NationStates Jolt Archive

What's more important the right to say what you want, when you want?

Or the right to live your life peacefully and happily with out fear? :mp5:

Eh . . . isn't freedom of speech a subset of civil liberties?

Eh . . . isn't freedom of speech a subset of civil liberties?
Yup.

Sorry one doesn't exist without the other.

Aren't you asking something like "Do you prefer Italian food or Lasagna"?

:confused:

Freedom of speech is a civil liberty. Do you mean would we rather be safe and secure but have no civil liberties? They say Mussolini amde the trains on time and the streets safe, but I'd rather be less safe and more free.

Aren't you asking something like "Do you prefer Italian food or Lasagna"?
I enjoy chicken parmigana myself

What's more important the right to say what you want, when you want?

Or the right to live your life peacefully and happily with out fear? :mp5:

Well, is the "right" to pursuit of happiness even a right?

If it is, then pedophiles have the right to rape their children, etc.

Well, is the "right" to pursuit of happiness even a right?

If it is, then pedophiles have the right to rape their children, etc.
Any one right should not impinge on a right of another.

They say Mussolini amde the trains on time and the streets safe, but I'd rather be less safe and more free.

I thought that was Hitler!

Well, is the "right" to pursuit of happiness even a right?

If it is, then pedophiles have the right to rape their children, etc.
Erm... Would the child be happy? (They have the same right as well). :rolleyes:

Well, is the "right" to pursuit of happiness even a right?

If it is, then pedophiles have the right to rape their children, etc.


Rights do not exist in a vacuum. A pedophile's right to molest a child is countered by that child's right to not be abused. It's all about balance. That's why you can't scream fire in a crowded move theater or hit me in the nose and claim you amuse yourself by swinging your first randomly. That's the nature of government. We give up a portion or our rights in exchange for protection of the remaining (and majority) of those rights.

Erm... Would the child be happy? (They have the same right as well). :rolleyes:

Well I'm sure the 13 year old kid who was "raped" by his fairly damn attractive 20 something female teacher was happy :p

I enjoy chicken parmigana myself

Yeah, you can't beat a good chicken parma. I might even go to the pub for tea tonight & have one. You've inspired me. :D

Rights do not exist in a vacuum. A pedophile's right to molest a child is countered by that child's right to not be abused. It's all about balance. That's why you can't scream fire in a crowded move theater or hit me in the nose and claim you amuse yourself by swinging your first randomly. That's the nature of government. We give up a portion or our rights in exchange for protection of the remaining (and majority) of those rights.

If supposing a person has a right to something, this something ought be given to them, we can deduce that if two rights exclude each other, what ought be furthered contradicts itself as well. And as we assume that what ought be furthered (i.e. morality) is noncontradictory, a person therefore cannot have a right in contradiction with the right of another.

That doesn't make sense on soooo many levels.

If supposing a person has a right to something, this something ought be given to them, we can deduce that if two rights exclude each other, what ought be furthered contradicts itself as well. And as we assume that what ought be furthered (i.e. morality) is noncontradictory, a person therefore cannot have a right in contradiction with the right of another.


Yeah, that makes no sense at all.

Obviously I confused matters slightly with my over simplistic, perhaps misguided, title.

Where my point is....

A fundamental right that most people accept is required/wanted/essential is freedom of speech and in turn the right to vote!!!

With that in mind are these rights proper when a rally can form shouting out against a minority (i'm thinking largely asylum seekers). And if 25% of the public are voting the far right which again impinge greatly on Civil Liberties?? In most other areas....

Also sorry to pick on all you nazi's out there but your the obvious target.

(What the question isn't is - are asylum seekers genuine?)


The Only thing that Evil Needs To Prevail Is For Good Men To Do Nothing!! – (Edmund Burke ??) :mp5:

If supposing a person has a right to something, this something ought be given to them, we can deduce that if two rights exclude each other, what ought be furthered contradicts itself as well. And as we assume that what ought be furthered (i.e. morality) is noncontradictory, a person therefore cannot have a right in contradiction with the right of another.
Umm, isn't this saying pretty much what you quoted, only in an overly complex and confusing manner because you insist on trying to act psuedo-intellecutal and in the end only make yourself out to look like an utter moron who can't properly explain him/herself?
Obviously I confused matters slightly with my over simplistic, perhaps misguided, title.

Where my point is....

A fundamental right that most people accept is required/wanted/essential is freedom of speech and in turn the right to vote!!!

