Is Alex Jones guilty of defamation? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Is Alex Jones guilty of defamation?

Debate Information

Preamble to the argument:

A Connecticut judge found Infowars host Alex Jones liable by default Monday in a defamation lawsuit brought by parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting over the conspiracy theorist’s claims that the massacre was a hoax.

https://apnews.com/article/business-alex-jones-school-shootings-lawsuits-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting-154bd79946433d0b8db18dfb34906cf1

The argument:

P1. The shooting was portrayed on Jones’ Infowars show as a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control. Jones has since acknowledged the school shooting did occur.

P2. Families of the victims said they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones’ followers because of the hoax conspiracy pushed on Infowars. They sued Jones and his companies for defamation and infliction of emotional distress.

P3. ( C ) Therefore, Jones SHOULD be liable, by telling a lie that can potentially KILL someone he was very publicly causing these people great harm by attacking their character, and then, admitted that the attacks were based on a lie. His attacks were not benign, and put people into great potential harm and actual and real mental anguish. The only question is how much should this cost Alex Jones?

This is an excellent article about defamation law in the USA, which, much to no surprise to me, is fantastically weird:

https://theconversation.com/alex-jones-loses-sandy-hook-case-but-important-defamation-issues-remain-unresolved-171914




DeeOakTownA



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • anarchist100anarchist100 574 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:
    Preamble to the argument:

    A Connecticut judge found Infowars host Alex Jones liable by default Monday in a defamation lawsuit brought by parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting over the conspiracy theorist’s claims that the massacre was a hoax.

    https://apnews.com/article/business-alex-jones-school-shootings-lawsuits-sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting-154bd79946433d0b8db18dfb34906cf1

    The argument:

    P1. The shooting was portrayed on Jones’ Infowars show as a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control. Jones has since acknowledged the school shooting did occur.

    P2. Families of the victims said they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones’ followers because of the hoax conspiracy pushed on Infowars. They sued Jones and his companies for defamation and infliction of emotional distress.

    P3. ( C ) Therefore, Jones SHOULD be liable, by telling a lie that can potentially KILL someone he was very publicly causing these people great harm by attacking their character, and then, admitted that the attacks were based on a lie. His attacks were not benign, and put people into great potential harm and actual and real mental anguish. The only question is how much should this cost Alex Jones?

    This is an excellent article about defamation law in the USA, which, much to no surprise to me, is fantastically weird:

    https://theconversation.com/alex-jones-loses-sandy-hook-case-but-important-defamation-issues-remain-unresolved-171914




    Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want even if that hurts people, if you don't like that you can move to Germany.
    BlastcatOakTownA
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited November 17
    Argument Topic: An admission to criminal intent

    Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want even if that hurts people, if you don't like that you can move to Germany.

    P1: Never mind that anarchist100 is completely off topic. and I will speak to his definition and suggestion.There are many potential definitions of "free speech" and anarchist100 defines it as being able to hurt people by way of verbal abuse.

    P2: The freedom of one person stops at hurting other people. Anarchist100 wants the freedom to hurt people, and then suggests that if his potential victims don't want to be hurt, that they should move to another country for protection.

     

    P3 ( C ) : Therefore, anarchist is warning people that if they don't move to Germany, he will feel that he is justified in using verbally abusive tactics as much as he likes. No matter if this infringes on the freedom of others, it's HIS freedom that counts, and only his freedom. He could care less about other people's freedoms. I call that kind of thinking dangerous, obnoxious, and can lead to criminal acts, such as harassment and hate speech. Anarchist doesn't seem to care about other people's feelings, but these other people might. The legal system in his country might. If he goes TOO far, someone might call the cops. I wish anarchist100 good luck. But I would prefer if he stayed out of jail. He is actually telling us that he is not above breaking the law of his land.


    DeeOakTownA
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 922 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    How do you determine if someonenis hurt by words.

    Your comment hurt my feelings, and you can't tell me otherwise.  Is that how you want things to go.
    Blastcat
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 440 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    Ah, one of the most misinformed statements about free speech. You can't just tell people to "Get on the ground with your hands up!" without expecting consequences. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. It just means CONGRESS can't make laws against free speech. That's what it's always been.
    SkepticalOneOakTownAZeusAres42
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • @anarchist100

    Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want even if that hurts people, if you don't like that you can move to Germany.

    Freedom of Speech does not mean speech freedom from consenquences. 

    Happy_KillbotOakTownABlastcatZeusAres42
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • @Blastcat

    How do you determine if someonenis hurt by words.

    Your comment hurt my feelings, and you can't tell me otherwise.  Is that how you want things to go.
    Defamation is a well established legal concept. It is more than just hurt feelings... especially in this case with harassment and death threats.
    Happy_KillbotOakTownABlastcat
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    @SkepticalOne

    It does imply freedom from legal consequences, however. That is to say, I can insult you and have the society condemn me for it and ostracize me - but not have a police officer handcuff me or demand that I pay a tribute to the lordship.

    The obvious exception is when a prior contact has been signed limiting one's speech; for example, I can sign a contract offered to me by my employer binding me to never disclose certain information to any unauthorized individual. But that is a different thing entirely. Free speech is not about private speech (which is regulated spontaneously, by individuals voluntarily interacting in certain ways), it is about public speech. I am not entitled to a private platform for my speech like Facebook, but on my own platform I am entitled to say whatever I want.

    Alex Jones is one of the nuttiest media people out there, and yet this lawsuit seems completely bogus to me. It is in the same spirit as the claims that a gun seller must be responsible for the customer committing a crime with the purchased gun, which was recognized as early as in the England of 1400-s as an unreasonable legal viewpoint.
    Happy_KillbotOakTownABlastcat
  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    It does imply freedom from legal consequences, however. That is to say, I can insult you and have the society condemn me for it and ostracize me - but not have a police officer handcuff me or demand that I pay a tribute to the lordship.
    Hello May:

    If a lie caused one FINANCIAL harm, making him whole again is NOT paying tribute to the lordship.   Seems to me hitting the liar in the pocketbook does MORE to stop the lying rather than a simple dressing down..

    excon


    OakTownA
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    @excon

    Lying is not a crime, and the fact that someone lost money due to believing in a lie is their own failing. Now, fraud is a very different phenomenon that does need to be addressed legally - but fraud implies pretty particular intent; as far as I know, Jones did not receive any money from the parents of the Sandy Hook victims in response to his lies about the events.

    If I tell you that I heard that buying 1 Bitcoin today will make you a billionaire 1 year later, you buy 1 Bitcoin and do not become a billionaire 1 year later - then there is no ground for you suing me. There are grounds for you to reconsider your gullibility, however.
    Happy_KillbotOakTownABlastcat
  • @anarchist100
    Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want even if that hurts people, if you don't like that you can move to Germany.

