would be brilliant.

freedom of speech should be given as long as SPEECH just remains speech and does not directly translate into actions which unjustifyably cause real suffering to people.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I am just pretty sure that a country with lots of limitations can be worse. 1984 style.

gingercaily was talking about a country without limitations and you responded by saying "I doubt that".

Going to the opposite end of the spectrum like your doing...

Does the USSR ring a bell? Does present day China? Pretty damned restricted.

In my OPINION, it is much worse than over-censorship and government oppression. At least you have slight idea of what not to do in an oppressive government. In a lawless society, you really can't predict how to save your ass.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
freedom of speech should be given as long as SPEECH just remains speech and does not directly translate into actions which unjustifyably cause real suffering to people.

It depends what you say now doesnt it? What if my 'speech' creates actions of others?

Like, if I go into a mall and yell BOMB!!!


Or if I call up buddy Osama: "Hey Osa, old pal....I got an idea for you. PLANES INTO BUILDING!" Thats something you cant say, and shouldnt be able to say.

Originally posted by dadudemon
gingercaily was talking about a country without limitations and you responded by saying "I doubt that".

Going to the opposite end of the spectrum like your doing...

Does the USSR ring a bell? Does present day China? Pretty damned restricted.

In my OPINION, it is much worse than over-censorship and government oppression. At least you have slight idea of what not to do in an oppressive government. In a lawless society, you really can't predict how to save your ass.

...what?


A lawless society has the chance of change. It can create strong communities which look out for each other. Laws and governments are not the only way for people to live together. People are able to restrict themselves.

There could be Utopian lawless societies and there are horribly Dystopian oppressive governments. So my reply to his "i don't want to think about it coz it would be the worst country ever." was very deserved, but hey, I am sure you didn't understand it anyways.

You are an idiot.

I'd waste my breath and turn out to you that there is no true anarchy in your sense, but I won't cause you are a moron. If you want to understand what I said read it a few more times, if not, I don't care.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are an idiot.

I'd waste my breath and turn out to you that there is no true anarchy in your sense, but I won't cause you are a moron. If you want to understand what I said read it a few more times, if not, I don't care.

If I am wrong...then I am wrong.
"Waste" your time and if you are right, I will admit it.

And yes, I agree, there is not such thing as true anarchy because humans want rules...We crave rules and even in a crime stricken city, the ciminals have rules with each other.

"Freedom of Speech" to me, is an illusion. You can't say anything you want, if you say something "non-PC" you will surely be taken down, Imus style.

I say what I think anyway....... Online, because I post a lot!

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, it would be gangs or communities that found each other because they were afraid or felt the same thing. You assume that in a lawless society there would only be bad gangs that go about killing and stealing and raping, there could just as well be gangs that protect each other and help each other without preying on others.

I agree that not all gangs are more evil than good. However, you're changing the focus of the debate. I guess that you win this aspect of the debate. *concedes argument*




I understand what your point of view better now. I am ashamed that I did not see this earlier.

My definition is:

"a state of society without government or law. "

Your definition is:

"a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

The way I am describing anarchy and using it...yes it is every bit as bad as I am making it to be. The way you are using it, it should not necessarily be shunned.




You are somewhat an anarchist. No problem. To each his own.



"You win some you lose some", right?





The statement was too simple in order for me to derive you stance on anarchy. Everything in the above statement is a redirect of the attention of the discussion to another line though...an excellent debating tactic when you are trying to win a debate. However, it will not work with me. Your statement still remains much too simple to have been able to derive your stance until you divulged more of your stance.


My statement was an exaggeration. (You know, hyperbole.)




great



I know my posting is not perfect...but dude, try a little better than that.

I agree that his statement was not well thought out, but he meant it as a grain of salt. You insulted him with your statement, which I thought was tacky considering the intention of his post, so I wanted to defend the position.