With that in mind are these rights proper when a rally can form shouting out against a minority (i'm thinking largely asylum seekers). And if 25% of the public are voting the far right which again impinge greatly on Civil Liberties?? In most other areas....

Also sorry to pick on all you nazi's out there but your the obvious target.

(What the question isn't is - are asylum seekers genuine?)


The Only thing that Evil Needs To Prevail Is For Good Men To Do Nothing!! – (Edmund Burke ??) :mp5:
You're still not making much sense, but if you mean to say that free speech should be surpressed because certain people can say certain hateful things towards certain other things, and this could be bad if it were a majority saying hateful things towards a minority and surpress said minority through their right to vote, you should understand that there is a notable difference between words and actions (the KKK, for example, can condemn blacks and preach about the superiority of whites all they want, but once they start lynching and generally terrorizing blacks, they've crossed the line), and that were the majority to surpress the minority through laws and the like, they would likewise be crossing the line and in violation of the principles upon which free speech and other civil liberties are founded upon.

So does talking about something make it ok as long as you don't do it??? Isn't that where most atrocities start from?? Look at Nazi Germany for example the Leadership there spoke in great detail about how 'bad' the Jews were until the German people believed it, where they then followed with their "final solution".

Even more recently in America (and the UK) the government had spoke at great length about how evil the Communists were and how much of a threat they would be...stirring up a national fervour and hatred towards them that lasted 40 years.

Currently the above is being repeated with Islamic people.

Freedom of Speech, therefore, isn't a right but rather a duty. And like most duties must be carried out carefully and with thought and if that duty cannot be performed then it should be removed.
:mp5:

I think what you are really asking is would we be willing to give up freedom in exchange for greater security. To which I answer, no.
It is better to a few bandits wandering the streets than give up our most cherished freedoms.

If freedom of speech is being so highly vaunted here, why have I seen such little defence on this forum of Ward Churchill?
He onlu said what he believed to be true. It may have been insensatively phrased or badly put, but to demand that he be all but lynched seems to be in contradiction to this tranquil assertion of the right to freedom of speech.

I did defend Ward Churchill, on the first of the many threads concerning his position. I defended him on the basis that freedom of speech is a civil liberty, and one which he should be as entitled to enjoy as much as his critics were. I was either ignored, or criticised for this.

Where is the limit of free speech? When is speech incitement to break the law? What happens when the principle of freedom of speech enters into conflict witrh the anti-discrimination laws?

Surely these are the questions here.

For me, free speech is sacrosanct. You may say what you like, to whom you like, whenever you like. If what you say about an individual is factually wrong and defamatory then you can be punished for this, as it impinges on the moral reputation of that individual. If what you say is not specifically about an individual (physical or legal) then you can say what you like.

"And if 25% of the public are voting the far right which again impinge greatly on Civil Liberties??"

I'm thinking this begs the question ive been thinking about a lot. Can a democratic society elect a government/party/whatever that will remove democracy? I.e. democratically elect a dictatorship or something else that will remove democracy after the democratic election electing them is completed? (sorry about the long phrasing).

So does talking about something make it ok as long as you don't do it??? Isn't that where most atrocities start from?? Look at Nazi Germany for example the Leadership there spoke in great detail about how 'bad' the Jews were until the German people believed it, where they then followed with their "final solution".

Even more recently in America (and the UK) the government had spoke at great length about how evil the Communists were and how much of a threat they would be...stirring up a national fervour and hatred towards them that lasted 40 years.

Currently the above is being repeated with Islamic people.

Freedom of Speech, therefore, isn't a right but rather a duty. And like most duties must be carried out carefully and with thought and if that duty cannot be performed then it should be removed.
:mp5:

But in these instances the oppositions opinion was suppressed. Hitler and Mc Carthy weren't known for their devotion to free speech.

So does talking about something make it ok as long as you don't do it??? Isn't that where most atrocities start from?? Look at Nazi Germany for example the Leadership there spoke in great detail about how 'bad' the Jews were until the German people believed it, where they then followed with their "final solution".

Even more recently in America (and the UK) the government had spoke at great length about how evil the Communists were and how much of a threat they would be...stirring up a national fervour and hatred towards them that lasted 40 years.

Currently the above is being repeated with Islamic people.