    No, it doesn't.
    Freedom of speech is an amendment on finding the best solution and is attached to that constitutional right as a United State when ratified. Freedom of speech refers as a basic principle to a cost, and, as there is a more basic principle what type of process is to be proven with or without having cost.

    It is Anarchist100 who is attempting to hold freedom of speech as a liberty to be indiscriminate in the topic of discussion and how it takes place at different levels of life. The danger is that like making a choice to hold anything which may move under outside powers. What you hold may drag you, throw you, or leave you behind as it is slippery, which under condition may be caused by a level of slime which has accumulated on United State constitutional liberty to find the best solution to many issues.
  • exconexcon 324 Pts   -   edited November 17
    MayCaesar said:
    @excon

    Lying is not a crime, and the fact that someone lost money due to believing in a lie is their own failing.
    Hello again, M:

    Being found liable in a civil suit is NOT being found guilty of a crime.  I have leanings toward your argument..  If someone is STU-PID, he shouldn't be made whole..  But, if the INTENT of the liar is to separate his victim from his money, that IS and should BE a crime..  We call it fraud.

    For example, if you spend LOTS of your hard earned money on health insurance, and it turns out that your insurance provider had NO intention of honoring your claim, the insurer be bankrupted and jailed.

    excon
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    @excon

    A civil suit is not done in a vacuum, but within a functional legal system. One cannot just say, "This person's actions disadvantaged me in some way, so they are liable for damages". If I played a game of chess against you, lost and got upset, there hardly is a case for a lawsuit here.

    I agree that fraud should be considered a crime, but I do not see anything in what led to this lawsuit that would constitute a fraud. Deliberately lying about something and making money off it in itself is not a fraud; a fraud has other essential components as well which are missing here.
    BlastcatOakTownA
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I only offered two premises, May missed both

    MayCaesar said:
    @excon

    A civil suit is not done in a vacuum, but within a functional legal system. One cannot just say, "This person's actions disadvantaged me in some way, so they are liable for damages". If I played a game of chess against you, lost and got upset, there hardly is a case for a lawsuit here.

    I agree that fraud should be considered a crime, but I do not see anything in what led to this lawsuit that would constitute a fraud. Deliberately lying about something and making money off it in itself is not a fraud; a fraud has other essential components as well which are missing here.

    P1. The shooting was portrayed on Jones’ Infowars show as a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control. Jones has since acknowledged the school shooting did occur.

    P2. Families of the victims said they have been subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones’ followers because of the hoax conspiracy pushed on Infowars. They sued Jones and his companies for defamation and infliction of emotional distress.


    In P1, I have established that Jones lied. Probably to make money. His lies are very popular.

    In P2, I demonstrate that his lies caused a lot of people pain and suffering.

    May seems to not care about the argument he or she is rebutting. Ok.
    Maybe May might have missed the point, and does not address the actual argument.


    OakTownA
  • @MayCaesar


    It does imply freedom from legal consequences, however.

    As stated above, defamation is a well established [and long standing] legal concept. There is no implication of freedom from legal consequences not even in the correct context of government restricted speech. 

    BlastcatOakTownAZeusAres42
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Fraud is not the only issue

    excon said:
    MayCaesar said:
    @excon

    Lying is not a crime, and the fact that someone lost money due to believing in a lie is their own failing.
    Hello again, M:

    Being found liable in a civil suit is NOT being found guilty of a crime.  I have leanings toward your argument..  If someone is STU-PID, he shouldn't be made whole..  But, if the INTENT of the liar is to separate his victim from his money, that IS and should BE a crime..  We call it fraud.

    For example, if you spend LOTS of your hard earned money on health insurance, and it turns out that your insurance provider had NO intention of honoring your claim, the insurer be bankrupted and jailed.

    excon
    1. While lying might be called a fraud, this is not the problem. Some lies are benign.
    2. In the argument, I explain the problem. Lying can have horrible consequences. His lies did. The consequence of his lying, or if you want to call it his fraud, have caused good people who have suffered the death of their children a LOT MORE PAIN than was necessary. It's the PAIN and suffering, including DEATH THREATS that make his lies so very actionable.

    3. Therefore, once again, people don't bother with the argument presented and dive right in with irrelevancies. What a pity, what a shame.

    OakTownA
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited November 17
    Argument Topic: What burns my ass

    @MayCaesar


    It does imply freedom from legal consequences, however.

    As stated above, defamation is a well established [and long standing] legal concept. There is no implication of freedom from legal consequences not even in the correct context of government restricted speech. 

    So few people try to deal with the argument provided.
    As if.. it's not there.

    oh, but it is

    I don't know if any of my formal looking arguments are valid or sound. But I sure am not being helped.. hardly anyone.. And I am not exaggerating .. hardly anyone ever tries to defeat the reasoning that I provide. Most people make their arguments irrelevant to the actual arguments. It's as if they do not have a clue what an argument is, or what to do about those.
    OakTownA
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -   edited November 17
    @SkepticalOne

    There absolutely is: speech is speech. Say, fraud is a crime not because of the speech involved, but because of the other actions accompanying speech. As long as speech is the only active action taken by a person, "free speech" means that the person can legally say whatever they want. If they cannot, justifiably so or not, then their speech is not free by definition.

    It used to be that "sedition" was really a name for virtually any criticism of legitimacy of the state, and it used to be considered a crime. Then in virtually all Western courts this idea was unrooted, as legal specialists realized that there is nothing inherently special in speech questioning the legitimacy of the current government or country, it is just speech that some people really dislike. Seems to be the same here: people really dislike what Alex Jones has to say about Sandy Hook events. But in a civilized society the actual solution to speech one dislikes is a) to not listen to it or b) to provide counter-speech. Not going to a court and asking for money.

    "Defamation" is the same kind of speech as "sedition" under that definition. If someone starts publicly saying that I murder children every morning, the proper reaction of the society is to ask them for evidence and, in the lack of such evidence, to dismiss their claims. If people do not dismiss them despite lack of evidence, then too bad, but being irrational is not a crime. What would be a crime is for the court to arrest me based on these allegations despite having only the word of a random person as a piece of evidence, but people simply disliking me because they believe the liar is ultimately my problem, not theirs.
    Speech in itself cannot damage someone, only someone's reaction to it can. And it is the improper reaction that should be legally problematic, not the act of speech itself.
    BlastcatOakTownA
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: If one has to ask....

    @Blastcat

    How do you determine if someonenis hurt by words.

    Your comment hurt my feelings, and you can't tell me otherwise.  Is that how you want things to go.