Really simple. Totalitarian government and utopia were being discussed. Do you know the intentions of communism are utopian in origin? In fact, pure communism IS utopia.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree that not all gangs are more evil than good. However, you're changing the focus of the debate. I guess that you win this aspect of the debate. *concedes argument*

I don't think I am. I think it is a big part of the debate. Yes, there might be gangs in a lawless society (relatively certain) but that doesn't have to be bad. It can be, I absolutely agree with you on that, but in my view a totalitarian government has much more power to make your life miserable without the hope for change.




Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand what your point of view better now. I am ashamed that I did not see this earlier.

My definition is:

"a state of society without government or law. "

Your definition is:

"a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

I disagree. I feel that my definition of anarchy works with both. The second is just a definition of rational anarchism which still fits the first definition though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The way I am describing anarchy and using it...yes it is every bit as bad as I am making it to be. The way you are using it, it should not necessarily be shunned.

How so?


Originally posted by dadudemon
You are somewhat an anarchist. No problem. To each his own.

Sure.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"You win some you lose some", right?

I suppose, except in cases where you win all or lose all.



Originally posted by dadudemon
The statement was too simple in order for me to derive you stance on anarchy. Everything in the above statement is a redirect of the attention of the discussion to another line though...an excellent debating tactic when you are trying to win a debate. However, it will not work with me. Your statement still remains much too simple to have been able to derive your stance until you divulged more of your stance.

Of course. It was not a philosophical manifesto to make my stance popular in the world. It was just a simple disagreement with the person that said it. Now, I elaborated it for you, because you wanted to know better, but the initial statement was as I wanted it to be and in that way understandable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My statement was an exaggeration. (You know, hyperbole.)

Yes. But it did not relate to the reality of the matter at all.


Originally posted by dadudemon
great





Originally posted by dadudemon
I know my posting is not perfect...but dude, try a little better than that.

I agree that his statement was not well thought out, but he meant it as a grain of salt. You insulted him with your statement, which I thought was tacky considering the intention of his post, so I wanted to defend the position.

It wasn't my intention to insult. Not him, I hold no grudge against him. In fact I have no idea who he is. I just wanted to make my disagreement publicly available so all the "sheep" don't just say "Oh, there's one dude that anarchist societies are the worst one can think of, no one replied, it must be true".


Originally posted by dadudemon
Really simple. Totalitarian government and utopia were being discussed. Do you know the intentions of communism are utopian in origin? In fact, pure communism IS utopia.

Yeah. Just don't see how it relates to the topic really. Also it is not an utopia to me.

China and the USSR is not really the most restrictive or totalitarian governments there are and they are certainly not anarchist. I just don't know how they fit in our discussion.

Well, I guess I can say I agree with most if not all your points, so really no reason to argue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess I can say I agree with most if not all your points, so really no reason to argue.

True. I went back and re-read my post and I kind of "un-debated" the debate with most of my statements...they were really "close ending".

Answer "one" question from all of my post...I want clarification on this...

"Come on; don't try to act so naive. Seriously dude. You are way too smart for me to try to actually believe that. (Maybe your counting on me giving up the point? It is also possible that you live in a world so oblivious to those around you that your insults flow freely while you are totally oblivious to their repercussions...?)"

Originally posted by dadudemon
True. I went back and re-read my post and I kind of "un-debated" the debate with most of my statements...they were really "close ending".

Answer "one" question from all of my post...I want clarification on this...

"Come on; don't try to act so naive. Seriously dude. You are way too smart for me to try to actually believe that. (Maybe your counting on me giving up the point? It is also possible that you live in a world so oblivious to those around you that your insults flow freely while you are totally oblivious to their repercussions...?)"

Well, as a rational person I must of course admit the posibility that I am oblivious to some insults I throw out. Yet, I suppose you are asking whether I think that is the case, and I must say no, I really don't think so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I am wrong...then I am wrong.
"Waste" your time and if you are right, I will admit it.

And yes, I agree, there is not such thing as true anarchy because humans want rules...We crave rules and even in a crime stricken city, the ciminals have rules with each other.


i agree,rules are part of our lives..we sometimes create rules without even noticing it.

Sometimes, this right is taken advantage.

hey guys!!!this is very important!!!are you living in a democratic world? practice you freedom...we are FREE!!!!

yeah we're free but we still have some things to consider....