SStackers.com Bigger Idiots than BOM

[jason1]

I am a free speech absolutist. I also think it should be legal to smack people in the mouth for being a c*nt. Societies have always had a way of self governing speech. Offensive speech usually leads to thicker skin, and when lines are crossed, it typically results in a sharp wake up call for those not willing to walk away from it. Lessons are learnt regardless, and society is usually better off from the process.

the thing is that is not free speech, if there is a punishment of say a smack in the mouth for saying what you feel is offensive or cunty then that is not free speech, free speach is the ability to say anything with out fear of physical repercussion, so an Absolutist would have the old sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me type thinking. You cant be for free speech but then smack some one for exercising free speech and be an absolutists in free speech. this is the thinking of the left, they say they believe in free speech But if you say something they dont like and they will destroy you for it, punishing some one for you getting offended by what some one else says aint free speech. you can be offended but you cant Hurt them to stop them from saying it, you have the right to reply but not to smack some one If you want to call your self an advocate of free speech, I My self have had to work hard on that, I cant smack some one who calls me a name and at the same time call my self an advocate of free speech, that is the exact opposite of free speech, hitting some one to shut them up aint free speech. thats what we have to accept. so you only have the following options if you believe in free speech if you are offended by some one elses speech, that is the right of reply or walk away, no more no less. just remember that. smacking them in the mouth in effort to shut them up for offending you is the exact opposite of an absolutist, Free speech is the right to say what you want with out fear of repercussions.

Now just because I support the right for people to say arsehole things to others, that doesnt mean I support what they say, but to be an absolutist of free speech we have to accept they will likely say these things and we arent going to punish them for it, I dont have to like what they say either, but yo ucant smack some one or punish them for exercising their right, at that point you are taking away from their freedom



free speech = full ability to say what ever you want with out repercussions right?
a smack in the chops for saying something cunty, is a repercussion right?
there for not free speech

Now some one attacks you physically, smack away as I believe in the right to defend your self lol

 

[STKR]

the thing is that is not free speech, if there is a punishment of say a smack in the mouth for saying what you feel that is not free speech, free speach is the ability to say anything with out fear of physical repercussion, so an Absolutist would have. the old sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me type thinking. You cant be for free speech but then smack some one for exercising free speech and be an absolutists in free speech. this is the thinking of the left, they say they believe in free speech But something something they dont like and they will destroy you for it, punishing some one for you getting offended by it aint free speech. you have the write to reply but not to smack some one If you call your self an advocate of free speech, I My self have had to work hard on that, I cant smack some one who calls me a name and at the same time call my self an advocate of free speech.

I know what you're saying. What I was alluding to was how society already had a way of governing abhorrent and distasteful behaviour through social norms and stigma. There is/was already a baseline of FAFO when people chose to be disrespectful. I couldn't care less about what someone says, I only care about what it represents and the actions that come with it. I can still respect the right for someone to say whatever they want and have a line in the sand for what accompanies their voice.

A free speech absolutist doesn't mean void of consequences. Everything has consequences. I'm saying the government should crawl back into the hole it came from and stop playing helicopter parent with society. The consequences of free speech are already vast in the social structures of society. Go and speak to your friends and family like shit for a week and see how many stick around. I'll defend your right to say any words you choose but won't respect you for being a c*nt. That's the point I was trying to make.

 

[jason1]

I know what you're saying. What I was alluding to was how society already had a way of governing abhorrent and distasteful behaviour through social norms and stigma. There is/was already a baseline of FAFO when people chose to be disrespectful. I couldn't care less about what someone says, I only care about what it represents and the actions that come with it. I can still respect the right for someone to say whatever they want and have a line in the sand for what accompanies their voice.

A free speech absolutist doesn't mean void of consequences. Everything has consequences. I'm saying the government should crawl back into the hole it came from and stop playing helicopter parent on society. The consequences of free speech are already vast in the social structures of society. Go and speak to your friends and family like shit for a week and see how many stick around. I'll defend your right to say any words you choose but won't respect you for being a c*nt. That's the point I was trying to make.

you can have the line in the sand, But not if you want to call your self an absolutist for free speech, there is no line in the sand then. thats the point of it.
and yes does mean void of consequences for speech other wise we back to hate speech laws, where a line is made where you are punished for things you say, those people who say well I fully believe in free speech but I support the hate speech laws as thats a line in the sand.
a true absolutist believes no punishment for what it is you say, again doesnt mean they support you saying those things infact they would hope you dont, for the good of society and social order, but dont believe in punishment for saying them.