    1. Your question implies that you really can't tell if you have hurt someone by your words. What a pity.
    2. You didn't actually say what comment hurt your feelings or why. I promote compassion and critical thinking, and I for SURE do not want to hurt anyone's feelings.

    3. Therefore, maybe you should explain, or I will just assume that you are, once again, just taking the piss for no particular reason.

    Don't be shy.
    I do care about people's feelings.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Once again, May misses the point entirely

    MayCaesar said:
    @SkepticalOne

    There absolutely is: speech is speech. Say, fraud is a crime not because of the speech involved, but because of the other actions accompanying speech. As long as speech is the only active action taken by a person, "free speech" means that the person can legally say whatever they want. If they cannot, justifiably so or not, then their speech is not free by definition.

    It used to be that "sedition" was really a name for virtually any criticism of legitimacy of the state, and it used to be considered a crime. Then in virtually all Western courts this idea was unrooted, as legal specialists realized that there is nothing inherently special in speech questioning the legitimacy of the current government or country, it is just speech that some people really dislike. Seems to be the same here: people really dislike what Alex Jones has to say about Sandy Hook events. But in a civilized society the actual solution to speech one dislikes is a) to not listen to it or b) to provide counter-speech. Not going to a court and asking for money.

    "Defamation" is the same kind of speech as "sedition" under that definition. If someone starts publicly saying that I murder children every morning, the proper reaction of the society is to ask them for evidence and, in the lack of such evidence, to dismiss their claims. If people do not dismiss them despite lack of evidence, then too bad, but being irrational is not a crime. What would be a crime is for the court to arrest me based on these allegations despite having only the word of a random person as a piece of evidence, but people simply disliking me because they believe the liar is ultimately my problem, not theirs.
    Speech in itself cannot damage someone, only someone's reaction to it can. And it is the improper reaction that should be legally problematic, not the act of speech itself.
    1. May pays no attention to the argument I provided in the original post. What a pity.
    2. Goes on and on and can't seem to imagine that lies can have very bad consequences. What a shame.

    3. Therefore, not only is May being irrelevant, but doesn't seem to care if people get hurt. This seems to be a consistent pattern in DI. Not enough people in here to balance their views. I only know of one other individual who seems to CARE about any other human being on DI. Only ONE. Their might be more, but I only joined in early September. The people who debate the most.. seem to love revenge, have no trouble insulting people they don't like and so on. What a pity, what a shame.

    May's comment here is a case in point.

  • @MayCaesar

    If someone starts publicly saying that I murder children every morning, the proper reaction of the society...

    Cause and effect includes improper actions by society too. If someone claims you murder children every morning and you receive harassment and death threats as a direct result, you have been harmed and have legitimate reason to demand it stop and the slanderer be held accountable. 

    Speech in itself cannot damage someone

    This is the core of our disagreement. Speech can harm. Yelling fire in a crowded venue (when there is no fire) can cause harm, wouldn't you agree? 

    OakTownABlastcatZeusAres42
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • @Blastcat

    1. May pays no attention to the argument I provided in the original post. What a pity.

    2. Goes on and on and can't seem to imagine that lies can have very bad consequences. What a shame.

    3. Therefore, not only is May being irrelevant, but doesn't seem to care if people get hurt. This seems to be a consistent pattern in DI. Not enough people in here to balance their views. I only know of one other individual who seems to CARE about any other human being on DI. Only ONE. Their might be more, but I only joined in early September. The people who debate the most.. seem to love revenge, have no trouble insulting people they don't like and so on. What a pity, what a shame.

    May's comment here is a case in point.

    Address your comments to the arguments. If you must attack character rather than argument, please do not use me as the conduit. 
    BlastcatZeusAres42
    I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5282 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    Lying is not a crime, and the fact that someone lost money due to believing in a lie is their own failing.
    Major bruh moment.

    First off, when you enter court you take an oath and you have to tell the truth, otherwise it is considered perjury, which is an explicit instance of lying being illegal.

    In addition and most relevant to this discussion, defamation and libel are also instances where lying is explicitly illegal. Also, it is obviously incorrect to say that someone losing money due to believing a lie is their own failing, as it is possible (and even likely) that they had no part in that lie!

    If I go around spreading rumors about you, even if that is false and I have no reason to think that, and people catch on to that then it can ruin your reputation, and possibly your life. You would have taken no action here, yet clearly have to bear the consequences.

    In another example, lets say that two sandwich companies in Ancapistan are competing, and one of them decides that to get an edge on the other, they will start a rumor that they found insects baked into the bread of their sandwiches, even though they placed them there. Now, the company which is targeted by this rumor is at no fault here, but there is no strong recourse for them to be able to settle this in court. Now, they might suffer the consequences of a lie at no fault of their own.

    SkepticalOneZeusAres42OakTownABlastcatLuigi7255
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited November 17
    Argument Topic: An apology is required

    @Blastcat

    1. May pays no attention to the argument I provided in the original post. What a pity.

    2. Goes on and on and can't seem to imagine that lies can have very bad consequences. What a shame.

    3. Therefore, not only is May being irrelevant, but doesn't seem to care if people get hurt. This seems to be a consistent pattern in DI. Not enough people in here to balance their views. I only know of one other individual who seems to CARE about any other human being on DI. Only ONE. Their might be more, but I only joined in early September. The people who debate the most.. seem to love revenge, have no trouble insulting people they don't like and so on. What a pity, what a shame.

    May's comment here is a case in point.

    Address your comments to the arguments. If you must attack character rather than argument, please do not use me as the conduit. 

    1. I do apologize if it looked like I was using you as a conduit to insult the guy. I am talking about his ideas. It seems to me that his idea do include a total lack of empathy for those who have suffered due to a lie.
    2. I might have attacked his character, which would be an error on my part, but I was trying to talk about the behaviour and the ideas he presents. He doesn't talk about the argument that I presented, in fact, it looks like he just read the title. The very first contact I had with the guy was in the form of unwarranted vitriol against my character, and that certainly did not impress. He now ignores me. I reserve the right to talk about a person's public behaviour in debates. I try to not talk about their character or personal characteristics. I do not intend to put anyone down, but I will reserve the right to attack bad behaviour and the bad thinking that leads to the bad behaviours.

    3. Therefore, although it was not my intention to USE you in order to attack our honourable debate opponent, and understand that when I talked about his almost total lack of CARING.. it was a mistake. He might actually care, it's just that I can't tell by how he writes. I could have expressed myself better, please forgive me. I will try to do better. Thanks for the feedback. Even though I DO criticize bad ideas and bad behaviour ( I think that most good people should ) i never mean to put any other human down. Once again, I apologize to you, and to the whole group for my silly mistake. Sometimes, I really should re-read before I post. Sometimes, I get distracted and press return a bit too fast. Good call.