Freedom of Speech, therefore, isn't a right but rather a duty. And like most duties must be carried out carefully and with thought and if that duty cannot be performed then it should be removed.
:mp5:
Again, there is a difference between words and actions, and as someone already pointed out, it is not free speech when only one opinion is allowed to be heard.
If freedom of speech is being so highly vaunted here, why have I seen such little defence on this forum of Ward Churchill?
Umm, forgive my ignorance, but who is Ward Churchill?

"And if 25% of the public are voting the far right which again impinge greatly on Civil Liberties??"

I'm thinking this begs the question ive been thinking about a lot. Can a democratic society elect a government/party/whatever that will remove democracy? I.e. democratically elect a dictatorship or something else that will remove democracy after the democratic election electing them is completed? (sorry about the long phrasing).


The answer to this question is Yes!! It has happened in the past and will happen again..... :mp5:

I think what you are really asking is would we be willing to give up freedom in exchange for greater security. To which I answer, no.
It is better to a few bandits wandering the streets than give up our most cherished freedoms.

There are a few basic human rights, these include;

The right to Shelter,
The right to Education,
The right to Food,

These are not exhaustive but are all non-negotiable and don't carry a precursor, however equally important a human right is

The Freedom of Speech,

However this does carry a social responsibility.....and if you don't follow this then you don't have that right. It is the job/duty in society of the strong to look after the weak.....and this includes protecting minorities from intimidation and worse...

Again, there is a difference between words and actions, and as someone already pointed out, it is not free speech when only one opinion is allowed to be heard.

Umm, forgive my ignorance, but who is Ward Churchill?

Link to as neutral a source as I could find (http://www.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/112864.shtml)

There are a few basic human rights, these include;

The right to Shelter,
The right to Education,
The right to Food,

These are not exhaustive but are all non-negotiable and don't carry a precursor, however equally important a human right is

The Freedom of Speech,

However this does carry a social responsibility.....and if you don't follow this then you don't have that right. It is the job/duty in society of the strong to look after the weak.....and this includes protecting minorities from intimidation and worse...

actually, with the exception of food, those are not rights. You only have the right to pursue them and if you can legally acquire them then your right to own property comes into play because they become your property. You have no right to steal them nor do you have the right to force someone else to buy them for you.
Free speech is nonalienable. Just because someone says something you find offensive, that does not give you the right take their right of free speech away from them.
The rest sounds much like you are playing with words. No one has a right to welfare nor is there a right to affirmative action.

Yeah, that makes no sense at all.

All I'm trying to say is that nobody can have a right that opposes some other right given to another person and that therefore either the pedophile's right or the child's right can't exist. My justification was that rights are a subset of what ought be furthered and that because what ought be furthered is noncontradictory, rights can't contradict each other either. Sorry if I wasn't making sense earlier.

All I'm trying to say is that nobody can have a right that opposes some other right given to another person and that therefore either the pedophile's right or the child's right can't exist. My justification was that rights are a subset of what ought be furthered and that because what ought be furthered is noncontradictory, rights can't contradict each other either. Sorry if I wasn't making sense earlier.

It still is not too clear. The right of the pedophile, is a positive right, a right to pursue happiness. The right of the child is a negative right, the right to not be harmed.
Negative rights always take precedence over positive rights for exactly the type of reason you cite. Negative rights can not, logically, be contradictory, whereas positive rights can impinge on both the positive and negative rights of others.
Free speech is a positive right. It is a right to do something, to speak. Where it impinges on the negative rights of others such as the right not to be discriminated against, the right to not be slandered, then free speech has to be curtailed.
Where it impinges on a positive right, ie the right to listen to the birds singing, then it has to be culturally negotiated.

It still is not too clear. The right of the pedophile, is a positive right, a right to pursue happiness. The right of the child is a negative right, the right to no...

I would argue that you don't have the right to not be offended. Laws against slander are okay by me, though. You have the right to prove someone wrong definitively.