 

[jason1]

I know what you're saying. What I was alluding to was how society already had a way of governing abhorrent and distasteful behaviour through social norms and stigma. There is/was already a baseline of FAFO when people chose to be disrespectful. I couldn't care less about what someone says, I only care about what it represents and the actions that come with it. I can still respect the right for someone to say whatever they want and have a line in the sand for what accompanies their voice.

A free speech absolutist doesn't mean void of consequences. Everything has consequences. I'm saying the government should crawl back into the hole it came from and stop playing helicopter parent with society. The consequences of free speech are already vast in the social structures of society. Go and speak to your friends and family like shit for a week and see how many stick around. I'll defend your right to say any words you choose but won't respect you for being a c*nt. That's the point I was trying to make.

If there is a punishment for you offending some one or you punish some one for offending you, that is not free speech at all, not even close, there is no such thing as free speech if we have a line that says you can say this but punished if you say that. Not even close to being absolutist and thats how we got our selves in a situation where people who call them selves advocates of free speech are supporting fucken hate speech laws that punish people for offending others. something we all have to accept if we call our self advocates of free speech.

It would be like saying we believe in complete and utter freedom of movement But then putting restriction on what areas you can and cant go lol

It is fucken hard being an absolutist of free speech and not being a hypocrite, fighting our own nature to hurt some one for offending us with their speech, thats why we have these stupid fucken laws, because its easier to punish the other person over trying to stop our selves from being offended by some one saying annoying shit to us. we think the cure to our insecurities is to punish them for saying it.

 

[STKR]

you can have the line in the sand, But not if you want to call your self an absolutist for free speech, there is no line in the sand then. thats the point of it.
and yes does mean void of consequences for speech other wise we back to hate speech laws, where a line is made where you are punished for things you say, those people who say well I fully believe in free speech but I support the hate speech laws as thats a line in the sand.
a true absolutist believes no punishment for what it is you say, again doesnt mean they support you saying those things infact they would hope you dont, for the good of society and social order, but dont believe in punishment for saying them.

No Jason. The term comes from government intervention. It means people can freely express themselves without it breaking any law, even if it causes offence. That government cannot restrict speech under any circumstances.

 

[jason1]

No Jason. The term comes from government intervention. It means people can freely express themselves without it breaking any law, even if it causes offence. That government cannot restrict speech under any circumstances.

incorrect mate, you are then impeding on some one else right. you dont need tobe a government todo that.
any citizen can impede on another persons right. other wise fair game If we had every day citizens Intimidating others who say things that isnt with in their ideology in an effort to shut them up or stop them from saying things they dont want them to say. well that isnt really free speech either is it? the right of free speech should be protected against those who attack you in government or as citizens, other wise we shutting each other down and nothing gets said, sht we see that every day, where we shut each other down, and worse citizens totally destroy other people for shit they say, Look at those woke crowdes, they arent government, they are citezens who fucken ban together and totally destroy people for things they are offended by. thats the sort of thing your supporting if you say well its only about government staying out of things and that other citizen can censor other citizens, again look how thats going with the woke lot, Fuck they make government look like more and more like advocates of free speech lol.
we making the decision to smack others for offending us, lol and thinking we have free speech, shit may as well just lock us up if we can just smack others for saying shit we dont like lol.


the old argument to the judge of "Your honor i beat that guy cos he called me a cunt and insulted me",
the judges answer was always "why didnt you just walk away, and sticks and stones"
doesnt get you out of that does it? as we already have that law you cant smack some one for saying shit about you.
Again its hard being an Absolutist and not being a hypocrite. becuase of human nature, but it easier when you remind your self of that fact, you cant punish some one for them offending you by calling you cunt. you have right of reply or as you said before walk away and leave them on their own.

 

[jason1]

No Jason. The term comes from government intervention. It means people can freely express themselves without it breaking any law, even if it causes offence. That government cannot restrict speech under any circumstances.

it seriously has never really been ok to assault some one for calling you names, really its only become socially acceptable lately if you are citezen who wants to shut down political debate lol do you see why this is important that you cant do that? 30 years ago i you smacked some one for saying something you didnt like you ended up being arrested for assault. Now a day you can smash some one with a differing ideology eg be a lefty woke lunatic and smack some one from the right. thats why free speech must must be protected by law from even other citizens not just government them selves because citizens have no problems shutting you down if they are allowed to, they can be just as political and just as authoritarian in their groups . other wise we also start justifying things like Charlie Kirk where he wasnt killed by government but thats free speech being shut down still right? for the exact reason you stated, consequences of saying things that are unpopular with society of the time. thats still an attack on free speech.