    I can see that you care .. that means a lot.
    I was starting to despair about DI. Now, I feel a bit of hope.

    cheers
    SkepticalOne
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited November 17
    @MayCaesar ;
    Lying is not a crime, and the fact that someone lost money due to believing in a lie is their own failing.
    Major bruh moment.

    First off, when you enter court you take an oath and you have to tell the truth, otherwise it is considered perjury, which is an explicit instance of lying being illegal.

    In addition and most relevant to this discussion, defamation and libel are also instances where lying is explicitly illegal. Also, it is obviously incorrect to say that someone losing money due to believing a lie is their own failing, as it is possible (and even likely) that they had no part in that lie!

    If I go around spreading rumors about you, even if that is false and I have no reason to think that, and people catch on to that then it can ruin your reputation, and possibly your life. You would have taken no action here, yet clearly have to bear the consequences.

    In another example, lets say that two sandwich companies in Ancapistan are competing, and one of them decides that to get an edge on the other, they will start a rumor that they found insects baked into the bread of their sandwiches, even though they placed them there. Now, the company which is targeted by this rumor is at no fault here, but there is no strong recourse for them to be able to settle this in court. Now, they might suffer the consequences of a lie at no fault of their own.
    1. Nobody yet have talked about the death threats these parents have to suffer from Jones' lies. He attacked their CHARACTER.. and some people took him seriously.. we SO angry that they wanted to lash out at these people. If I were in their position, Id be really upset by death threats after I just lost a child.

    Oh, that.

    2. Maybe not a lot of people actually know who Alex Jones is, even though, I did paste a LINK.
    And most people in here have the internet.

    3. Therefore, some people don't really seem to know what the debate topic is about and might profit from re-reading the initial argument. Oh, that ...  Maybe if I were to use more emojis and fun pics..

    https://c.tenor.com/i39K1COMe3oAAAAd/kitten-falls-kitten-stumbling.gif


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -   edited November 17
    @SkepticalOne

    The death threats that I receive may be a reason for lawsuits against the people who are threatening me, as that is something more than speech: that is coercion. Not the original lies. It has been the basic principle of every legal system out there that actions are punishable, not their causes. Not that this principle has been uphold very well, but that has been the idea.
    There is no such thing as "the right to not be lied about" that can be coherently legally defined.

    Doing anything, including doing nothing, can cause harm. I can sneeze and startle someone, causing them to experience a heart attack and die. That is not an argument in favor of restricting sneezing.
    Causing harm is not the same as damaging someone. Damaging someone implies certain direct connection between your action and (somewhat) inevitable consequence, while "causing" is a very general term. Events may have multiple causes - infinity of causes, in fact - and one even can make an argument based on thermodynamics that every action of every person contributes to the set of causes of every single instance of harm to anyone on this planet.

    That said, the argument for what should or should not be legal is unrelated to what I was originally responding to. I was saying that any restriction of speech conflicts with free speech. You cannot just redefine free speech as "speech that does not cause harm to anyone". You have to call it "speech that does not harm anyone". "Free speech" in general includes any speech.
    The French Declaration of the Rights of Man has a very peculiar wording in this spirit:
    The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
    What this says in simple terms is this: "Any speech is free, except for the outlawed speech". That is like me saying, "My car is free for you to use, except when I do not allow you to use it. Oh, and I will never allow you to use it. But, otherwise, it is free!"

    It is okay to say that free speech is an unrealistic ideal, and restrictions on speech are justified; I strongly disagree with this, but this is a coherent point that is up to dispute. Saying, however, that "speech X is not a part of free speech" is linguistically erroneous.
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    Once again, I apologize to you, and to the whole group for my silly mistake.

    Well as one of the group I will wait and see how you behave in future as your behavior is let’s just say “erratic “ to say the least, so I will watch how you behave for the next couple of weeks before deciding if your “silly mistake “ can be forgiven …..your best tactic now is try and impress me and it may go in your favour 

    Sometimes, I really should re-read before I post. Sometimes, I get distracted and press return a bit too fast. Good call. 

    Yes good call indeed heed it so you don’t post more nonsense in future ……


    Blastcat
  • anarchist100anarchist100 574 Pts   -   edited November 18
    Blastcat said:
    Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want even if that hurts people, if you don't like that you can move to Germany.

    P1: Never mind that anarchist100 is completely off topic. and I will speak to his definition and suggestion.There are many potential definitions of "free speech" and anarchist100 defines it as being able to hurt people by way of verbal abuse.


    Not true, I said free speech includes ALL speech, whether it hurts people or not.

    P2: The freedom of one person stops at hurting other people. Anarchist100 wants the freedom to hurt people, and then suggests that if his potential victims don't want to be hurt, that they should move to another country for protection.


    If someone's speech hurts your feelings then you can simply ignore them, and in the case of inciting violence the blame here falls on the people who actually committed the violence.

    P3 ( C ) : Therefore, anarchist is warning people that if they don't move to Germany, he will feel that he is justified in using verbally abusive tactics as much as he likes. No matter if this infringes on the freedom of others,

    When I said you should move to Germany I meant that if you don't like it here you should go to a country that more suits you rather than just ruining this one for the rest of us.
     it's HIS freedom that counts, and only his freedom. He could care less about other people's freedoms.
    I respect your freedom to insult, slander, and incite violence against me.
     I call that kind of thinking dangerous, obnoxious, and can lead to criminal acts, such as harassment and hate speech. Anarchist doesn't seem to care about other people's feelings, but these other people might. The legal system in his country might. If he goes TOO far, someone might call the cops. I wish anarchist100 good luck. But I would prefer if he stayed out of jail.
    Just because I believe in the freedom to do something doesn't mean I have any intention of doing it, it doesn't even mean that I approve of it.
     He is actually telling us that he is not above breaking the law of his land.

    If it's Practical and doesn't go against my conscience.
    Blastcat
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -   edited November 18
    @anarchist100


    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of those words. You cannot shout  fire in a packed theatre causing people to panic and create chaos which could lead to injury or death , you cannot say loudly on a packed plane “I’m carrying a bomb “ as a joke. 

     The Hawk newspaper …..

     San Francisco Giants, decided to not associate themselves with former Giants player, Aubrey Huff. Aubrey Huff posted on social media about how he was teaching his son how to shoot guns in case Bernie Sanders won the 2020 election. He also made remarks in which he prompted the suggestion that Americans should kidnap Iranian women and enslave them. Huff claims he was expressing his “political opinions” and making “jokes.” However, there is nothing funny nor political when making statements that discuss enslaving other individuals. This prompted the San Francisco Giants to terminate all association with Huff and the organization unanimously voted him out of the tenth anniversary of the San Francisco Giants’ 2010 World Series Victory celebration. 

