What makes a country free?

[Espinosa]

'Freedom' is firstly a discourse and only then an arbitrary notion that receives a more nuanced questionable description depending on time and place and their zeitgeist.

Freedom and discrimination aren't necessarily connected. Jews (or gays, if you bring them up) can be discriminated by the public (not by the institution of government however) and yet operate freely, do whatever they wish and prosper doing so. Discrimination on an organised level obviously restricts freedom.

Overall, order is required by the state to function, and order is the opposite of freedom, which means that a functioning state has to restrict freedom in one way or another.

There are so many things one may wish to be 'free' from, in the end, that a state simply cannot secure or assist some of such things. One person wants freedom to express views of dissent, another wants to be free to behave in a way the society disapproves, third wants to get drunk but wants the freedom from such tendencies. Freedom against extremism may sound like a noble incentive, but those labelled 'extremists' will often find themselves balls to the wall and wanting freedom of their own, again pointing to the limitless concept 'freedom' represents.

[Anouleth]

not necessarily, but action should be taken in case human rights are infringed upon

What action? Can you be more specific?

why of course, reason and a healthy dose of constitution would

Right, I forgot, it's totally obvious which political parties should be banned to enlightened people such as yourself, but for slow, uneducated fools like myself, would you mind sharing?

[Nobody]

This is why I hate that kind of arguments, you can never prove exactly what you're trying to say, and there's not a right answer to the question. That's why I study engineering lol.

'Freedom' is firstly a discourse and only then an arbitrary notion that receives a more nuanced questionable description depending on time and place and their zeitgeist.

Freedom and discrimination aren't necessarily connected. Jews (or gays, if you bring them up) can be discriminated by the public (not by the institution of government however) and yet operate freely, do whatever they wish and prosper doing so. Discrimination on an organised level obviously restricts freedom.

Overall, order is required by the state to function, and order is the opposite of freedom, which means that a functioning state has to restrict freedom in one way or another.

There are so many things one may wish to be 'free' from, in the end, that a state simply cannot secure or assist some of such things. One person wants freedom to express views of dissent, another wants to be free to behave in a way the society disapproves, third wants to get drunk but wants the freedom from such tendencies. Freedom against extremism may sound like a noble incentive, but those labelled 'extremists' will often find themselves balls to the wall and wanting freedom of their own, again pointing to the limitless concept 'freedom' represents.

By the way, I completely agree with this. Total freedom is something bad, and a little control is needed. That's the reason anarchism would never work. Total control is also terrible and would never work, that's why communism also sucks and so does facism. As far as the balance of freedom goes, I actually think the current democracies aren't that bad.

[Phoenix Wright]

Communism is an economic system, and more closely resembles anarchism than totalitarianism. Dictators simply twist and contort the ideals of communism to fit what they want.

[Esau of Isaac]

the presence of prejudice itself does not hurt anyone (well, really, it does, speaking from experience, feels hurt and all) but the fact that people can and will act on this prejudice is what "seals the deal"

a person in a position of power who holds hate against a certain group of people is dangerous, because as history has shown time and time again, they will target them and their rights specifically. and it goes further than simply the state. lgbt people in extremely homophobic countries such as russia are assaulted and killed every day specifically for being gay. i don't understand how this can be discussed much further than this, im talking very literal harm here

So, what, because some people will murder those they dislike, politicians shouldn't be able to talk about groups they dislike? I mean, what, does this mean that politicians that currently make light of welfare recipients for example shouldn't be allowed to do so? To what extent should this protection from the expression of disdain extend?

if you try to be too edgy you'll cut yourself, bro

Watch out soon I'll be saying we should let them vote too.

IMO if a party targets a group of people for something that this group can't choose being (jewish/black/gay/from other country/...) it shouldn't be allowed. I mean, those people being different isn't hurting anyone nor is changing anyone else's life, why does it matter for the society whatever they are?

Pick a group of people you hate. People you just despise, and wish would disappear from the face of the Earth forever. Now you are no longer allowed to tell others you don't like them.

It's so easy to argue from the perspective of "But my reasoning is better!" when you must realize they think the exact same way.

[Nobody]

Pick a group of people you hate. People you just despise, and wish would disappear from the face of the Earth forever. Now you are no longer allowed to tell others you don't like them.

It's so easy to argue from the perspective of "But my reasoning is better!" when you must realize they think the exact same way.

I have no problem with that. I try to not judge someone before knowing them, so there's no "group", only certain people I know, that I dislike. I still don't think they should disappear from the world and if someone thinks that someone should disappear from the world just because of something as trivial as their ethnically origin, for example, they're terrible people that shouldn't be listened at all. as simple as that.

So, what, because some people will murder those they dislike, politicians shouldn't be able to talk about groups they dislike?