 

[STKR]

incorrect mate, you are then impeding on some one else right. you dont need tobe a government todo that.
any citizen can impede on another persons right. other wise fair game If we had every day citizens Intimidating others who say things that isnt with in their ideology in an effort to shut them up or stop them from saying things they dont want them to say. well that isnt really free speech either is it? the right of free speech should be protected against those who attack you in government or as citizens, other wise we shutting each other down and nothing gets said, sht we see that every day, where we shut each other down, and worse citizens totally destroy other people for shit they say, Look at those woke crowdes, they arent government, they are citezens who fucken ban together and totally destroy people for things they are offended by. thats the sort of thing your supporting if you say well its only about government staying out of things and that other citizen can censor other citizens, again look how thats going with the woke lot, Fuck they make government look like more and more like advocates of free speech lol.
we making the decision to smack others for offending us, lol and thinking we have free speech, shit may as well just lock us up if we can just smack others for saying shit we dont like lol.


the old argument to the judge of "Your honor i beat that guy cos he called me a cunt and insulted me",
the judges answer was always "why didnt you just walk away, and sticks and stones"
doesnt get you out of that does it? as we already have that law you cant smack some one for saying shit about you.
Again its hard being an Absolutist and not being a hypocrite. becuase of human nature, but it easier when you remind your self of that fact, you cant punish some one for them offending you by calling you cunt. you have right of reply or as you said before walk away and leave them on their own.

Just look up the definition of a free speech absolutist and recognise were talking about two different things.

 

[jason1]

Ill use my self as an example

why I think i am an freepeech Absolutist, I believe people have the right to say what they feel like, and I have zero right to assault them for it. the government has zero right to also punish them for it
Me getting offended By some one exercising their right for free speech and then me assaulting them is on me for my weakness of getting angry and offended by their words. me assaulting them for them exercising free speech is me impeding on their right and my weakness not theirs.
and the same goes for government punishing some one for offending me.

Now Do i hope they dont say those things? sure for the reason of a civilised world I would like to think we get past that idea of insulting others as being ok, But we have to accept that if we believe in free speech we cant punish them for it, after all its words and to punish others instead of over coming our own weakness of being offended is a joke, and the thing even less civilized than some one who says offensive things, is some one assaulting another person over words no matter how hurtful they are. we have the right of reply or walk away where we cant here it. other wise we have as i said a social failure where like we have now where a citizen kills another citizen for exercising their views which are considered offensive to the person who did the killing but seen to many as a justifiable killing.
that is why I consider my self a free speech absolutist .
Now while I dont think we have the right to physically punish some one for offending us, I do believe we have the right to reply 100%, unleash away with the reply, they also have the right to reply to my reply. that is what was considered a civilised society up untill recently, as I said we need to remember we used to work by the old sticks and stones philosophy

Something is absolute , without limitation, restriction, or exception

 

[jason1]

Just look up the definition of a free speech absolutist and recognise were talking about two different things.

there is a bastardized version of the meaning setup to fit those who are something they are not. the version people with opposing views use when they feel they can shut down some one elses speech but still claim tobe absolute. as tobe absolute that is complete, without limitation, restriction, or exception

as soon as you put limitations on it its no longer Absolute. anything after that is word games, like Gender bender shit. look up the word male or female, or capitalist or socialist, conservative or free speech absolutist, a few examples of many things that up untill recently had a meaning, But to fit an ideology they changed the words and as result have now been bastardized to fit people who really dont fit the traditional meaning, ask the people bringing in these laws they will call them selves advocates of free speech while putting in fucken exceptions to the rules, they change the meaning of what is free speech so they can make these claims that they belong in the group they would traditionally would not fit into due to their actions, again it becomes simply a word game. Which is crazy to me when you have a word Like Absolute meaning with out exceptions which is valid in all situations but then having exceptions and making it invalid in a number of situations lol

anyway good debate.