    Why you “respect “ people’s imagined “right” to do such things is beyond me , you stated to someone else it’s fine ….” If it's Practical and doesn't go against my conscience.”

    How is it practical to shout “fire” in a packed theatre or shout “ I’m carrying a bomb on a packed plane “?
    ZeusAres42
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited November 18
    Argument Topic: anarchist100 promotes verbal abuse including death threats


    another DI glitch



  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: A quite shocking admission

    Anarchist100 said:

    When I said you should move to Germany I meant that if you don't like it here you should go to a country that more suits you rather than just ruining this one for the rest of us.

    I respect your freedom to insult, slander, and incite violence against me.

    If it's Practical and doesn't go against my conscience.

    It doesn't go against anarchist100's conscious to lie, verbally attack and then threaten death to people who are suffering from the loss of a child due to gun violence in a school. It would "ruin" his country if people were restricted from being able to say whatever they want, regardless of consequences to the VICTIMS of the abuse.

    Some people really don't care about the victims of verbal abuse, and actually promote the horrible practice. To anarchist100, caring about others ruins everything.  If only people who cared could move away to Germany and go care over there.

    Shocking.
    But there it is in plain sight


  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -   edited November 18
    According to Blathermouth everyone should totally respect Jones and excercise compassion which Blathermouth claims is the way to go so Blathermouth respects Jones unless he is lying (again) about his previous assertions

    Remember Blathermouth said all people no matter how evil deserve our full respect which includes Nazis who took part in the Holocaust unless they are the exceptions …..the term for what Blathermouth suffers from is Cognitive Dissonance 


    Here it is in his own words …..

    Do all people deserve respect or only some people?

    Debate Information

    1. I promote compassion and critical thinking, and as a humanist, I believe that all people, even sick, even evil, even people who I disagree with deserve as much respect as I do.
    2. Others will easily on anyone they don't happen to like, to understand, to agree with. 

    3. Therefore, it behooves me to try to persuade these people that their hate isn't productive, does not lead to a good society and can lead to violence. Ideas lead to words, and words can motivate others. Hate is catchy. But so can compassion be if we desire to have it.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Dee doesn't understand the distinction between a person and what a person does

    Remember Blathermouth said all people no matter how evil deserve our full respect which includes Nazis who took part in the Holocaust unless they are the exceptions …..the term for what Blathermouth suffers from is Cognitive Dissonance
    1. I say that every human deserves respect, and Dee mightily objects. He will treat some people with disrespect. He has no trouble. In fact, I would say he really enjoys it. To call me "Blathermouth" among at least a thousand such childish insults is a sure sign of disrespect. I respect Dee as a person, I cannot respect his verbally abusive tactics.

    2. I do insist that even EVIL people deserve respect. I do not EVER mean that we should respect what they do, or say. I do not respect how Dee behaves towards me, but I do respect him as another human being. The set of what people DO and SAY is not the same set as who they are. I guess Dee can ONLY SEE what they did or said, and not who they are. Dee might be thinking that these humans are not humans. Dehumanizing the enemy involves denying the enemy's humanity by negating in the enemy the characteristics normally associated with human beings, such as morality and compassion, and instead associating the enemy with acts of evil and depravity that merit forceful action and retaliation.

    The Nazis called the Jews "vermin" .. it might have made it a little easier to kill Jewish children and their parents. Some people really do think that evil words can't hurt anyone, but they are forgetting recent history that teaches us differently.

    3. Therefore, Dee is promoting hate, and has no problem dehumanizing people he doesn't like. He can't seem to see a difference between what a person is and what a person does. Not caring about a person's humanity, dehumanizing people, can and does lead to violence against these people.

    What a pity, what a shame.
    Evil propaganda of the kind that caused the Holocaust still goes on.
  • DeeDee 4487 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    1. I say that every human deserves respect, and Dee mightily objects. 

    Yes I do , you respect chid rapists , Nazis and other dregs of society I don’t I respect those that deserve it 


    He will treat some people with disrespect. He has no trouble. 

    Yes I will treat child rapists , Nazis and Alex Jones types as the filth they are no trouble at all . You respect them 

    In fact, I would say he really enjoys it. To call me "Blathermouth" among at least a thousand such childish insults is a sure sign of disrespect. I respect Dee as a person, I cannot respect his verbally abusive tactics.

    I call you what you are a troll, a stalker and a compulsive liar and correct I’ve zero respect for your type 

    2. I do insist that even EVIL people deserve respect. I do not EVER mean that we should respect what they do, or say.

    What a truly st-upid statement. We judge people on their behaviour you clot 

     I do not respect how Dee behaves towards me, but I do respect him as another human being.

    Good for you and it’s not my problem you lack the  self awareness to realise what you are 

     The set of what people DO and SAY is not the same set as who they are.

    What are you on about? So what is the “set “ of a child rapist in your lofty opinion?

     I guess Dee can ONLY SEE what they did or said, and not who they are. Dee might be thinking that these humans are not humans. 

    I see them as filth 

    Dehumanizing the enemy involves denying the enemy's humanity by negating in the enemy the characteristics normally associated with human beings, such as morality and compassion, and instead associating the enemy with acts of evil and depravity that merit forceful action and retaliation.

    So tell us would you feel the same way if your daughter was savagely abused by a rapist ? Remember you wouldn’t judge him on his actions you would “respect “ him …….Man oh man 

    The Nazis called the Jews "vermin" .. it might have made it a little easier to kill Jewish children and their parents. Some people really do think that evil words can't hurt anyone, but they are forgetting recent history that teaches us differently. 

    Yes and you said Nazis deserve out respect 

    3. Therefore, Dee is promoting hate, and has no problem dehumanizing people he doesn't like.

    I’m not “promoting “ hate I’m telling you I detest vile people who do vile things you respect them even if they raped your kids as you said …. 2. I do insist that even EVIL people deserve respect. I do not EVER mean that we should respect what they do, or say.

    WOW!!,

     He can't seem to see a difference between what a person is and what a person does. Not caring about a person's humanity, dehumanizing people, can and does lead to violence against these people.


    A person is judged in any sane world by his actions you ridiculous clot , this is why you’re railing against Jones but underneath it all you respect him …..LOL 

    What a pity, what a shame.
    Evil propaganda of the kind that caused the Holocaust still goes on.

    Indeed with your full respect for those that carry out such acts as you clearly stated …..

    . 2. I do insist that even EVIL people deserve respect. I do not EVER mean that we should respect what they do, or say.

    WOW!!,

    Blastcat
  • anarchist100anarchist100 574 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:
    Anarchist100 said:

    When I said you should move to Germany I meant that if you don't like it here you should go to a country that more suits you rather than just ruining this one for the rest of us.

