I'm not pretending that i am not replying.... your post set off the auto dull response..... obviously it got to you. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Printable View
I'm not pretending that i am not replying.... your post set off the auto dull response..... obviously it got to you. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Obviously, it was so well thought out, argued and presented it could do nothing but get to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Your use of the smillie as a debating technique is second to none. So much better than when you try to use words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
:rolleyes: ..yup..you just keep replying and each time it gets duller
Vid, please post what exactly you mean.
I'm also unable to grasp how you can say that you're for freedom of expression but you wish to prevent other people's pushing for their own moral values (provided you disagree with them) to become law.
Seems a bit daft, to me.
please give me an example of something done in the uk you disagree with...it could be anything from the poll tax to keeping the monarchyQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
edit: Where did I say I wish to prevent?
Okay. I totally disagree with people who spend money beyond their means and then whine about being in debt.
===
I don't need you to approximate this to my situation.
I merely want you to clarify your position when asked to do so by folk that simply don't know where the hell you're coming from.
Jpaul is the one that suggested i wish to prevent people from trying. I simply said i disagree with people trying to get their personal values into law so those that don't share them have to abide by them.
I don't have to give up my right to free speech or freedom of expression to be a champion of those ideals.
i was more thinking of government acts than what people do when i asked for an example.
I realise what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Surely though you would try to get your own personal values made law, given the opportunity - this is only what the people you disagree with are doing.
If you had the right to authorise, for example, independent inspections of Guantanamo Bay to ensure that the prisoners were not being mistreated, then presumably you would do so. There will be folk who think that the current administration should be totally insular and responsible for policing their actions, you'd be forcing your ideal upon them.
To say it's okay for me to do it (lobby) but not okay for someone I disagree with to do it (lobby) isn't really being a champion of freedom of expression.
The problem is that freedom of expression, in my view, must be absolute.
Everyone has the right to express their view as they see fit (as long as it is peaceful), including lobbying their representatives. Other people can lobby the contrary view.
I really don't know how someone can say they support freedom of expression, but then deny other people that absolute right. Hence my non-sequitur comments.
I genuinely do not understand the position vidcc is taking - I support freedom of expression, but I wish to limit it. A limited freedom is not a freedom.
then why ask me to explain it :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
NO.... I believe my moral values are just that....mine.... and I don't try to get them made lawQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
This isn't a personal moral value issue so it doesn't attach to what i am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
If I actually wanted to make a law to stop them from being able to do it I would agree, but I do not. All I did was express an opinion...that's free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Do you not see any difference between saying I don't think they should be allowed and actually trying to stop them?.
If someone said I don't like watching football you would be fine with that. Surely you would oppose them trying stop you watching it as well.
you do not understand it because that is not the position i am takingQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Yes it is if you deny the political lobby.
Tell me how I am denying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
Of course there is a difference. However, you saying that they shouldn't be allowed to say what they believe is right but still believing you should be allowed to state what you believe is wrong or right (or in this case, lobby to get it made law) -- is daft.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
People who have different values of right and wrong to you have the same moral right to vocalise their feelings, in the form of lobbying, as you do. To disagree with this statement goes against freedom of expression
====
You know, I think you're trying to wriggle out of it by making a moral issue into something far too narrow. Our morals tell us what is right and what is wrong. If this is not what you meant then I believe it may be the root of the consternation.
You are saying that people should not try to influence the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
That's what political lobbying is for.
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything, my stance has remained unchanged.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
the whole point of the thread was about moral values, in this case people wishing to block a vaccine that reduces cervical cancer because they say it will encourage promiscuity.
saying I disagree with them doing it when it is based on moral values . NOT stopping them. If I was trying to stop them I would be anti expression. I haven't said I wish to deny them I said I disagree. You are the one that said I wish to deny them the right to lobby...and seeing as you are not me you can't say what I am wanting to doQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
You said you disagreed with people trying to get their moral values made law. This is lobbying, is it not.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
To disagree with people lobbying about something you don't like yet agreeing with people lobbying about something you think is okay with isn't what freedom of expression is all about.