 

[STKR]

it seriously has never really been ok to assault some one for calling you names, really its only become socially acceptable lately if you are citezen who wants to shut down political debate lol do you see why this is important that you cant do that? 30 years ago i you smacked some one for saying something you didnt like you ended up being arrested for assault. Now a day you can smash some one with a differing ideology eg be a lefty woke lunatic and smack some one from the right. thats why free speech must must be protected by law from even other citizens not just government them selves because citizens have no problems shutting you down if they are allowed to, they can be just as political and just as authoritarian in their groups . other wise we also start justifying things like Charlie Kirk where he wasnt killed by government but thats free speech being shut down still right? for the exact reason you stated, consequences of saying things that are unpopular with society of the time. thats still an attack on free speech.

It's almost like you don't read any of my replies.

And 30 years ago in the Australia I grew up in, it was far more common to sort things out with a quick touch up. Most of the time it was actually quite healthy and police were almost never involved.

Respectfully, you're reading into this way too much mate. I'm not sure what being a c*nt means to you but to me it's the end of the line in disrespectful and abusive behaviour. Conflating what I've said and drawing parallels with Charlie kirks assassination is absurd. Freedom of expression and having differing opinions is very different from being all-out abusive. A lot more goes into being a c*nt than just words.

Ill use my self as an example

why I think i am an freepeech Absolutist, I believe people have the right to say what they feel like, and I have zero right to assault them for it. the government has zero right to also punish them for it
Me getting offended By some one exercising their right for free speech and then me assaulting them is on me for my weakness of getting angry and offended by their words. me assaulting them for them exercising free speech is me impeding on their right and my weakness not theirs.
and the same goes for government punishing some one for offending me.

Now Do i hope they dont say those things? sure for the reason of a civilised world I would like to think we get past that idea of insulting others as being ok, But we have to accept that if we believe in free speech we cant punish them for it, after all its words and to punish others instead of over coming our own weakness of being offended is a joke, and the thing even less civilized than some one who says offensive things, is some one assaulting another person over words no matter how hurtful they are. we have the right of reply or walk away where we cant here it. other wise we have as i said a social failure where like we have now where a citizen kills another citizen for exercising their views which are considered offensive to the person who did the killing.
that is why I consider my self a free speech absolutist .

Something is absolute , without limitation, restriction, or exception

Not too interested in going any further with this rant about semantics. I clarified what I was referring to in my first reply to you. This was an absolute waste of time and energy.

 

[jason1]

It's almost like you don't read any of my replies.

And 30 years ago in the Australia I grew up in, it was far more common to sort things out with a quick touch up. Most of the time it was actually quite healthy and police were almost never involved.

Respectfully, you're reading into this way too much mate. I'm not sure what being a c*nt means to you but to me it's the end of the line in disrespectful and abusive behaviour. Conflating what I've said and drawing parallels with Charlie kirks assassination is absurd. Freedom of expression and having differing opinions is very different from being all-out abusive. A lot more goes into being a c*nt than just words.



Not too interested in going any further with this rant about semantics. I clarified what I was referring to in my first reply to you. This was an absolute waste of time and energy.

its not as absurd, as your line is different form other peoples line thats is why there cant be a line with free speech that ends with violence of any type as a punishment for saying something offensive, because we are at the point now where killing people over stupid shit that some easily offended people consider offensive and the violence is more extreme. and guess what its now more socially acceptable to do that, thats the reason there should never be line on free speech or exceptions to what you use violence for as a retaliation for insecurities of being offended by fucken words, because you said society draws the line? well that line from society is pretty fucked right about now, no line is needed absolute free speech is needed and the people who react with violence to free speech are the ones to be punished not those who say something that is considered offensive. neither society or government should have a line on what sort of speech is worthy of a violent reaction, the fact is for there tobe true free speech there can not be a physical reaction to what you say.
society is allowing our weakness and lack of spine to destroy true free speech.

I thought it was a good conversation, figured if you didnt like it you would have exited from it, sorry If you didnt enjoy it. I do casually swear allot if wondering
.
I simply believe in your right to say what ever even if it offends me, I dont believe I have a right to assualt you for it no matter how cunty it is. I was stupid enough at one point in my life to think that I had a right to assault some one who offended me until I understood what free speech actually is, and understood how dangerous is it to take that right away from some one to say offensive things

 

[Sandy Gooch]

Am i going to get punched for saying that i solemnly believe with all my being that Charlie Kirk was not assasinated? Oh , and about your momma....well...

 

[STKR]

Am i going to get punched for saying that i solemnly believe with all my being that Charlie Kirk was not assasinated? Oh , and about your momma....well...

Oh, you better believe it...