    I respect your freedom to insult, slander, and incite violence against me.

    If it's Practical and doesn't go against my conscience.

    It doesn't go against anarchist100's conscious to lie, verbally attack and then threaten death to people who are suffering from the loss of a child due to gun violence in a school. It would "ruin" his country if people were restricted from being able to say whatever they want, regardless of consequences to the VICTIMS of the abuse.

    Some people really don't care about the victims of verbal abuse, and actually promote the horrible practice. To anarchist100, caring about others ruins everything.  If only people who cared could move away to Germany and go care over there.

    Shocking.
    But there it is in plain sight


    You misinterpreted my argument, when I said I'm willing to break the law I just meant the law in general, not the specific laws we are talking about here, verbally abusing people does go against my conscience so I won't do it, however I do support the right to do it.
    Blastcat
  • Blastcat said:
    Anarchist100 said:

    When I said you should move to Germany I meant that if you don't like it here you should go to a country that more suits you rather than just ruining this one for the rest of us.

    I respect your freedom to insult, slander, and incite violence against me.

    If it's Practical and doesn't go against my conscience.

    It doesn't go against anarchist100's conscious to lie, verbally attack and then threaten death to people who are suffering from the loss of a child due to gun violence in a school. It would "ruin" his country if people were restricted from being able to say whatever they want, regardless of consequences to the VICTIMS of the abuse.

    Some people really don't care about the victims of verbal abuse, and actually promote the horrible practice. To anarchist100, caring about others ruins everything.  If only people who cared could move away to Germany and go care over there.

    Shocking.
    But there it is in plain sight


    You misinterpreted my argument, when I said I'm willing to break the law I just meant the law in general, not the specific laws we are talking about here, verbally abusing people does go against my conscience so I won't do it, however I do support the right to do it.

    @anarchist100 I think you are confusing liberty with license here. You do not have a blanket right to abuse people.



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    A "right" is something that you can do without violent retaliation from others - and having guaranteed legal protection from the latter. You can absolutely have a right to something that some people may perceive as being abusive to them. Does not mean that it is a great idea to exercise that right. Rights simply tell you what you can do while being under legal protection; they do not tell you what you should do. Having the right to free speech does not imply that you should make loud political speeches while in a theater watching a spectacle, for instance.
    Blastcat
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Encouraging crime and verbally abusive tactics by total passivity.

    Blastcat said:
    Anarchist100 said:

    When I said you should move to Germany I meant that if you don't like it here you should go to a country that more suits you rather than just ruining this one for the rest of us.
    I respect your freedom to insult, slander, and incite violence against me.
    If it's Practical and doesn't go against my conscience

    You misinterpreted my argument, when I said I'm willing to break the law I just meant the law in general, not the specific laws we are talking about here, verbally abusing people does go against my conscience so I won't do it, however I do support the right to do it.
    1. You keep insisting that you are willing to break the law. Many criminals in jails were willing to break laws. By definition, you are advocating for your personal freedom to harm anyone you like. The law is there to PROTECT us from harm, and criminals don't LIKE those laws, nor do they like the consequences.
    2. You are saying that you aren't advocating for breaking any SPECIFIC LAW... just all laws in general, which is worse than just breaking one. You say that you wont insult anyone, but you advocate for people that do. I have to wonder why, you wont do something that you might find unconscionable to you, but you would allow others to do. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But you seem to think that everyone should go by their own conscience, and not bother about what any other person thinks. VICTIMS of crimes might not agree with you. Due to your advocating for insults, you are PROMOTING it's use. Thanks a lot, I'm sure that Dee and his clique will take you up on that suggestion, not that they need much in the way of encouragement.

    3. Therefore, by being so passive when it comes to insults and crimes, you are opening the door to those who desire to use insults and engage in crime. There are people who want nothing else but another permission to use insults and hurt people in different ways.

    You are making things worse for those of us who are their victims of verbal abuse and crimes, which doesn't seem to go against YOUR conscious, now, does it?

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2100 Pts   -   edited November 19
    MayCaesar said:
    @ZeusAres42

    A "right" is something that you can do without violent retaliation from others - and having guaranteed legal protection from the latter. You can absolutely have a right to something that some people may perceive as being abusive to them. Does not mean that it is a great idea to exercise that right. Rights simply tell you what you can do while being under legal protection; they do not tell you what you should do. Having the right to free speech does not imply that you should make loud political speeches while in a theater watching a spectacle, for instance.


    Thanks but I do know what a right is. However, I do contend that you and @anarchist100 are conflating liberty with license. Liberty of speech does not equate to someone having a license to say whatever they want to whoever they want wherever they want and whenever they want.

    License is an abuse of liberty that will result in anarchy and chaos, and anarchy will, in the end, destroy liberty as people will look for a strong man to save them from the upheaval around them.Take freedom of speech alone, my dear reader:You can criticize the government if you must, and you can speak your beliefs on issues and situations. This freedom does not protect foolish speech - if you deliberately threaten the president or another person, you will face the consequences. Freedom of speech does allow us to say things such as "President Trump is taking too much power" or "President Obama did x unconstitutional thing" without repercussions. Without freedom of speech, we would be saying "yes" to everything the government says. We wouldn't be able to talk loudly in cafes while complaining about politicians - there would be silence.This is liberty.
    License is abusing this right to threaten another person's safety and to spread false information. License should not be included under freedom of speech. If you want to speak your mind just to get revenge on somebody who did you wrong, this is license. But if you are truly concerned with justice when you see that somebody committed a crime, then yes, do indeed speak, for that is liberty. The line between liberty and license becomes more distinct when we examine the motivation.

    https://www.theodysseyonline.com/what-are-liberty-and-license



  • anarchist100anarchist100 574 Pts   -   edited November 20
    Blastcat said:
    Blastcat said:
    Anarchist100 said:

    When I said you should move to Germany I meant that if you don't like it here you should go to a country that more suits you rather than just ruining this one for the rest of us.
    I respect your freedom to insult, slander, and incite violence against me.
    If it's Practical and doesn't go against my conscience

    You misinterpreted my argument, when I said I'm willing to break the law I just meant the law in general, not the specific laws we are talking about here, verbally abusing people does go against my conscience so I won't do it, however I do support the right to do it.
    1. You keep insisting that you are willing to break the law. Many criminals in jails were willing to break laws. By definition, you are advocating for your personal freedom to harm anyone you like. The law is there to PROTECT us from harm, and criminals don't LIKE those laws, nor do they like the consequences.

    No, it doesn't.

