• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why America needs a hate speech law

COTO

Panthera Uncia
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
827
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So soon with the argumenta ad hominem? I would have at least expected you to put up a fight this time. Oh well. :shrug:
What am I supposed to put up a fight against? "FAIL" GIFs?

I'm asking you for a counterargument. It's an appeal to your pride, not an attack on your person.
 

Phys251

trump is sus
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
32,870
Reaction score
16,867
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What am I supposed to put up a fight against? "FAIL" GIFs?

I'm asking you for a counterargument. It's an appeal to your pride, not an attack on your person.
You went straight to what I do for a living, right? That's nothing but a pure ad-hom. Now start convincing me that your words are worth engaging or I am going to look elsewhere. :)
 

Phys251

trump is sus
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
32,870
Reaction score
16,867
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
the courts are arbiters who is correct that's their purpose. Their purpose in no way has ever been to discuss the philosophical.
To the extent that the Constitution clearly defines something, I agree, but that does not dismiss the courts' need to define "freedom." Same with "obscenity," for instance. SCOTUS had to decide what obscenity meant, given that the Constitution is as clear as mud on that definition.

No I know what I meant to say much better than you do.
Now now, no need for that. We were having a healthy debate. :)
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
42,945
Reaction score
8,760
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
To the extent that the Constitution clearly defines something, I agree, but that does not dismiss the courts' need to define "freedom." Same with "obscenity," for instance. SCOTUS had to decide what obscenity meant, given that the Constitution is as clear as mud on that definition.
no courts don't decide meanings thats philosophy. They're arbiters of legal meaning.


Now now, no need for that. We were having a healthy debate. :)
Well for future reference don't tell me what you think I mean that's called making the straw man. You can ask me what I mean. I'm pretty good at explaining what I mean. But the statement I made was absolutely true I know better of what I mean to say than you ever could possibly imagine because the things I say come from my mind.
 

COTO

Panthera Uncia
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
827
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You went straight to what I do for a living, right? That's nothing but a pure ad-hom.
It wasn't even an attack. It was my justification for essentially stating "You're better than this kind of reply."

If I'm wrong, mea culpa. rolleyes2.gif

Now start convincing me that your words are worth engaging or I am going to look elsewhere.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to which argument(s) in post #170 you disagree with and why?

If you don't object to anything in #170, you've heard all I have to say here.
 

wellwisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,175
Reaction score
432
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So when you think of hateful terms, those are the ones that first come to mind with you? I mean those are the ones you listed. You didn't mention the N-Word, Faggot, Tranny, Chinks, and so on, you know, groups that have actually been victims of institutional racism, discrimination, hate crimes, lynchings... That is rather telling about you.
One might add the word queer to the list. However, LGBTQ includes the Q, where the Q stands for queer. The word queer can be used in two ways depending on the feeling in your heart. it is not automatic hate. The N-word is the same way. It is often used in gangs to address comrades. In this case the n-word is not being used for hate but friendship. All words have more that one meaning. You cannot just assume one programed meaning.

The term is called hate speech, with the emotion of hate coming before the words of speech . It is not the words that matter, but what is in the heart, before one talks the words. The gang banger is not full of hate when he says n-word. It is not robotic unless you have been programmed like a robot.

If you are angry and hateful, you can use neutral words to hurt people. It is all based on the tone of your voice and sarcasm. I can say you did a good job with sarcasm and hurt someone who is sensitive. The left has been scammed to believe words come before all emotional intent, as though we are robots, who can be triggered by programmed buzz words. Then we are to behave in a linear way even with words with two or more meanings.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So soon with the argumenta ad hominem? I would have at least expected you to put up a fight this time. Oh well. :shrug:
An argument ad hom challenges the validity of someone's argument according to something about the person rather than the reasoning of the argument. As in, what this person said can't be true because he's a terrible person (ad hom abusive), or what this person said can't be true because he's X person's brother (ad hom conditional).

Two things are true here: COTO didn't make an ad hom argument, and if you really think he did, you don't know what an ad hom argument is.

You frequently call things ad hom arguments which aren't (usually when you don't want to debate a substantive point). The only question is, do you know that and you're being dishonest, or do you simply do it from genuine ignorance of what an ad hom argument is?
 

ElChupacabra

Me cago en las cabras!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2018
Messages
11,660
Reaction score
5,343
Location
The Garden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FFS, “hate speech law” is the worst idea imaginable.
It has the potential to be micromanaged to the point of becoming idiotic; that's one of my major concerns. The other issue is the conflation of "hate speech" with "offensive speech", and this is where I feel it can become really restrictive. Setting some general guidelines around speech which clearly presents a danger (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater etc.) makes practical sense, but when we start including subjective criteria like people's sensibilities, we enter a real gray zone which could end up being more restrictive and oppressive regardless of the good intentions. Another poster mentioned that he prefers having hate speech out in the open, and I generally agree with that sentiment. I support people's right to express themselves, even when I may abhor the message.
 

Phys251

trump is sus
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
32,870
Reaction score
16,867
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It wasn't even an attack. It was my justification for essentially stating "You're better than this kind of reply."

If I'm wrong, mea culpa. View attachment 67268039
I'm sorry that you believe that you are entitled to talk down to me like that. :)
 

Kreton

Looking for a title suggestion
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
12,011
Reaction score
5,484
Location
Over that way
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
People who support hate speech do so because they feel entitled to hate speech. They do not do so because they support free speech. Otherwise they'd be first in line to defend the rights of feminists, civil rights activists, trans rights activists, etc. when they speak out.
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
 

Phys251

trump is sus
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
32,870
Reaction score
16,867
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
It's called populist correctness. And it's everywhere. Just start a discussion saying that you like Hillary Clinton, The Last Jedi, or incremental change and you'll see populist correctness in action.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
6,631
Reaction score
6,112
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
I would venture that not one in a hundred people stands up for the public expression of opinions that they despise. Which is why the First Amendment is necessary, and why the United States should not have Hate Speech codes. Because one day you will inevitably have a disgusting demagogue like Donald Trump in charge of enforcing those laws over you.
 

Kreton

Looking for a title suggestion
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
12,011
Reaction score
5,484
Location
Over that way
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's called populist correctness. And it's everywhere. Just start a discussion saying that you like Hillary Clinton, The Last Jedi, or incremental change and you'll see populist correctness in action.
Holy **** that is a very relevant for a term I've never heard of.
 

Kreton

Looking for a title suggestion
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
12,011
Reaction score
5,484
Location
Over that way
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I would venture that not one in a hundred people stands up for the public expression of opinions that they despise. Which is why the First Amendment is necessary, and why the United States should not have Hate Speech codes. Because one day you will inevitably have a disgusting demagogue like Donald Trump in charge of enforcing those laws over you.
I don't support free speech. At least not absolute free speech. I doubt anyone really does. Most can't or won't admit it.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
6,631
Reaction score
6,112
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't support free speech. At least not absolute free speech. I doubt anyone really does. Most can't or won't admit it.
That is fine. Neither do I. The First Amendment does not protect all speech for that matter, but that which is not protected must be narrowly drawn. I support the expression of all ideas in thoughts or writing except for malicious and false defamation, direct incitement to violence, and verbal/written direction to commit criminal activity (emails confirming the plan for committing a bank heist, disclosing nuclear launch codes or troop movements, etc.). Everything else goes for me.
 

Kreton

Looking for a title suggestion
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
12,011
Reaction score
5,484
Location
Over that way
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That is fine. Neither do I. The First Amendment does not protect all speech for that matter, but that which is not protected must be narrowly drawn. I support the expression of all ideas in thoughts or writing except for malicious and false defamation, direct incitement to violence, and verbal/written direction to commit criminal activity (emails confirming the plan for committing a bank heist, disclosing nuclear launch codes or troop movements, etc.). Everything else goes for me.
I'd add a few things to that list - however I agree with the intent. I don't mean to imply the first amendment protects all speech - but many pretend it does when it suits their agenda.
 

COTO

Panthera Uncia
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
827
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
There's a difference between wanting others to shut up and forcing them by law to shut up.

There's a difference between banning promotion/dissemination of an ideology universally and banning promotion of an ideology by the state. (People who constantly tout SOCAS will surely understand.)

There's a difference between censoring ideas (which are broadly proscribed) and censoring obscenities (which are narrowly proscribed).

Be careful to mind these differences before judging people. A man who counter-protests at pro-life rallies by demanding the protestors shut up and disband, who votes against pro-LGBT education in public schools, and who fully supports network TV bans on various swears, slurs, and sex acts, may nevertheless be a true and ardent supporter of free speech.
 

Kreton

Looking for a title suggestion
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
12,011
Reaction score
5,484
Location
Over that way
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There's a difference between wanting others to shut up and forcing them by law to shut up.

There's a difference between banning promotion/dissemination of an ideology universally and banning promotion of an ideology by the state. (People who constantly tout SOCAS will surely understand.)

There's a difference between censoring ideas (which are broadly proscribed) and censoring obscenities (which are narrowly proscribed).

Be careful to mind these differences before judging people. A man who counter-protests at pro-life rallies by demanding the protestors shut up and disband, who votes against pro-LGBT education in public schools, and who fully supports network TV bans on various swears, slurs, and sex acts, may nevertheless be a true and ardent supporter of free speech.
Thanks for making my point.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I've noticed over the years that most people who are big supporters of the phrase "free speech" don't actually support free speech. They support free speech for themselves and like minded people who promote their beliefs. They want the rest to shut up.
That is pretty much the essence of pushing for "hate speech" laws, yes.

Ironic that Phys, who's vociferously arguing for shutting people up, "liked" your post.
 

COTO

Panthera Uncia
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
827
Location
Toronto, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thanks for making my point.
How do I "make your point" by stating what is essentially the opposite of your point?

If you're claiming that anyone who wants others to shut up, or who opposes some kind of state indoctrination, or who supports the censoring of obscenities is inherently anti- free speech, just say so plainly. At least that way the readership won't be left wondering whether you have a clue what freedom of speech refers to.
 
Top Bottom