Now, I might disagree with their sentiment (ban soccer) but I would not disagree with their actions (lobbying to ban soccer).
But because I believe in freedom of expression I AM allowing them to lobby and I am not trying to stop them lobbying despite my opinion on their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
you would oppose anyone trying to stop you watching football. That's all I have said...I would oppose anyone trying to make a law base on their moral values.
Why is it ok to say I will fight for your right to say something even if I disagree with what you say and not ok to say I will fight for your right to do something even if I disagree with what or why you are doing it?. I haven't once said lobbying should be banned I simply said I disagree with it when based on moral values.
I am not anti free speech if I don't think you should be saying something I am anti free speech if I stop you saying it. There are many things people shouldn't say but they have every right to say it anyway.
Like I said you have the right to lobby, I have the right to object. Freedom or speech and freedom of expression is not a one way street.
Tbh I skipped JP's posts to an extent and responded just to yours,Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Your posts are sounding like a big clusterfuck.
Most of us will agree with you regarding the article.
However, you keep harping on "you have the right to object."
On that note, no shit. You are in essence, lobbying. You are just on the other side of the issue.
Regarding "moral values being forced upon you." Sorry but that's where most of our laws came to fruition. :blink:
Hey I'd like to marry 3 women. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to fuck for money. The law says I can't do it.
I'd like to smoke weed to get high at home. The law says I can't do it.
Some 30 year-old fella wants to fuck a 16 year-old girl. The law says he can't do it.
Some female wants to abort her baby 7-months into the pregancy. The law says she can't do it.
A family would like to eat a Poodle for dinner. The law says they can't do it.
I'd like to walk in my front yard naked. The law says I can't do it.
Men can run around outside with no shirt on. Some women would like to also. The law says she can't do it.
Tired of moral values being forced upon you? Fight for change or shut-up.....
..and force your moral values upon them 'cause that's all your doing. :dry:
there is a difference between fighting against a law that stops you doing something in your own home that doesn't affect anyone but yourself and fighting for a law to stop your actions affecting others. You can walk around naked in your own home as much as you like If your fence is high enough that your actions do not affect others that's fine, walk around naked in my home and i'll set the dogs on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
there are many unjust laws already... we don't need more.
Vid, you definitely said that you disagree with people trying to get their moral values made law.
If you disagree with that, then you disagree with people lobbying about values they hold true. If you disagree with people lobbying then you disagree with people expressing themselves politically about such values.
A moral value is not such a narrow definition to only encompass sexual or religious values, a moral value is a value one holds based on instinct regarding one's sense of right and wrong. Which is why my reference to Guantanamo Bay is valid. If I was a US citizen and lobbied for allowing inspections in Guantanamo in order to preserve the prisoners' rights, then I would be trying to make a small part of my moral values law.
Something you say you disagree with.
You say that you don't wish to stop people doing it but by merely expressing your disagreement you may well do that. If someone who respected you got wind of your stance then it may dissuade them.
If a person thought soccer corrupted children because of the violence and intended to lobby the govt (a bleeding heart liberal, for example).
I would say to him that if he truly believes that it would benefit society, he should lobby for a country-wide ban on soccer, wheras you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree.
You're saying that you disagree with people lobbying about moral values so by implication you disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.
Aren't all laws based on someones or some peoples moral values?
It can eather be something widespread like "Thou Shalt not Kill", or something confined like mispronouncing Arkansas, whilst in Arkansas...
...whatever the Law is though, it's only there because of someones moral values.
The thing to do is lobby on the other side, so that its not mistakenly thought that the loud voices are speaking for the majority.
Nice one, RF. In part it's what I'm trying to say ... I agree with you entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
going in circles here.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
you are half right on one thingii would indeed tell him I disagree, but I wouldn't tell him he cannot.Quote:
I you would tell him that you disagree with him lobbying because you think that one shouldn't try to impose one's morals upon others by means of lobbying. Or would you lie and tell him that you agree.
the rest is just the same circular argument.