    2. You are saying that you aren't advocating for breaking any SPECIFIC LAW... just all laws in general, which is worse than just breaking one.
    Not true, what I am saying is that you should ignore the law if you get away with it, I'm not saying you should go out of your way to break it no matter what, you should do whatever is practical and moral, regardless of the law, and sometimes you should go out of your way to break a law if it is unjust.
     You say that you wont insult anyone, but you advocate for people that do. I have to wonder why, you wont do something that you might find unconscionable to you, but you would allow others to do. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But you seem to think that everyone should go by their own conscience, and not bother about what any other person thinks. VICTIMS of crimes might not agree with you. Due to your advocating for insults, you are PROMOTING it's use. Thanks a lot, I'm sure that Dee and his clique will take you up on that suggestion, not that they need much in the way of encouragement.

    I'm not advocating for people to be mean, supporting the right to do something and supporting that thing are totally different, I think people should try to be kind to each other, but I support their right not to.


    3. Therefore, by being so passive when it comes to insults and crimes, you are opening the door to those who desire to use insults and engage in crime. There are people who want nothing else but another permission to use insults and hurt people in different ways.

    You are making things worse for those of us who are their victims of verbal abuse and crimes, which doesn't seem to go against YOUR conscious, now, does it?

    I'll gladly condemn people who use verbal abuse with words of my own.
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    This "license" sounds like an awful concept to me, honestly. Any speech, when interpreted a certain way, has a potential to do some damage to other people, directly or indirectly - but it would be unreasonable to build a legal system based on consequences of actions and not on their inherent aspects and intent. If whether my speech is punished or not depends on how other people choose to interpret it / perceive it / react to it, then I really have no liberty to speech - rather, other people have liberty to punish my speech.

    Constitutionally protected free speech means exactly that: freedom to say anything and not be punished by the government for it. If there is no such freedom, then speech is not free.
    That does not mean that free speech implies lack of negative consequences of speech. People still are free to make voluntary choices on how to or not to interact with you based on your speech. If you say that communism is better than capitalism and it upsets me, I can choose to not allow you to a party in my home, to unfriend you, to never interact with you again, to refuse to sell you a merchandise (in some cases; unfortunately, economical freedoms are also severely restricted everywhere in the world), to refuse to buy from you and choose to boycott your company...
    What I cannot do is ask the government to take property away from you and transfer it to me - and have my wish granted. If you have free speech, then I can only react to your speech socially; I cannot react to it politically, by acting in a way that induces coercion of you. This is precisely what political freedoms have always meant as talked about in political philosophy.

    Free speech also does not mean that every time you speak, you are protected from political consequences of actions accompanying your speech. If I tell you with a grave face, "Give me your wallet, or I will gut you", then, while I have freedom of speech guaranteed, there is more to this situation than my speech; there is expression of my hostile intent, a threat. I am trying to coerce you into giving me my wallet by explicitly threatening to employ violence against you if you do not, and that is more than just speech.
    But if I say that your t-shirt sucks and you get offended - you cannot politically retaliate against my speech. And if I say that your children at Sandy Hook became victims of some conspiracy and that deeply hurts you emotionally, then too bad. Part of living in a civilized society is accepting the fact that other people will often say and do things that you find deeply reprehensible, offensive and even emotionally traumatic - and learning to cope with that.

    That is precisely the thing that all those dictatorships and primitive societies out there lack: in those places people conflate self-expression with violence. And thus you get gems like the "free speech" that North-Korean officials claim their people have: "We have the same free speech as you guys. We just see certain expressions of it as more dangerous than you do and, hence, curb them. Our people love our Dear Leader and are free to express this love, so they have nothing to complain about". I fail to see a qualitative distinction between this interpretation and the one that you are proposing. Only a quantitative one.
    Blastcat

  • Although just skim read I see you still appear to be under the illusion that the US constitution protects you from foolish speech I.E that is death threats to the president, framing people as perpetrators, libel, defamation of character, etc.

    So, in this case, I challenge you to go out and shout "bomb" in an airport as a joke and then when you get arrested please argue your case about free speech and let us know how you get on. However, I believe it will be some time before you will be posting here again. ;)



  • @MayCaesar

    Constitutionally protected free speech means exactly that: freedom to say anything and not be punished by the government for it.
    No. This is wrong and freedom of speech is a united state between the government and its citizens. What freedom of speech means is either a person or the government can challenge the cost of words said publicly.

    The 1st Amendment is a change on a constitutional right to look for a better way of expressing a connection to a union of state. This means a principle of the word as it is connected to the definition.

    1. Constitutional protection comes by way of simplicity in a connection of law and meanings of words.
    2. United States Consitutional protection comes by way of a size in which a connection takes place in basic meanings of words.
    3. The United States Consitution is a basic principle outlining a structure built on the preamble which is proceeded by Articles, Sections, and Amendments.

    Amendments are a change as a basic improvement which in fact does not overturn the original context of the preambles search for the perfect union. It is a step down from this introduction of truth as a united state held by the search for a more perfect union. We the people either hold a state of no cost or do not hold a state of no cost when speaking. What are we speaking about? Grievance.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Some people think that laws aren't here to protect us

    Blastcat said:
    1. You keep insisting that you are willing to break the law. Many criminals in jails were willing to break laws. By definition, you are advocating for your personal freedom to harm anyone you like. The law is there to PROTECT us from harm, and criminals don't LIKE those laws, nor do they like the consequences.

    No, it doesn't.
    Your denial, sir, has been duly noted.


    Why we need laws

    Laws are rules made by government that forbid certain actions and are enforced by the courts. Laws apply to everyone equally. If you break a law, you may have to pay a fine, pay for the damage you have done, or go to jail.

    Our laws also recognize and protect basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality.

    Imagine the chaos – and the danger – if there were no laws. The strongest people would be in control and people would live in fear. Drivers could choose which side of the street to drive on and no one could stop them. Imagine trying to buy and sell goods if no one had to keep promises. Or trying to hold onto your personal property or even to keep yourself safe if there were no laws against robbery or assault.

    Even in a well-ordered society, people disagree, and conflicts arise. The law provides a way to resolve disputes peacefully. If two people claim the same piece of property, rather than fight they turn to the law. The courts can decide who the real owner is and how to protect the owner's rights.

    Laws help to ensure a safe and peaceful society. The legal system respects individual rights and ensures that our society is orderly. It applies the same law to everybody. This includes the police, governments and public officials. All of them must carry out their duties according to the law.


    Question:

    What are laws for, in your opinion?




  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited November 20
    Argument Topic: What criminals will do if they think they can get away with it:


    Not true, what I am saying is that you should ignore the law if you get away with it, I'm not saying you should go out of your way to break it no matter what, you should do whatever is practical and moral, regardless of the law, and sometimes you should go out of your way to break a law if it is unjust.
    1. Criminals will break the law if they think they can get away with it.
    2. They might think twice if they don't think that they can get away with it.

