Freedom

[rushrock]

Why would you want to make fun of someone for being gay? Unless your a total douche bag with nothing better to do..

 

Why would you want to make fun of someone for being suicidal? Unless your a total douche bag with nothing better to do..

 

 

 

:|

 

 

 

Freedom is vital in life. Everyone must be free to do what they please (within reason, as in no pointless murderings). The end.

[mchainmail]

[hide]

 

 

 

 

 

Free to be gay, free to gay bash. You want to be gay? That's cool I want to make fun

 

of you being gay. You're free to have sex with men, I'm free to make fun of you for it,

 

don't like it ignore it sorry. :(

 

 

 

 

Why would you want to make fun of someone for being gay? Unless your a total douche bag with nothing better to do..

 

 

 

It's almost as bad as making fun out of people who are born blind, deaf e.t.c. People are born gay and I can't wait till science finally confirms this as stone fact.

 

 

 

Also men are not the only gay people, there are women too or will you not make 'fun' of them for having sex with women? Double standards...?

 

 

 

And why do gay people have to just take abuse from you and 'ignore' it, they have feeling too and constant verbal abuse can get people down and even drive them to commit suicide.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Did you lose sight of his message? It's not about being gay, or making fun of gay people. Instead, it's that freedom to say what you want includes the responsibility to take criticism of what you say/do.

[Nom]

I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same.

 

 

 

What if my favorite thing is keeping other people from having freedom, are you denying

 

me my freedom to deny them their freedom? :(

 

 

 

Yes. Just like we deny murderers the freedom to exercise thier pastime.

[Lionheart_0]

8-) I c what you did thar Kashi.

 

 

 

There are two different freedoms. Society Freedom, chaotic freedom.

 

 

 

Chaotic freedom is nature, and what probably should be reality had we not created society. But we did create society, thus we must follow, as long as we live with humans, the freedom of society.

 

 

 

In our society's freedom, we are allowed to do as we please, as long as it does not infringe on other's wellbeing. But this is not always followed, and some follow chaotic freedom.

 

 

 

Realize this, as long as you are on these forums, you follow society's freedom.

[Kashi]

In explanation of my original post:

 

 

 

 

 

I am not a "gay-basher".

 

 

 

I have no political affiliation.

 

 

 

I have no opinions on abortion.

 

 

 

Or vegetarianism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically what I'm saying is, wherever you live, the laws are forced upon you with or without

 

your consent. Even if you don't vote for your Leader, he or she still makes the laws that control

 

your life. The laws made for the "common good" are imposed on you even without your

 

permission.

 

 

 

And for these reasons your lack of freedom is absolute, no matter where in the world you live.

 

 

 

 

 

Laws themselves have no meaning without power to back them up, and here we have the

 

police, or the army if you can get all the way up to 6 starts without being killed.

 

 

 

Every human is like a child playing on the playground, and if you don't play with the rules,

 

even though the rules are (mostly) senseless, the other kids will all gang together and beat you up.

[Lenin64]

Basically what I'm pulling for here is complete anarchy.

 

I never realized people wanted to live in the Middle Ages. Well, whatever, good luck surviving in chaos.

[BlueLancer]

 

Laws themselves have no meaning without power to back them up, and here we have the

 

police, or the army if you can get all the way up to 6 starts without being killed.

 

 

 

Every human is like a child playing on the playground, and if you don't play with the rules,

 

even though the rules are (mostly) senseless, the other kids will all gang together and beat you up.

 

 

 

Yes, the world essentially works like that.

 

 

 

But some laws do make sense, such as those that prohibit killing. Even gangs, which operate in societies where their existence is not tolerated, have developed honor codes and take precautions before killing someone.

 

 

 

Laws that guard basic human rights make common sense, group together any 5 or more people and they will naturally come to the same conclusion.

 

 

 

You don't want to get murdered/your child abducted -> Others don't want it either -> Put restrictions on those activities, which will be obeyed by most reasonable people -> Punish people who don't obey it.

 

 

 

As mentioned in the gang example, even these lawless groups will kill members within it that cause too much trouble or draw excessive attention to the group, such as members who will murder without a motive or benefit for "fun". It doesn't make sense to allow people to kill for fun just like people can play football or have a picnic for fun...

 

 

 

If even bands of criminals (who do kill though, but with financial motives) despise random murderers, child abusers/molesters, etc... Why shouldn't a moral society consisting of ordinary law-abiding citizens despise them?

[llcoolguy972]

It's almost as bad as making fun out of people who are born blind, deaf e.t.c. People are born gay and I can't wait till science finally confirms this as stone fact.

 

 

 

Glad to see your believing things before they're stone fact - as you put it. And we ask how people could think the world was flat 600 years ago. StrOwez's your answer.

 

 

 

So you're honestly telling me that you could "turn" gay right now? No? Then it's not a choice. No flaming necessary for a real discussion -BlueLancer

[Nom]

Kashi, I suggets you take a look at Locke and the Social Contract Theory. It should give you a good understanding of why law and government came to be in the first place, and why it was necessary.

[reaper88888]

Natural freedoms, the so-called 'unalienable rights' are rubbish, you have no natural rights beyond what you make your right through force or intelligence.

 

 

 

As for the 'rights' given to us by our respective governments, they allow us freedom up to the point where we infringe on the rights of others. I could go out and kill someone, I have the freedom to do so. But that would not be within my 'rights', and so I would be punished. Now, in some places the 'rights' of murderers are different than other places, so in some places I would be executed, while in others I could probably plead insanity and win or bargain for a reduced sentence.

 

 

 

'Rights' and 'Freedom' are pretty words, but their meaning is completely dependent on the ruling power that currently defines them.

[IGoddessI]

What if my favorite thing is keeping other people from having freedom, are you denying

 

me my freedom to deny them their freedom?

 

 

 

Just because you suffered when you were younger doesn't mean it's right for you to make others suffer and gain pleasure from doing so.

 

 

 

It was not your fault. You can forgive yourself for something that you had no control over, or you can turn in to a bitter sow and rob yourself from the life you deserve and continue with the depressing, cynical posts.

[Guest]

It's almost as bad as making fun out of people who are born blind, deaf e.t.c. People are born gay and I can't wait till science finally confirms this as stone fact.

 

 

 

Glad to see your believing things before they're stone fact - as you put it. And we ask how people could think the world was flat 600 years ago. StrOwez's your answer.

 

 

 

So you're honestly telling me that you could "turn" gay right now? No? Then it's not a choice. Shut the [bleep] up. -.-

 

 

 

I accept your opinion, you can accept mine. I don't discriminate openly against homosexuals, them sticking their bodily organ into other same sexed humans is their own business - I don't care what they do in private. Though I am allowed to have an opinion.

[IGoddessI]

Hey leave being bisexual out of this :P

[Lenin64]

Tip.it has officially been taken over by "gay madness". I will wait out the storm in my Forum-Games bunker.

[Zonorhc]

What if my favorite thing is keeping other people from having freedom, are you denying

 

me my freedom to deny them their freedom? :(

 

 

 

 

 

Basically what I'm pulling for here is complete anarchy. If your idea of a good day is

 

one in which you can break all ten Commandments then this system is for you.

 

 

 

The need for social security and stability outweighs the desire for complete individual autonomy.

 

 

 

That's how society works. If you didn't want to subscribe to that, then you're better off taking yourself out of society altogether, because individual and communal needs are not congruent.

[insane]

I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same.

 

 

 

Hit the nail on the head.

 

 

 

What is this idea grounded in?

[raven_gaurd0]

 

 

 

 

 

Free to be gay, free to gay bash. You want to be gay? That's cool I want to make fun

 

of you being gay. You're free to have sex with men, I'm free to make fun of you for it,

 

don't like it ignore it sorry. :(

 

 

 

 

Why would you want to make fun of someone for being gay? Unless your a total douche bag with nothing better to do..

 

 

 

It's almost as bad as making fun out of people who are born blind, deaf e.t.c. People are born gay and I can't wait till science finally confirms this as stone fact.

 

 

 

Also men are not the only gay people, there are women too or will you not make 'fun' of them for having sex with women? Double standards...?

 

 

 

And why do gay people have to just take abuse from you and 'ignore' it, they have feeling too and constant verbal abuse can get people down and even drive them to commit suicide.

 

 

 

Str0wez, I'm not even going to say anything, other than go check out the gay bashing thread. Warrior and I spent two days rocking each other with scientific evidence. The conclusion? Nothing. No evidence to back choice, no evidence to back being born that way. Go check it out for details :)

 

 

 

At any rate, freedom actually has tangents to their streets. It's kind of like, a little avenue of freedom. Because freedoms are limited. You can't incite riots (which is why Martin Luther King was technically breaking the law...but dont get me wrong, I know he wasn't trying to.) or provoke actions, can't perform actions that might prevent or damage other peoples rights or physical beings...freedom is damn outright complicated. It's much more complex than 'I can do this because it's freedom of...' it's actually a huge series of tangents that might depend on just one word or one twitch.

 

 

 

Maybe the right idea, but I don't think I could punch out an abortion protester (which...I wouldn't. I won't get into it, because frankly I'm tired and it's not the place) but par exampla:

 

 

 

There's a number of picketing and lawful protests at soldiers' funerals. They carry signs bearing such slogans as 'God Hates Soldiers' and 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers' and 'God Hates Faqs' (One article here talks about it. It's just one example.)

 

 

 

Most of these are miscellaneous reasons, ranging from America is being punished for accepting homosexuality, to an extreme form of anti-war propaganda.

 

 

 

I think I have at least a good amount of public support when I say I'd like nothing more than to kick these people in the face. Chuck Norris style. But sadly, I can't, nor can I endorse people nor encourage people to do say. I can say that they're complete moronic [bleep]weeds (which, frankly, they are), but...freedom has it's limits.

 

 

 

Now you have to ask though, is this a good thing? I mean, it's almost obvious that they deserve some form of punishment, but freedom allows them to do it.

 

 

 

P.S. Str0wez you took what she (I'm going to take Kashi as a 'she' by their avatar.) wrote completely too literally, by the way.

 

 

 

P.P.S. (EDIT)

I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same.

 

 

 

I agree there are resonable limits. A good one is that you do not have the right to sensless slander.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do have the right to senseless slander. I have every right to turn the racist cannon on and start blasting off some of the foulest and most racist things I can think of, and the police won't arrest me. (I will get banned though lol, but that's because tip.it is technically a private society so it can set it's own rules and 'rights'.

 

 

 

Kashi, I suggets you take a look at Locke and the Social Contract Theory. It should give you a good understanding of why law and government came to be in the first place, and why it was necessary.

 

 

 

I'm actually debating that now...about civil disobedience, but it's interesting. John Locke really did revolutionize American belief.

 

 

 

Aristotle once quoted that 'Man is a social animal' ...I wonder if that means that we are inherently in need of some form of leadership and society?

[Kashi]

The needs of the group outweigh the needs of the individual.

 

 

 

I get why that's so, but I still don't think it's fair. There shouldn't be a 'group',

 

300 million people shouldn't be a 'group' they should just be 300 million individuals.

 

That way nobody could tell anyone else what to do.

[NorthernHero]

You do have the right to senseless slander. I have every right to turn the racist cannon on and start blasting off some of the foulest and most racist things I can think of, and the police won't arrest me. (I will get banned though lol, but that's because tip.it is technically a private society so it can set it's own rules and 'rights'.

 

Isn't that illegal? So you could get arrested for that?

[raven_gaurd0]

You do have the right to senseless slander. I have every right to turn the racist cannon on and start blasting off some of the foulest and most racist things I can think of, and the police won't arrest me. (I will get banned though lol, but that's because tip.it is technically a private society so it can set it's own rules and 'rights'.

 

Isn't that illegal? So you could get arrested for that?

 

 

 

No. Look, the KKK has rallies and protests in the south still, and they are fully able to say whatever they damn please. As long as they aren't encouraging violence, it's legal. They are defenitely encouraging strife and pain and hatred, but that's totally legal.

 

 

 

And I'm saying I would get banned, because I'm on a private forum (technically) that has it's own rules apart from society.

[assassin_696]

So Kashi, you're going through your rebellious anarchistic stage. I've been there. But trust me, anarchy doesn't work in the real world.

 

 

 

I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same.

 

 

 

Hit the nail on the head.

 

 

 

What is this idea grounded in?

 

 

 

The Golden Rule? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Do you mean which ethical stance subscribes to that view?

[raven_gaurd0]

So Kashi, you're going through your rebellious anarchistic stage. I've been there. But trust me, anarchy doesn't work in the real world.

 

 

 

 

I love that stage! I lived it for like, a day. It made me laugh when I looked back.

 

 

 

Yeah, the only society that has ever been in a state of near Anarchy was...Rome? Even they didn't make it all the way, but once the people began to ignore the government, things got out of control.

[insane]

The Golden Rule? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Do you mean which ethical stance subscribes to that view?

 

 

 

I mean how can you state

 

"I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same."

 

this as true? Why should expressing our freedoms not limit the freedoms of others?

[FooK-A-Ji]

So Kashi, you're going through your rebellious anarchistic stage. I've been there. But trust me, anarchy doesn't work in the real world.

 

 

 

 

I love that stage! I lived it for like, a day. It made me laugh when I looked back.

 

 

 

Yeah, the only society that has ever been in a state of near Anarchy was...Rome? Even they didn't make it all the way, but once the people began to ignore the government, things got out of control.

 

 

 

Rome?

 

America has practically copycated many aspects of roman rule.

 

If you're talking about some riots they've experienced we might as well take about L.A riots.

[BlueLancer]

The Golden Rule? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Do you mean which ethical stance subscribes to that view?

 

 

 

I mean how can you state

 

"I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same."

 

this as true? Why should expressing our freedoms not limit the freedoms of others?

 

 

 

Insane... Let's assume you were, say, a filipino. Would I be free to express my opinions to people and convince them to beat up & rob filipino stores (just as happened to jews during the "crystal night" in Germany)?

 

 

 

No, the moment I incite someone to limit and deprive other people of their freedom, my own freedom loses it's base and I'm open to similar retaliation from filipinos+ other angry people who don't agree with me.

 

 

 

Nobody wants their own freedom limited -> Common sense dictates people should be prohibited from using their freedom to limit that of other people -> The law in most countries now places arrest warrants and fines for public racism and inciting to hate crimes.

 

 

 

Read up more on the US Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 H.R.1592

 

 

 

In the UK, not only is racial incitement to hatred banned, it's also being extended to hate incitement towards gay people punishable with up to 7 years in prison. The Westborough church would be all locked up already if they lived in the UK.

 

 

 

Under the proposal it would be considered a crime to incite hatred against homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual people. Mr Straw said: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅIt is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the past ten years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognise this.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