Read that part of your post again. You seriously think that's something acceptable?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[Esau of Isaac]

I have no problem with that. I try to not judge someone before knowing them, so there's no "group", only certain people I know, that I dislike. I still don't think they should disappear from the world and if someone thinks that someone should disappear from the world just because of something as trivial as their ethnically origin, for example, they're terrible people that shouldn't be listened at all. as simple as that.

I don't mean ethnic origin. I mean any label of individual. It could be robber barons, abortionists, thieves, rapists, Yankees fans, whatever. They don't have to die, just stop existing as a group.

I'm assuming that racists fall somewhere around there since you're calling for the abridgment of their free speech.

Read that part of your post again. You seriously think that's something acceptable?

To not overreact and abridge the freedom of speech because of murderers? Uh, yeah.

[Phoenix Wright]

I have no problem with that. I try to not judge someone before knowing them, so there's no "group", only certain people I know, that I dislike. I still don't think they should disappear from the world and if someone thinks that someone should disappear from the world just because of something as trivial as their ethnically origin, for example, they're terrible people that shouldn't be listened at all. as simple as that.

But you are judging on a false sense that your opinion is of more worth than many of the groups that you're talking about.

It's not.

[Nobody]

I don't mean ethnic origin. I mean any label of individual. It could be robber barons, abortionists, thieves, rapists, Yankees fans, whatever. They don't have to die, just stop existing as a group.

I'm assuming that racists fall somewhere around there since you're calling for the abridgment of their free speech.

Those are things they choose to be, though. And I was not talking about exclusively ethnic origin, that was just an example. I actually don't understand why you are comparing something that someone can't choose to be and that doesn't affect other people to criminals. And yes, if yankee fans or abortionists were suffering risk of being beaten in the street or being treated as sub citizens I'd feel the same way.

But you are judging on a false sense that your opinion is of more worth than many of the groups that you're talking about.

It's not.

And those people I'm talking about feel that their opinions is more worthy than that of the groups they hate. The difference is that I don't think those people should be treated as sub citizens or segregated from society. What I think is that they shouldn't be allowed to do that to others.

I don't understand what you two are trying to say. Do you think that groups like neo-nazis should be allowed to exist? That if for some reason some country went crazy and one of those parties won the election, they should be allowed to take power? And then end freedon of speech for everyone in the country?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[Redwall]

You're missing the point dude. There is a difference between what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong.

[Nobody]

You're missing the point dude. There is a difference between what is morally wrong and what is legally wrong.

Who was you replying to with that post?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[Redwall]

That was directed towards you.

[Nobody]

Then what the opinion of you all on that subject? should in your opinion those groups be allowed to exist? What if they turn aggressive against the groups they hate?

[Esau of Isaac]

Those are things they choose to be, though. And I was not talking about exclusively ethnic origin, that was just an example. I actually don't understand why you are comparing something that someone can't choose to be and that doesn't affect other people to criminals.

How is this relevant at all? Whether someone chooses to be a certain way has no bearing on whether it is necessarily morally objectionable to society or any given person, or even whether someone should be allowed to voice their opinions.

And yes, if yankee fans or abortionists were suffering risk of being beaten in the street or being treated as sub citizens I'd feel the same way.

I liked the cherrypicking there good job, you skipped over the others.

And those people I'm talking about feel that their opinions is more worthy than that of the groups they hate. The difference is that I don't think those people should be treated as sub citizens or segregated from society. What I think is that they shouldn't be allowed to do that to others.

...By stopping them from expressing their opinions to others. They shouldn't be allowed to suggest others abridge their rights, so...let's abridge their rights.

I don't understand what you two are trying to say. Do you think that groups like neo-nazis should be allowed to exist? That if for some reason some country went crazy and one of those parties won the election, they should be allowed to take power? And then end freedon of speech for everyone in the country?

I believe that people should be allowed to express they are Nazis if they are Nazis. You don't make bad people go away by banning bad words. The notion that I argue for the abridgment of free speech by arguing for a freer mode of speech than you is beyond mind-boggling.

[Redwall]

It's morally wrong to resent someone because of race or sexuality and such, and I would think that such hate groups have a deleterious impact on society. However, I don't know if it's the best thing to outright ban these groups from existing.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Redwall

[Nobody]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. They can say they're nazi or whatever they want. They can't, after getting elected to government use that power to hinder the rights of the groups they hate. That's the reason nazi parties should be banned from politics, for example. Their entire objectives revolves around hindering the rights of others.

[Nobody]

I liked the cherrypicking there good job, you skipped over the others.

I skipped the other because those are legally forbidden, and no one tries to defend then.

I think now I've made my point clear and I hove nothing more to say here so I'm leaving.

I think a lot of the American posters in this thread can't comprehend the concept of hate speech laws (which pretty much every other Western democracy has, such as how it's literally illegal to publicly celebrate the Nazi regime or do the Heil Hitler salute in Germany or to advocate genocide in Canada)

for reference here is a nice long list of countries with hate speech laws, the vast majority of which (if not all) manage to have freedom of speech along with hate speech laws

Yeah, that a cultural difference I've realized when talking online with americans. In general they value every form of freedom of speech above all else, even if that's offensive and can cause social problems. I think most europeans/south americans/ people from other societies where speech laws are present understood what I said. Whatever, it's not like people are beaten on the streets because of their ethnic origin/religion/whatever in the USA every day so I guess it's not a problem as long as, as soon as the hate groups turn physically violent, an action is taken.

