The First Amendment is Not Enough

a reply to: Blaine91555

Speech can and does harm people, start wars, enslave people, cause mentally unstable people to commit horrific acts and cause emotional harm. Where does the speakers right to speak end and the unwilling listeners right begin?

Speech does not start wars and we need to get away from that sort of magical thinking before we can even address the problem.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I use language to defeat language.

So you'd stand there, in your home, while someone is being vulgar, profane and hostile and 'use language to defeat them'. I'm sure your life partner would be thrilled with you standing up for them so boldly while supporting your rude guest's freedom of speech.

How would you handle it?

I told you already.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you'd stand there, in your home, while someone is being vulgar, profane and hostile and 'use language to defeat them'. I'm sure your life partner would be thrilled with you standing up for them so boldly while supporting your rude guest's freedom of speech.

No, I would use language to defeat language, not them. While you see speaking as some act of hostility and violence, even in your tortured hypotheticals, I still see it as speaking.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No, I would use language to defeat language...

Explain it in detail. When a guy is calling you a c*******r and making suggestive comments at your life partner how do you 'defeat' his language. Let's say you start to use your 'language' and he increases his volume to ever higher levels, how are you 'defeating' this? You really haven't explained this at all.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you'd demonstrate your lack of proficiency and then call him names in return? Seems kinda bizarre and childish if you ask me.

*smacks self with banana on the cheek*

See! I can't even manage to bring this thing near my mouth! You badly mistaken gillygaupus!

I readily admit to despising the "you have the right to free speech and I have the right to punch you in the mouth for it" crowd. It's bald-faced hypocrisy and thinly veiled threats. We have freedom of speech so that unpopular ideas get aired. If that ruffles someone's feathers well too bad, go somewhere that doesn't tolerate it.

Since private enterprise now owns so many methods of communication I have to agree the first amendment is not enough. It should apply to electronic communications of all types, skype, emails, voicemails, blogs, posts, etc. Now that people speak more online than in person we are already feeling the social and business pressure against free speech.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Scrabble battle.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Explain it in detail. When a guy is calling you a c*******r and making suggestive comments at your life partner how do you 'defeat' his language. Let's say you start to use your 'language' and he increases his volume to ever higher levels, how are you 'defeating' this? You really haven't explained this at all.

For one, I wouldn't let it bother me. What he wants is a reaction, which by now someone such as yourself would hand him on a golden platter. Second, I would simply outwit him, yes, using language. So when you're taking your fedora off to show your life-partner how manly, and also how thin-skinned you are, I will be lighting him up without even raising a finger.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So you'd demonstrate your lack of proficiency and then call him names in return? Seems kinda bizarre and childish if you ask me.

*smacks self with banana on the cheek*

See! I can't even manage to bring this thing near my mouth! You badly mistaken gillygaupus!

"Banana."

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Explain it in detail. When a guy is calling you a c*******r and making suggestive comments at your life partner how do you 'defeat' his language. Let's say you start to use your 'language' and he increases his volume to ever higher levels, how are you 'defeating' this? You really haven't explained this at all.

For one, I wouldn't let it bother me. What he wants is a reaction, which by now someone such as yourself would hand him on a golden platter. Second, I would simply outwit him, yes, using language. So when you're taking your fedora off to show your life-partner how manly, and also how thin-skinned you are, I will be lighting him up without even raising a finger.

Outwit him? I thought you supported the second amendment, yet you go into battle so tragically ill armed.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Outwit him? I thought you supported the second amendment, yet you go into battle so tragically ill armed.

I support the right to defend oneself with firearms, yes. But you might note that in this tortured and tedious hypothetical, no violence has been committed. Things are different when we leave the realm of discourse.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
For one, I wouldn't let it bother me.

I get that you're impervious to taunts and never break character even on here, except for when you do, but that is the reason I brought up your life partner becoming upset with this person's behavior.

Second, I would simply outwit him, yes, using language. So when you're taking your fedora off to show your life-partner how manly, and also how thin-skinned you are, I will be lighting him up without even raising a finger.

I see, so you're going to play an overly verbose game of 'nah-ah, you are'. Who wins at that? The one that says no backsies first?

Stick with that thing you said your allegedly bad at.

aggression has justified moments, until we've bred the last of the primate from our bodies.

I may choose to use conversation 99.99% of the time, but that is because I do not allow myself to be around people that require more than conversation to resolve disputes.

That being said...there are some words Im just not going to tolerate. If you were to call my wife "a fat cow", expect a response. It could be that we leave the area you are in, or it could be that i make it hard for you to talk for awhile (especially if you are in my home).

DOes this make me a hypocrite? Sure, ill cop to it.

To be honest, though...its just never happens. In my adult life I cannot name a time that someone had something to say that I could not tolerate, and could not counter using speech. But I remember how hurt my aunt was (korean army wife) when local yokels were giving her a hard time about being asian. It hurt me to see the way she was treated. My uncle too. He spent a few days in jail for taking that one too far with the curb stomp. I still feel he was justified.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Outwit him? I thought you supported the second amendment, yet you go into battle so tragically ill armed.

I support the right to defend oneself with firearms, yes. But you might note that in this tortured and tedious hypothetical, no violence has been committed. Things are different when we leave the realm of discourse.

You may have missed the joke. Hopefully intentionally or it doesn't say much for your chances of out witting anyone.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My weakness is my wife and my mother. And by extension, my mother in law.

I like to think i am a civilized human, but know I am over hearing 1 insult away from being anything but civilized.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I get that you're impervious to taunts and never break character even on here, except for when you do, but that is the reason I brought up your life partner becoming upset with this person's behavior.

Sorry, but even my "life-partner" has thicker skin than you.

I see, so you're going to play an overly verbose game of 'nah-ah, you are'. Who wins at that? The one that says no backsies first?

Stick with that thing you said your allegedly bad at.

If that's what it takes, yes.

*you're

a reply to: ScepticScot

You may have missed the joke. Hopefully intentionally or it doesn't say much for your chances of out witting anyone.

Sorry, I have no clue what you're talking about.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I readily admit to despising the "you have the right to free speech and I have the right to punch you in the mouth for it" crowd. It's bald-faced hypocrisy and thinly veiled threats.

It wouldn't be hypocrisy if they also expect to be punched in the mouth for saying the wrong thing and there is nothing veiled about it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Sorry, but even my "life-partner" has thicker skin than you.

Sorry to hear about Lifey's psoriasis if they even exist to begin with. Now, if this is a wholly made up life partner I suppose you could have any fantasy you want about how they just sit there, in their own home while someone becomes verbally abusive with them. I know you are highly principled, almost like a Free Speech Jedi, but no one except you is buying this shtick.

If that's what it takes, yes.

You know what they say about Carnegie Hall, right?

*you're

We gonna plany the grammar game? Okay.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

It's hgih time...

It certainly appears it's 'high' time if people spell that way.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sorry to hear about Lifey's psoriasis if they even exist to begin with. Now, if this is a wholly made up life partner I suppose you could have any fantasy you want about how they just sit there, in their own home while someone becomes verbally abusive with them. I know you are highly principled, almost like a Free Speech Jedi, but no one except you is buying this shtick.

I'm not sure where you live, nor the company you keep, but if your friends are sitting in your house calling you c********r and hitting on your wife, may I suggest a different approach to meeting others. As creative as your hypotheticals are, I just don't see it as possible. Maybe a better hypothetical is in order.

You know what they say about Carnegie Hall, right?

I do not.