The 'circular' bit was just leading up to the important conclusion. Duno if you missed it.
Btw, spammer :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Most laws I'd agree, but as I have said my objection is about personal moral values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If I make "values" the wide scope manker suggests then for example you may think smoking should be banned in public places as it affects others. That is just.. it is unjust to ban smoking in private homes, that is infringing on personal freedoms.
the fact that laws were mostly based on someone's morals doesn't make them just and it's better to prevent an unjust law than have to repeal it.
i don't see it that way... i see action or in this case inaction being what counts, words mean little.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Oh gawd. I basically said the same thing and now "you agree...entirely". :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Doesn't matter how little you think they mean, the fact that you've acknowledged that they mean something means that my assertion is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You disagree with freedom of expression as an absolute.
Some of what I already stated has to do with "personal moral values." :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Meh, who reads your posts :snooty:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Jus' kidding, I have been typing and working a fair bit tonight, I prolly missed it as I was focusing on vid's. RF posted in a lull.
nice try but you are wrong, perhaps i should rephrase...words mean nothing..actions or lack of mean everything.. try to refrain from pointing to the dictionaryQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
Wriggle wriggle.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It's okay, you're off the hook. I'm going to bed ;)
sleep is for wimpsQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
Their are many laws that don't make allowances 'for your own home.'Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Weed smoking is one them. Prostitution is another. I could easily go on.
On the real, you have a problem with folks lobbying for laws that you disagree with.
That's what this comes down to. :dry:
I said there are unjust laws... if you wish to smoke weed in your home you should be allowed to.... you should not be allowed to smoke it in a public place where others can breathe your smoke and you should not be allowed to "drag and drive"... If you are a druggie and you commit a crime because you are high then the fact that you were high and didn't know what you were doing is no defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I see no harm in legalising prostitution, IF it would get it off the streets and under control so we don't have enforced prostitution (there is a slave trade in existence) or the "pimp" issue. Also regulation could reduce the health risks. Brothels should come under zoning laws so you don't have men going in and out of the "house next door"... there are many reasons why legalisation is justified... but it would need policing... and frankly I don't think we could stop "rouges" or underage walking the streets...that should always be illegal.
Neither of these things I agree with from a personal viewpoint. I am anti drug from a health point of view but if you want to harm yourself fine, as long as you harm nobody else. I have never nor would I ever use a prostitute. But it won't affect me if you did....so given the criteria above (not a total package) then smoke and screw away.
No shit..... you really must be high tonight to be able to figure that out.... seeing as I only said it a gazillionquadbillion times.... I don't like the homosexual act, but as they don't affect me I am against any law that will deny them the right to be homosexual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I see no difference to objecting to any attempt at making an unjust law that infringes personal freedom whatever the level the attempt is. I see no difference between my objection to them trying to make the law and lobbying against them to stop the succeeding.
Edit: BTW both you and Jpaul told the canuk he shouldn't be talking about dog welfare when there is a homeless person...... Are you both anti freespeech and anti freedom of expression?
i think we should slow down on mediacl advancements. think of this: people have evolved from monkeys or something, but we havent in the 5000 years. i think this could because of medical advancements and how nobody wants to die. this might be stoping us from eevolving to our next form. just a theory.
Surely if someone lobby's for something I am against, then I am entitled to lobby with a case against what they are lobbying for. Once a law has been passed then everyone has to obey that law or face the consequences. Therefore the time to complain is before it reaches the deicision making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
It is too late to say everyone should obey the law, but it's OK for me to smoke pot. If that analogy fits the situation. :)
@ Vidcc please refrain from using other threads to try and prove that members sometimes forget what they said a few days ago. This is against the rules of 'This forum'. I will have you excommunicated. :ph34r:
Oh I got it biggy. Some others don't. :ermm:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab