Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ultron · 05-08-2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The Supreme Court hasn't been able to bring itself to strike down all anti-porn laws but they've used some pretty twisted logic to support any restrictions.

What twisted logic? A pair of boobs isn't free speech. THAT is twisted logic.

Ultron · 05-08-2003, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Porn *IS* speech--and as such it deserves the same protections as all other speech.

I respectfully disagree.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Child porn is a separate issue, being a real depiction of an illegal action.

It's illegal speech? I thought that right couldn't be infringed. It's not slander.

Ultron · 05-08-2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Autonemesis
I agree. The libertarian and/or less-government-is-better philosophies are basically upset with government corruption. They seek to eliminate government corruption by making government so weak that corrupting it is pointless.

I think I need not point out the unavoidable problem with this approach (but I will ). A government that is so weak that there is no opportunity for advantage through corrupting it, must also be rather ineffective at governing.

I pretty much agree with you. Basically the flaw with Libertarianism, as I see it, is that it creates a govt so tiny and powerless that it's ineffective to do it's job. Right now the Libertarian party wants to take away power from the Constitution by claiming there are laws it can't make. As opposed to Democrats and many Republicans who want to add power to the federal govt outside the bounds of the Constitution.

I was on the staff of a friend who ran for Congress as a Libertarian and he quit the party when he found out how bad it got. (Of course he then switched to the Republican party and was told to get on the party line so he ran as an independant)

Now I swing more Libertarian than Democrat/Socialist but I find the main problem I mentioned above just too much of a problem to ally myself with them.

Ultron · 05-08-2003, 04:25 PM

I'll defend Conservatism here, with what little time I have. But I won't defend those that pretend they are, claim they are, but in the end are just Republican or Democratic party-line advocates. I think true Conservatism, as it's intended, is somewhere between the Republican and Libertarian stance as those two parties stand today.

Loren Pechtel · 05-08-2003, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ultron
What twisted logic? A pair of boobs isn't free speech. THAT is twisted logic.

"Speech" is normally defined to include anything that communicates an idea, whether it's actually words or not.

Calzaer · 05-08-2003, 11:42 PM

Quote:

And all power should be placed in the hands of a single Sovereign world leader.

Which I'll actually agree with, but not until there's a body capable of doing such a job MORALLY. Because until we're the Human States of Earth, we're always going to hold onto our little tribalistic nonsense. Unfortunately, we're also humans, and as such any government we create is going to be corrupt. So it's a pipe dream anyway.

Quote:

A pair of boobs isn't free speech.

Hey, if a briefcase full of benjamins is "free speech", boobs are "free speech".

Kinross · 05-09-2003, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ultron
By the same logic Al Jazeera contributed to the murder of those soliders by airing footage of their dead bodies. That logic doesn't work under scrutiny.

Someone that gets child porn down the line had nothing to do with the criminal act of filming that child nude. That's not to say there's nothing wrong with having child porn on it's own merits.

Very good point. I'll have to rethink my position.

Ultron · 05-20-2003, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer
Which I'll actually agree with, but not until there's a body capable of doing such a job MORALLY. Because until we're the Human States of Earth, we're always going to hold onto our little tribalistic nonsense. Unfortunately, we're also humans, and as such any government we create is going to be corrupt. So it's a pipe dream anyway.

This is what I'm saying hehe. I don't think a World Leader would work.

Ultron · 05-20-2003, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
"Speech" is normally defined to include anything that communicates an idea, whether it's actually words or not.

I have a bomb and it blows up, that communicates an idea, right? If nobody's hurt, that's just free speech, right?

What idea is that, which is communicated, exactly?

What idea does "boob's" present?

I'd go as far as signs with written words becoming speech, but pictures? That's quite a stretch.

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer
Hey, if a briefcase full of benjamins is "free speech", boobs are "free speech".

A briefcase full of money is not free speech either. Limiting organizations or people from spending money in order for them to place ads, is a violation of their free speech.

How does a picture of a pair of boobs facilitate free speech? And how does telling someone to cover up porn like that limit free speech.

By the same criteria, pics of naked boys is free speech, just speech we disagree with. Nambla would like that I bet.

Loren Pechtel · 05-20-2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Ultron
I have a bomb and it blows up, that communicates an idea, right? If nobody's hurt, that's just free speech, right?

Bombs are dangerous. For the public safety you need an explosives permit (and the requisite training) to deal with them.
I've heard of artists that use explosive fabrication of artistic materials. And what are fireworks but colorful airborne bombs?

What idea does "boob's" present?

It's not my job to justify their message. Just today, however, I ran across a webpage of close-ups of vagnias that was certainly a political message. All were shaved and and anti-Bush messages.

I'd go as far as signs with written words becoming speech, but pictures? That's quite a stretch.

Ever play charades? That's certainly communication without words.

Ever try to communicate with someone that you have little if any language in common with? I use a lot of gestures and acting out with one of my nieces. Her English is improving but we still have trouble often. (I only see her every 6 months when we go visit and I'm the only person she can only use English with.)

A briefcase full of money is not free speech either. Limiting organizations or people from spending money in order for them to place ads, is a violation of their free speech.

Money per se isn't speech. What money buys is speech. True campaign finance reform will require a constitutional amendmant.

By the same criteria, pics of naked boys is free speech, just speech we disagree with. Nambla would like that I bet.

We have a separate issue here--is there harm from making the speech?

05-20-2003, 09:08 AM	#30
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An attack on conservatism Originally posted by Ultron I have a bomb and it blows up, that communicates an idea, right? If nobody's hurt, that's just free speech, right? Bombs are dangerous. For the public safety you need an explosives permit (and the requisite training) to deal with them. I've heard of artists that use explosive fabrication of artistic materials. And what are fireworks but colorful airborne bombs? What idea does "boob's" present? It's not my job to justify their message. Just today, however, I ran across a webpage of close-ups of vagnias that was certainly a political message. All were shaved and and anti-Bush messages. I'd go as far as signs with written words becoming speech, but pictures? That's quite a stretch. Ever play charades? That's certainly communication without words. Ever try to communicate with someone that you have little if any language in common with? I use a lot of gestures and acting out with one of my nieces. Her English is improving but we still have trouble often. (I only see her every 6 months when we go visit and I'm the only person she can only use English with.) A briefcase full of money is not free speech either. Limiting organizations or people from spending money in order for them to place ads, is a violation of their free speech. Money per se isn't speech. What money buys is speech. True campaign finance reform will require a constitutional amendmant. By the same criteria, pics of naked boys is free speech, just speech we disagree with. Nambla would like that I bet. We have a separate issue here--is there harm from making the speech?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-08-2003, 04:25 PM	#24
Ultron Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: here Posts: 738	I'll defend Conservatism here, with what little time I have. But I won't defend those that pretend they are, claim they are, but in the end are just Republican or Democratic party-line advocates. I think true Conservatism, as it's intended, is somewhere between the Republican and Libertarian stance as those two parties stand today.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.