    3. Therefore, you are promoting criminal behavior.
  • BlastcatBlastcat 362 Pts   -   edited November 20
    Argument Topic: An admission.



    3. Therefore, by being so passive when it comes to insults and crimes, you are opening the door to those who desire to use insults and engage in crime. There are people who want nothing else but another permission to use insults and hurt people in different ways.

    You are making things worse for those of us who are their victims of verbal abuse and crimes, which doesn't seem to go against YOUR conscious, now, does it?
    To which you replied:
    I'll gladly condemn people who use verbal abuse with words of my own.
    You will condemn people who use verbally abusive tactics by GLADLY using verbally abusive tactics.
    You are admitting that you would be GLAD to be a verbal abuser.

    Which is not surprising.

    You also say that people should break the law if they think that they wont get caught and to IGNORE any law that they don't like. I call this kind of thinking a justification for what you have called condemnable verbal abuse and all other kinds of crimes that you say anyone can simply disregard when they feel like it.

    A rapist might feel justified, and think that he can get away with it.
    Same thing with a murderer.

    I think that rapists and murderers in jail might agree with your philosophy.
    I'm not so sure about the rest of us who don't seem to LIKE rape and murder.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  

    Although just skim read I see you still appear to be under the illusion that the US constitution protects you from foolish speech I.E that is death threats to the president, framing people as perpetrators, libel, defamation of character, etc.

    So, in this case, I challenge you to go out and shout "bomb" in an airport as a joke and then when you get arrested please argue your case about free speech and let us know how you get on. However, I believe it will be some time before you will be posting here again. ;)
    I have not mentioned the US in my comment a single time. I was talking about what free speech means and what problems I have with your definition of "license", not claiming that the US government guarantees free speech (it clearly does not). As far as I know, free speech is not protected anywhere in the world today, although some countries, such as the US, have fewer restrictions and fewer legally possible restrictions than some other countries.
    I am not sure why people always automatically assume on this website that every conversation is about the US. And even if it was about the US, it would have no impact on the validity of my arguments, as they do not refer to any specific elements of the US system and are applicable universally.

    Shouting "bomb" is not just speech either. As I explained explicitly, an act involving speech can involve other actions as well, in this case screaming and threatening people, plus violating the specific rules of the specific facility (airport). Freedom of speech does not imply freedom to use any spot as a platform to make your speech.

    I also think that you, of all the people here, are wise enough to do more than just "skim read" before labelling a comment a fallacy, so I will assume that it was alcohol. :p
    ZeusAres42
  • anarchist100anarchist100 574 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:
    Blastcat said:
    1. You keep insisting that you are willing to break the law. Many criminals in jails were willing to break laws. By definition, you are advocating for your personal freedom to harm anyone you like. The law is there to PROTECT us from harm, and criminals don't LIKE those laws, nor do they like the consequences.

    No, it doesn't.
    Your denial, sir, has been duly noted.


    Why we need laws

    Laws are rules made by government that forbid certain actions and are enforced by the courts. Laws apply to everyone equally. If you break a law, you may have to pay a fine, pay for the damage you have done, or go to jail.

    Our laws also recognize and protect basic individual rights and freedoms, such as liberty and equality.

    Imagine the chaos – and the danger – if there were no laws. The strongest people would be in control and people would live in fear. Drivers could choose which side of the street to drive on and no one could stop them. Imagine trying to buy and sell goods if no one had to keep promises. Or trying to hold onto your personal property or even to keep yourself safe if there were no laws against robbery or assault.

    Even in a well-ordered society, people disagree, and conflicts arise. The law provides a way to resolve disputes peacefully. If two people claim the same piece of property, rather than fight they turn to the law. The courts can decide who the real owner is and how to protect the owner's rights.

    Laws help to ensure a safe and peaceful society. The legal system respects individual rights and ensures that our society is orderly. It applies the same law to everybody. This includes the police, governments and public officials. All of them must carry out their duties according to the law.


    Question:

    What are laws for, in your opinion?




    Laws exist for the benefit of the people who make them, it's only common sense that if you give a certain group of people the power to make the laws, they will use to to benefit themselves.

    If you want to have laws that are truly made for the good of society, then the only option is collectivist anarchy, where the country is governed through direct democracy so the laws are made by the people and for the people.
  • MayCaesar said:

    Although just skim read I see you still appear to be under the illusion that the US constitution protects you from foolish speech I.E that is death threats to the president, framing people as perpetrators, libel, defamation of character, etc.

    So, in this case, I challenge you to go out and shout "bomb" in an airport as a joke and then when you get arrested please argue your case about free speech and let us know how you get on. However, I believe it will be some time before you will be posting here again. ;)
    I have not mentioned the US in my comment a single time. I was talking about what free speech means and what problems I have with your definition of "license", not claiming that the US government guarantees free speech (it clearly does not). As far as I know, free speech is not protected anywhere in the world today, although some countries, such as the US, have fewer restrictions and fewer legally possible restrictions than some other countries.
    I am not sure why people always automatically assume on this website that every conversation is about the US. And even if it was about the US, it would have no impact on the validity of my arguments, as they do not refer to any specific elements of the US system and are applicable universally.

    Shouting "bomb" is not just speech either. As I explained explicitly, an act involving speech can involve other actions as well, in this case screaming and threatening people, plus violating the specific rules of the specific facility (airport). Freedom of speech does not imply freedom to use any spot as a platform to make your speech.

    I also think that you, of all the people here, are wise enough to do more than just "skim read" before labelling a comment a fallacy, so I will assume that it was alcohol. :p

    @MayCaesar, ok, My bad. From a glance it appeared that you were implying that I was advocating for the suppression of free speech.

    As for the definition of what license means I don't think it is necessary to get into a debate about that. However, I do think we are now in agreement that we can't just go around saying whatever we want and that liberty of speech does not imply this either regardless of what country or state we are in either.
    MayCaesar



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4152 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    Yes, even regardless of the actual laws, in practice, of course, going around and saying whatever you want without any regard for consequences is a terrible idea. Even if all this speech is legally unrestricted, you are bound this way to say a lot of things that will antagonize others and deprive you of essential opportunities in life. Telling every potential employer you meet about your last sexual affair just because you feel like it is not going to be very productive. And telling every potential sexual partner about every flaw you find in their body will not give you many opportunities to do that either!

    Nothing, in the end, is free in the most absolute sense. Every sound you utter that is heard by someone else has a price and limits your future options in some way. You might not pay for your words directly, with money or your freedom of movement - but you always pay for them in other ways. Telling someone that you love them, and telling them that you hate them, both narrow the selection of roads you can take into the future, and the question one should ask themselves is whether this trade is worth it, and which among all these trades if any is the most sensible to make.
    ZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch