1st Amendment - What it is, and what it isn't

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to z31maniac :

...you ...your... I... I...

...you and everyone else... they... We... people... most of you... you...

I believe discussions of contentious issues are less generally derailed by people expressing their own positions and opinions. (It happens, and can be a problem, but not the main one.)

Rather, the biggest problem that turns a discussion toxic is accusing OTHER people of having positions and opinions. Usually these are hyperbolic, antagonistic, spurious, or completely wrong. They prevent meaningful discussion because the person making the accusation is no longer engaging with the other person, but with their imagined version of them.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.

Show/hide post

 

In reply to z31maniac :

So are you accusing my speech of other crimes?  All your quotes so far support free speech being absolute unless that speech violates laws like inciting a riot?  Did I invite a riot leading to censorship on this site?  Or did I just disagree with you, again?

Yes the Bill of Rights limits the government but it applies to everyone in the land.  One thing you and everyone else fails miserably at is no one who created that document could even imagine a world where others try and trample others rights imposing silly ideas like companies can do anything they want.  We literally live in a world so upside down people destroy their own and each other's rights so the govt doesn't have to do it!  There is an abundance of evidence to show the govt used social media to do this.  As a matter of fact the DOJ is fighting the 5th circuit to continue the practice.  Apparently most of you are fine with that since you personally condone it here.

 

Please point out where I ever said that. The only thing I have said is that you are wrong about your interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Presented many sources that confirm what is and isn't protected speech. 

You're confusing "censorship" with people not liking what you say or how you're saying it. This stuff is all pretty simple. 

DarkMonohue said:

Opti said:

With speech comes debate, with honest debate the best idea wins. I want more debate, some of my best friends are on polar opposite sides of many topics compared to me, and we debate all the time, and we enjoy the E36 M3 out of it, and it makes us all wiser. I wish more people cared about open honest debate nowadays. Instead we want opposing ideas banned or hidden. Problem is many times "misinformation" ends up being correct. Im reminded of a certain locked and stickied thread thats been hanging out until recently in this sub forum.

Ah! But what you have in common with your polar-opposite friends is this: you all love political debate.

What lovers of debate sometimes seem not to realize is that not everyone enjoys an argument the way you do.

I don't want differing opinions or opposing views hidden. What I want, at least from this forum, is not to get roped into a debate by someone who views argument as sport. There are a few people on any given forum who fit that description. One of the functions a downvote performs is to tell someone that their behavior is unwelcome.  Leaving it anonymous allows the group to do so without inciting a personal argument with someone who is often looking for exactly that.

I made a point to say topics and not political topics because it applies to everything, hobbies, business, moral and life questions. I understand not wanting to get in political debates (its a messy arena), but just saying you dont like debate is saying you dont like a meaningful conversation.

I dont view debate as sport, I just want to have the most well-formed opinion on things that shape my life and passions, and to achieve that I need input from other people with different perspectives.

You say you dont want to get roped into a debate, then dont. The saying is "it takes two to tango." I dont know why your opinion of not wanting a debate has to be forced on others, and take away something they want, when you can just choose not to participate. ive heard a lot of calls for personal responsibility on this forum, here's your chance. 

He's not much of a fan of democracy; it doesn't agree or work with him much.

I really like the upvote/downvote system, and I too always look at hidden comments. I wouldn't change it, because the "hidden comment" bit is like a nice public notification that "Hey bud, everyone thought this comment was bad".

Opti said:

Duke said:

1988RedT2 said:

Honestly, if I hear another person parrot the phrase "separation of church and state!" I will gently pray for them.

Stop trying to pass laws based on religious "morality", and I will be delighted to stop harping on the separation of church and state.

Pretty much all laws are based on morality. Calling it religious morality means nothing, because everyones morality is shaded by a thousand different things, including religion, to varying degrees. You can disagree with someones morality and debate it, but just saying religious morality means nothing.

You can disagree with someones morality but doing it just because you believe its "religious" isnt a great argument because i can promise you your morality is also shaded by religion. Your avatar is a religious symbol

I disagree with your analysis on a number of fronts:

Once you get past the line of "consenting adults", pretty much all laws attempting to restrict private sexual conduct or gender identity are based directly on religious "morality".

• Exhibit A:  Florida
• Exhibit B:  Texas
• Exhibit C:  The Defense Of Marriage Act
• Exhibit D:  Well, let's leave the topic of abortion alone.  But let's also not pretend that the issue isn't fairly parallel to the religious / non-religious divide.

Also, I don't disagree with someone's morality just because it's religious.  They are welcome to hold whatever personal morals they want for any reasons they want, subject to the "consenting adults" point above.

What I DO comprehensively disagree with are any attempts to legislate that morality onto others, who may or may not share it.

Which is precisely what I stated in my first post.

[edit]  My avatar is a religious symbol, you say.  Well, it is the symbol of a group of mostly secular people who use the trappings of religious belief to expose, highlight, and combat attempts by religious conservatives to impose their particular flavor of religion and morality on others via legislation and public, governmental actions.

Just checking in on this thread. Is everyone being kind and respectful? 

