100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Philosophically speaking... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
No.
I understood it more than you did! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 04/19/09 10:47 PM
|
|
No. I understood it more than you did! Then please answer my question. What is philosophical about Freedom of Speech? And when is "freedom of speech" NOT a legal matter? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I already answered it on the bottom of the last page.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 04/19/09 11:03 PM
|
|
Freedom of speech is an ideal which is founded upon and therefore directly affected by the language game. The language game is of a philosophical nature concerning the elements of language and communication which, consequently, affect the concept of freedom of speech. That is your answer? Really??? Founded on " the language game?" What is that? And who founded it? None of that above makes any sense at all. If that is your answer, it is no answer at all. "Effecting the concept" of "Freedom of speech??" Nonsense. Meaningless drivel. You are either free to speak or you are prevented from doing so by a lawful or unlawful entity. This so called answer makes no sense. Sorry. Freedom of speech is not an "ideal." It is what it is. A FREEDOM. OR NOT. You are either free to speak or you are not. If you are not, you will be killed or arrested or charged either legally or illegally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 04/19/09 11:10 PM
|
|
Besides, "Freedom of Speech" is not just about "language." It is about self expression. That includes art, music, poetry, clothing, signs, etc. But I suppose people can get all "philosophical" about anything they want, but freedom of speech is not philosophical. You can either speak and are protected in doing so, or you can speak and suffer the consequences of someone who doesn't like what you are saying. Its very cut and dried. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's philosophy...
You would not understand...obviously! Why do you respond in my threads, JB? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's philosophy... You would not understand...obviously! Why do you respond in my threads, JB? It is not philosophy. The subject is about law and government. I respond to your threads because nobody else will tell the emperor that he has no clothes on. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
OneMind
on
Sun 04/19/09 11:29 PM
|
|
The problem here is a plethora of abstraction and lack of concrete example. Let's start with the concrete. The idea of freedom of speech, in this country anyway, has its roots in a basic assumption of the founding fathers, this idea can be found and, has as its best exemplar, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". This line, as most of you know, can be found in the Declaration Of Independence. Its a beautiful thought and one that has been, thankfully, codified intro our laws. But its also manifestly untrue. "Men" - and for that matter, women, are "created" poor, or developmentally disabled, or rich or beautiful, or whatever. No one is created equal, except perhaps, in the eyes of God. Which is, come to think of it, a pretty good reason for believing (as I do, but perhaps not everyone - and that's o.k.) in such a thing as God. So here we can see, that this particular (and really, most) law has at its foundation, philosophy, not "Truth", despite its now being the law. It IS the law, which is based upon a philosophy, which in turn is based upon a beautiful and fortuitous lie. Now, let's try and keep that last part to ourselves, shall we?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Don't you have a reading to do? A cockroach to consult? An alien to play with? Someone, something else to pester? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For you to tell me that I "would not understand" means what?
That I am not philosophical? That's a laugh. I am very philosophical. And metaphysical. And imaginative. And I know the difference between a tort and a crime punishable by jail or death. To be free to speak the truth is the bottom line regarding the issue of "Freedom of speech." To be free to express ones self in dress, song, music, and art. To be FREE AND have that freedom PROTECTED and preserved by law and government. OR NOT. To not be free is to speak at your own risk. To speak at the risk that someone might just shut you up by killing you or jailing you or cutting out your tongue. This is freedom we are talking about, not philosophy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is a plethora of abstraction and lack of concrete example. Let's start with the concrete. The idea of freedom of speech, in this country anyway, has its roots in a basic assumption of the founding fathers, this idea can be found and, has as its best exemplar, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". This line, as most of you know, can be found in the Declaration Of Independence. Its a beautiful thought and one that has been, thankfully, codified intro our laws. But its also manifestly untrue. "Men" - and for that matter, women, are "created" poor, or developmentally disabled, or rich or beautiful, or whatever. No one is created equal, except perhaps, in the eyes of God. Which is, come to think of it, a pretty good reason for believing (as I do, but perhaps not everyone - and that's o.k.) in such a thing as God. So here we can see, that this particular (and really, most) law has at its foundation, philosophy, not "Truth", despite its now being the law. It IS the law, which is based upon a philosophy, which in turn is based upon a beautiful and fortuitous lie. Now, let's try and keep that last part to ourselves, shall we? Point well made. I am out of resourcefulness on this one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Mon 04/20/09 12:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is a plethora of abstraction and lack of concrete example. Let's start with the concrete. The idea of freedom of speech, in this country anyway, has its roots in a basic assumption of the founding fathers, this idea can be found and, has as its best exemplar, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". This line, as most of you know, can be found in the Declaration Of Independence. Its a beautiful thought and one that has been, thankfully, codified intro our laws. But its also manifestly untrue. "Men" - and for that matter, women, are "created" poor, or developmentally disabled, or rich or beautiful, or whatever. No one is created equal, except perhaps, in the eyes of God. Which is, come to think of it, a pretty good reason for believing (as I do, but perhaps not everyone - and that's o.k.) in such a thing as God. So here we can see, that this particular (and really, most) law has at its foundation, philosophy, not "Truth", despite its now being the law. It IS the law, which is based upon a philosophy, which in turn is based upon a beautiful and fortuitous lie. Now, let's try and keep that last part to ourselves, shall we? I think the statement that you mention about all men being created equal is not to be taken literally. That is philosophical. All men are equal as humans. No person born shall be considered less than human is what that statement means to me. And yet throughout time many have been led to believe that some born (of different ethnic races) were less than human. Also, the royalty of England freely admit that they are superior than others by birth. Therefore I think that line was referring to the royal family who think the rest of the human race are less than them or less than human. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
OneMind
on
Sun 04/19/09 11:50 PM
|
|
The problem here is a plethora of abstraction and lack of concrete example. Let's start with the concrete. The idea of freedom of speech, in this country anyway, has its roots in a basic assumption of the founding fathers, this idea can be found and, has as its best exemplar, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". This line, as most of you know, can be found in the Declaration Of Independence. Its a beautiful thought and one that has been, thankfully, codified intro our laws. But its also manifestly untrue. "Men" - and for that matter, women, are "created" poor, or developmentally disabled, or rich or beautiful, or whatever. No one is created equal, except perhaps, in the eyes of God. Which is, come to think of it, a pretty good reason for believing (as I do, but perhaps not everyone - and that's o.k.) in such a thing as God. So here we can see, that this particular (and really, most) law has at its foundation, philosophy, not "Truth", despite its now being the law. It IS the law, which is based upon a philosophy, which in turn is based upon a beautiful and fortuitous lie. Now, let's try and keep that last part to ourselves, shall we? I think the statement that you mention about all men being created equal is not to be taken literally. That is philosophical. All men are equal as humans. No person born shall be considered less than human is what that statement means to me. And yet throughout time many have been led to believe that some born (of different ethnic races) were less than human. Also, the royalty of England freely admit that they are superior than others by birth. Therefore I think that line was referring to the royal family who think the rest of the human race are less than them or less than human. Right. "Equal" in the eyes of God, who, it would seem, the framers would have us emulate. Maybe we should change it to all "beings", that way the fish and birds and trees, etc. can get an even break. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And given that the Declaration Of Independence was a group of men declaring their independence from a government who tried to tell them what to believe and insisted that the ruling royalty were better than everybody else and they were less, it is very obvious what the statement about all men being created equal was meant to imply.
They were sick of being told that they were less, and they were sick of being told what religion they should practice. They wanted freedom and they wanted freedom of expression and freedom of speech. It is all about law and government but mostly it is all about FREEDOM. FREEDOM IS PARAMOUNT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Define freedom...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem here is a plethora of abstraction and lack of concrete example. Let's start with the concrete. The idea of freedom of speech, in this country anyway, has its roots in a basic assumption of the founding fathers, this idea can be found and, has as its best exemplar, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal". This line, as most of you know, can be found in the Declaration Of Independence. Its a beautiful thought and one that has been, thankfully, codified intro our laws. But its also manifestly untrue. "Men" - and for that matter, women, are "created" poor, or developmentally disabled, or rich or beautiful, or whatever. No one is created equal, except perhaps, in the eyes of God. Which is, come to think of it, a pretty good reason for believing (as I do, but perhaps not everyone - and that's o.k.) in such a thing as God. So here we can see, that this particular (and really, most) law has at its foundation, philosophy, not "Truth", despite its now being the law. It IS the law, which is based upon a philosophy, which in turn is based upon a beautiful and fortuitous lie. Now, let's try and keep that last part to ourselves, shall we? I think the statement that you mention about all men being created equal is not to be taken literally. That is philosophical. All men are equal as humans. No person born shall be considered less than human is what that statement means to me. And yet throughout time many have been led to believe that some born (of different ethnic races) were less than human. Also, the royalty of England freely admit that they are superior than others by birth. Therefore I think that line was referring to the royal family who think the rest of the human race are less than them or less than human. Right. "Equal" in the eyes of God, who, it would seem, the framers would have us emulate. Maybe we should change it to all "beings", that way the fish and birds and trees, etc. can get an even break. I don't think we should change it to all 'beings.' The declaration of Independence was a timely document and it is not about animals or the earth or God. It is about the freedom to live and worship and speak without being ruled by a monarchy that insists that they are superior to the rest of the people and demand worship and obedience like they are gods themselves. Down with the King and Queen.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And given that the Declaration Of Independence was a group of men declaring their independence from a government who tried to tell them what to believe and insisted that the ruling royalty were better than everybody else and they were less, it is very obvious what the statement about all men being created equal was meant to imply. They were sick of being told that they were less, and they were sick of being told what religion they should practice. They wanted freedom and they wanted freedom of expression and freedom of speech. It is all about law and government but mostly it is all about FREEDOM. FREEDOM IS PARAMOUNT. It's all about law and government based upon the PHILOSOPHY (which I agree with) that freedom is paramount. Clearly the royals had a philosophical difference of opinion with us on that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have a good time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 04/20/09 12:18 AM
|
|
And given that the Declaration Of Independence was a group of men declaring their independence from a government who tried to tell them what to believe and insisted that the ruling royalty were better than everybody else and they were less, it is very obvious what the statement about all men being created equal was meant to imply. They were sick of being told that they were less, and they were sick of being told what religion they should practice. They wanted freedom and they wanted freedom of expression and freedom of speech. It is all about law and government but mostly it is all about FREEDOM. FREEDOM IS PARAMOUNT. It's all about law and government based upon the PHILOSOPHY (which I agree with) that freedom is paramount. Clearly the royals had a philosophical difference of opinion with us on that. Now that I can agree with. That freedom is paramount and important is well established in this country. It is expounded upon by the leaders of this country. There may be a philosophy that embraces slavery and I know there are many governments that do, but it basically comes from the ruling class. People desire to be free but some will give up that freedom to be taken care of and to be free from self responsibility. Freedom of speech does not exist in a society of slaves who are taken care of. They hold their tongues lest they loose them. Yet there may be some who prefer slavery although I can't imagine I would like it. p.s. You cannot free a slave, he must free himself. Our country is an example of men who wanted to free themselves and take on self responsibility and self government. England was like their mother. Unfortunately we only think we gained our independence from her. She still owns us and most of this country. |
|
|
|
|