----

I hit the post button rather than the edit by mistake, can any mod edit this to the other post please?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[I.M. Gei]

I think a lot of the American posters in this thread can't comprehend the concept of hate speech laws (which pretty much every other Western democracy has, such as how it's literally illegal to publicly celebrate the Nazi regime or do the Heil Hitler salute in Germany or to advocate genocide in Canada)

for reference here is a nice long list of countries with hate speech laws, the vast majority of which (if not all) manage to have freedom of speech along with hate speech laws

Edited August 13, 2013 by Soran Ibrahim

[Phoenix Wright]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. They can say they're nazi or whatever they want. They can't, after getting elected to government use that power to hinder the rights of the groups they hate. That's the reason nazi parties should be banned from politics, for example. Their entire objectives revolves around hindering the rights of others.

If we elect a Nazi representative that speaks volumes more about the population moreso than it does the politician itself. It's that politicians job, by the way, to do the bidding of his constituents.

Hate speech laws are silly.

[Redwall]

should in your opinion those groups be allowed to exist?

That was what I responded to.

In any case, if a neo-Nazi or whatever somehow got elected into a government position, then the people have themselves to blame for being dumbasses. I suppose someone can point out that a democracy is flawed for this reason; people are generally apathetic, ignorant, and prone to hasty decisions (esp. in the US).

[Esau of Isaac]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. They can say they're nazi or whatever they want. They can't, after getting elected to government use that power to hinder the rights of the groups they hate.

Any and all groups? Or just the ones you sympathize with?

I skipped the other because those are legally forbidden, and no one tries to defend then.

So what if they're legally forbidden? Homosexuality is legally outlawed in several areas, that doesn't change your plight. The reason no one tries to defend people such as serial murderers, of course, is because they've committed horrible crimes that the greatest majority of people despise. If it were shown that these murderers had no control over their urges would you feel any different?

I think a lot of the American posters in this thread can't comprehend the concept of hate speech laws (which pretty much every other Western democracy has, such as how it's literally illegal to publicly celebrate the Nazi regime or do the Heil Hitler salute in Germany or to advocate genocide in Canada)

Why would Americans raised learning about the illegality of refusing employment based on protected classes such as race and religion have any difficulty at all of comprehending the concept of hate speech laws? Maybe the fact that an American poster disagrees with specific hate speech laws or indeed their entire existence is not because they do not understand it, but simply because they disagree with them?

Maybe?

[Phoenix Wright]

no of course not esau you and i are retarded just like the rest of us americans

[Nobody]

Any and all groups? Or just the ones you sympathize with?

Yes, any and all groups. If one group, when elect to government tries to restrict the rights of others groups they should be stopped on a free society, regardless of which group it is. Because, in a free society everyone has the same rights. If someone doesn't have rights for something they can't choose being or not, then it's not a free society. The moment everyone stop having the same rights, the society stop being free. How is that so hard to understand?

no of course not esau you and i are retarded just like the rest of us americans

Now it's you putting words on the mouth of others lol.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody

[Esau of Isaac]

Yes, any and all groups. If one group, when elect to government tries to restrict the rights of others groups they should be stopped on a free society, regardless of which group it is.

So political parties should not be allowed to, for example, ban previously convicted murderers from carrying weapons.

Now it's you putting words on the mouth of others lol.

"I think a lot of the American posters in this thread can't comprehend the concept of hate speech laws"

I am pretty sure the implication is that American posters here lack the ability to understand hate speech laws. I'll admit I might be having a tough time getting the gist of it because I'm American though so if someone else could fill in the blanks I'd be gun-happy. I mean thankful.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Nobody]

So political parties should not be allowed to, for example, ban previously convicted murderers from carrying weapons.

That's different. A murderer has a historic of criminal activities that makes him different from the normal person. The fact that he broke the laws of society deprives him of some of the benefits of a free society.

If someone has never broken the rules of society, then he has right of all rules that that society allows. If he has, he loses that rights. He losing the right to have guns is part of his punishment for a previous action he committed.

If you want to follow that route, my phrase should be:

If one group, when elected to government tries to restrict the rights of others groups that haven't broken laws, they should be stopped on a free society, regardless of which group it is.

Not that I think that a free society should necessarily allow guns for a normal citizen.

And not comprehending something don't mean being retarded or even dumb. That was putting words in his mouth.

BTW In all my posts I tried to explain the logic of hate speech laws. They limit some small rights of some groups to allow other groups to not have some of their basic rights violated, which is much more important, threatened. What's so hard to understand?

Edited August 13, 2013 by Nobody