Opti said:

You say you dont want to get roped into a debate, then dont. The saying is "it takes two to tango." I dont know why your opinion of not wanting a debate has to be forced on others, and take away something they want, when you can just choose not to participate. ive heard a lot of calls for personal responsibility on this forum, here's your chance. 

Again, running a bar...

People like to have discussions about stuff with the people next to them at the bar. People like to discuss good natured things - sports, weather, stupid drivers, what movies are good, all those sorts of things. The bar tenders and other staff will frequently get involved in these conversations because they foster a sense of community and belonging.

If two people at the bar start arguing politics, the bar staff will almost certainly shut that E36 M3 down. Sure, no one else at the bar has to engage with them. Most won't. They can choose to try to ignore the argument happening next to them, shift over a seat to get some distance and start talking quietly about something else.

We do not want that to happen. Everyone at the bar is having less fun.

That becomes a problem less at a bar in person than in an online forum, because the people who don't want to be part of the conversation will chuckle awkwardly, start glancing around, and sidle away... and the loudmouth can SEE that they are driving people away.

Online, you don't get those nonverbal cues of people indicating, "Hey buddy, you've taken this too far and it's getting awkward for most of the people here, but we don't know how to express that in a productive way."

People are at the bar to enjoy themselves, and it is the responsibility of the person who brakes the social code of keeping this a fun place to hang out to adjust their behavior. It is in the best interest of our bar for everyone to be having a good time.

And those loudmouths... we see them enjoying themselves more when they're arguing sports teams, too.

Duke said:

What I DO comprehensively disagree with are any attempts to legislate that morality onto others, who may or may not share it.

Pretty much all laws are legislated morality onto others. Most laws are based on morality (what's right and wrong). Thats what Im trying to explain to you. You dont like it when those morals dont line up with yours, which is fine, nobody does, but straw-manning it as unique to religious morality is incorrect, or linking the opposition arguments to some of the topics you brought up as only religious, shows a narrow view of the topic.

Based on what you said I probably agree with many of your positions on these topics, but underestimating your opposition's opinion, as solely religious morality, leaves you unarmed to make the better argument.

Continuing the bar analogy...

We have different types of seating at our bar (like most). There is the main bar where anyone and everyone walks up. At the main bar, strangers and acquaintances will all interact and have discussions together.

We also have private tables, booths, and a side room. You can have a private discussion there.

If you are going to interact with the wider group at the bar, you are expected to adjust your behavior, pick your topics, and adjust your communication to keep things fun for everyone. If you want to discuss something that is not widely welcome, you should go get a quiet table or booth.

Posts that can be viewed by anyone on a public forum like this are like that main bar. If you need the equivalent of a private booth for a really heated debate - you can PM people.

It is not the responsibility of the 10 people wanting to watch the game to walk away from the bar for the sake of the 2 people who want to debate politics.

Opti said:

Duke said:

What I DO comprehensively disagree with are any attempts to legislate that morality onto others, who may or may not share it.

Pretty much all laws are legislated morality onto others. Most laws are based on morality (what's right and wrong). Thats what Im trying to explain to you. You dont like it when those morals dont line up with yours, which is fine, nobody does, but straw-manning it as unique to religious morality is incorrect, or linking the opposition arguments to some of the topics you brought up as only religious, shows a narrow view of the topic.

Based on what you said I probably agree with many of your positions on these topics, but underestimating your opposition's opinion, as solely religious morality, leaves you unarmed to make the better argument.

I disagree completely.  It is perfectly possible to have a moral code that ensures the protection of individual rights but has no religious basis whatsoever.  Religion is irrelevant to the morality of protecting each person's rights from violence, theft, or fraud.  "Right" and "wrong" come down to the question of whether an individual (or group of individuals) is victimized or protected.  No more, no less.  Religion may be a tool for doing so, but it has no inherent authority nor is it any kind of origin for that moral criteria.

But when it comes to restricting individual freedoms and preventing victimless "crimes" among consenting adults, that's where religion loves to get involved in everybody else's business in the name of "morality".

I will leave it at that.

Duke said:

I will leave it at that.

In reply to Beer Baron :

Similar example (construction related)...

I run construction crews.  Most are subcontractors (who are employed by someone else, but managed by me), and most of our work is in existing businesses.

Honestly, I have fantastic crews. They absolutely know how to act around people, and exercise it daily.  That doesn't change that they are judged by stereotypes that may be unfair, and are expected to act based on those judgements.

Today we are working on a parking lot at a new car dealership. I asked permission for my crew to use the shop restroom, and was told "As long as they don't mess it up like construction crews always do".  That's a load of crap, and a judgement based on unfair stereotypes. It probably has a racial connotation too (my crew is Hispanic).

My response?  "Yes sir. I will make sure it is kept clean".

When this crew is on a new construction site, they can be pretty coarse. Plenty of swearing, arguing, etc.  I am perfectly fine with that.  But today, we are on someone else's property, and need to be concerned about my customer's customers.  The crew is behaved perfectly, and I know I can trust them. 
 

However, I can promise if there was a single potentially offensive word or conversation going on I would be very quick to put an end to it. Even if it was in Spanish (yes, I know Spanish, and so do some of the customers here).  And if it continued, I would make sure the offending party was removed from the job site. In ANY way necessary.

Free speech my ass. It's someone else's property, someone else's business, and even the coarsest of construction workers knows they don't have the right to say whatever they want to.

(My guys might even end up at your bar after hours!)

The right to free speech carries with it the responsibility of using it well, and the recognition that inappropriate speech, or disrespectful speech, or hurtful speech may have consequences. 
 

Which may mean that someone might be asked to leave the premises. Or get down voted. 

Opti said:

You say you dont want to get roped into a debate, then dont. The saying is "it takes two to tango." I dont know why your opinion of not wanting a debate has to be forced on others, and take away something they want, when you can just choose not to participate. ive heard a lot of calls for personal responsibility on this forum, here's your chance. 

Are you saying that, if I don't want to argue with you, all I have to do is leave the conversation?

That's perilously close to Anthony's assertion in the other thread that all that is required to get him to quit doing something was to stop doing anything that makes him do it. 

I'm sorry, but I do not agree. We all have to take responsibility for our own behavior. I do try to avoid engaging you directly in most cases. I know you like to argue, and that is not why I'm here. I avoid directly engaging others here who have demonstrated, for example, an open lack of respect for people who don't share their religious beliefs. I have that choice. But you can't simply dictate that others leave if they don't want to argue with you. 

Nobody here has the right to be contentious at everyone else's expense.

I can't lie, I love how multiple people are trying to tell Opti that they don't like how they try to debate everything, and they're completely missing that and continuing to debate and preach. Speaking of...

Opti said:

Duke said:

What I DO comprehensively disagree with are any attempts to legislate that morality onto others, who may or may not share it.

Pretty much all laws are legislated morality onto others. Most laws are based on morality (what's right and wrong). Thats what Im trying to explain to you. You dont like it when those morals dont line up with yours, which is fine, nobody does, but straw-manning it as unique to religious morality is incorrect, or linking the opposition arguments to some of the topics you brought up as only religious, shows a narrow view of the topic.

Based on what you said I probably agree with many of your positions on these topics, but underestimating your opposition's opinion, as solely religious morality, leaves you unarmed to make the better argument.

It's hard for me to tell what goal or point Opti's trying to make here- brevity is more than just the soul of wit- but did Opti just make an argument in favor of Sharia law in a thread on the first amendment?

Beer Baron said:

Continuing the bar analogy...

We have different types of seating at our bar (like most). There is the main bar where anyone and everyone walks up. At the main bar, strangers and acquaintances will all interact and have discussions together.

We also have private tables, booths, and a side room. You can have a private discussion there.

If you are going to interact with the wider group at the bar, you are expected to adjust your behavior, pick your topics, and adjust your communication to keep things fun for everyone. If you want to discuss something that is not widely welcome, you should go get a quiet table or booth.

Posts that can be viewed by anyone on a public forum like this are like that main bar. If you need the equivalent of a private booth for a really heated debate - you can PM people.

It is not the responsibility of the 10 people wanting to watch the game to walk away from the bar for the sake of the 2 people who want to debate politics.

Back when I lived at the bar there was also the back door parking lot where you could exercise your first amendment rights with your fists.

The "morality" laws as I see them have to do more with "don't do harm to others" than pretty much anything else other than what Duke is pointing out. 

Like all laws against any physical harm, which is pretty obvious. 
But all environmental laws are that, too. As are most financial laws. As are food and drug laws. And trade laws. Driving laws. Etc. 

Others are to ensure a balanced society- like education where not doing harm doesn't go far enough. 
 

These are not terribly deep in some persons morality scale, very basic morals that are shared among all people, religious or not. 
 

Where it gets sticky are when there are "moral" laws that have no impact on others than the people consenting. 

In reply to Duke :

If you dont understand what  Im trying to say lets do a little exercise. Give me a specific law  that isnt imposed morality.

I like the bar analogy. If you want to argue, you have the rest of the internet. 

In reply to Opti :

Morals have nothing to do with religion. Organized religion is the most immoral thing there is.

Opti said:

In reply to Duke :

If you dont understand what  Im trying to say lets do a little exercise. Give me a specific law  that isnt imposed morality.

I believe I understand what you are saying.  I don't believe you understand what I am saying.

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Opti :

Morals have nothing to do with religion.

I generally agree with this. They have to do with laws, ALL LAWS. All laws are imposed morality, its not specific to a side or topic. Saying youre against imposed morality is saying youre against all laws. What people are actually saying, Im against imposed morality when it doesnt line up with my morality, and for it in other circumstances.

There is a deeper conversation that culture is the basis for morals and religion has an impact on culture so there is some overlap, but thats not exactly what we are talking about here. 

PS the second part is an incredibly inflammatory statement. Id say probably more offensive than anything Anthony has said.

y'all are smellier than a bucket of dead fish - this thread stinks

Ding, ding, time for everyone to return to their corners, eat some lunch, and chill for a few.

Thank you.