It still is not too clear. The right of the pedophile, is a positive right, a right to pursue happiness. The right of the child is a negative right, the right to not be harmed.
Negative rights always take precedence over positive rights for exactly the type of reason you cite. Negative rights can not, logically, be contradictory, whereas positive rights can impinge on both the positive and negative rights of others.
Free speech is a positive right. It is a right to do something, to speak. Where it impinges on the negative rights of others such as the right not to be discriminated against, the right to not be slandered, then free speech has to be curtailed.
Where it impinges on a positive right, ie the right to listen to the birds singing, then it has to be culturally negotiated.
Eh. No. The Pedophile has right to pursue happiness but not that kind. Due to fact that it would harm children whereby violating their right to life, property, and personal security.
There is no such thing as positive or negative rights and no rights take precedence over others.
There is no right to not be slandered. Nor is there a right to not be discriminated against.
But we do have a right to pursue happiness, which slander would violate. And we also have a right to equal protection under the law and the right to equal opportunity to pursue happiness both of which would be violated by wrongful discrimination. But in and of themselves, the rights to not be slandered or not be discriminated against simply don't exist.

What's more important the right to say what you want, when you want?

Or the right to live your life peacefully and happily with out fear? :mp5:
In my mind your IQ falls about 40 points when you use the little gun smily in your topic heading.

All I'm trying to say is that nobody can have a right that opposes some other right given to another person and that therefore either the pedophile's right or the child's right can't exist. My justification was that rights are a subset of what ought be furthered and that because what ought be furthered is noncontradictory, rights can't contradict each other either. Sorry if I wasn't making sense earlier.

Erm, actually, I've just realized that the "that which ought be furthered is noncontradictory" thing is a horrible assumption and that therefore you were right and I was wrong.

I might change my mind in five minutes though, so eh. :D

Eh. No. The Pedophile has right to pursue happiness but not that kind. Due to fact that it would harm children whereby violating their right to life, property, and personal security.
There is no such thing as positive or negative rights and no rights take precedence over others.
There is no right to not be slandered. Nor is there a right to not be discriminated against.
But we do have a right to pursue happiness, which slander would violate. And we also have a right to equal protection under the law and the right to equal opportunity to pursue happiness both of which would be violated by wrongful discrimination. But in and of themselves, the rights to not be slandered or not be discriminated against simply don't exist.

Rights are in effect, enshrined freedoms. Now there exists somethign called positive freedom. The freedom to sing in the shower, the freedom to vote. There are also negative freedoms, freedom from abuse, freedom from imprisonment without trial. i.e. the difference is between freedom to (+ve) and freedom from (-ve).

As rights are freedoms, then there also exist positive and negative rights.
The pedophile, like the rest of us has the freedom to (+ve) persue his own happiness. This is a positive right. However this right is trumped by the right of the child to freedom from abuse, a negative freedom. So the pedophile can persue his happiness so long as he does not inflict harm. This means if he also obtains happiness from eating candy bars, then he should stick to doing that.

You argue that the right not to be slandered or discriminated against do not exist. As basic human rights they do exist in the right to be respected as a human. Additionally, rights are actually legal entities, they are things that you are endowed with by the law in your country / state. As far as I was aware, slander is illegal in nearly all countries, with some specified exceptions such as an MP within the House of commons in the UK. One does have a right not to be slandered, in the legal sense.

If you do not allow a difference between positive and negative rights, then how do you decide that the pedophile is wrong, not the child?

Eh. No. The Pedophile has right to pursue happiness but not that kind.

Then how can you say he has the right to pursue happiness? If one says something is true, one implies that it is true in all cases. If I say something like "Mammals have hair," I'm implying that I believe all mammals have hair. Similarly, if Adam said Person A has the right to pursue happiness, he's implying that he always has the right to pursue happiness. Of course, if he said something like "People, in most cases, have the right to pursue happiness," he wouldn't be implying such a thing.

In my mind your IQ falls about 40 points when you use the little gun smily in your topic heading.

That's a sweeping assumption.....but one i'm happy for you to have!!!! :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:

Aren't you asking something like "Do you prefer Italian food or Lasagna"?

My first thought as well (different examples though. ;))

Erm... Would the child be happy? (They have the same right as well). :rolleyes:

Sorry rights were ment for adults, not kids. and that is just how it is. not that i agree with abuse, but no vote, no rights.

If supposing a person has a right to something, this something ought be given to them, we can deduce that if two rights exclude each other, what ought be furthered contradicts itself as well. And as we assume that what ought be furthered (i.e. morality) is noncontradictory, a person therefore cannot have a right in contradiction with the right of another.

What? :confused:

It still is not too clear. The right of the pedophile, is a positive right, a right to pursue happiness. The right of the child is a negative right, the right to not be harmed.
Negative rights always take precedence over positive rights for exactly the type of reason you cite. Negative rights can not, logically, be contradictory, whereas positive rights can impinge on both the positive and negative rights of others.
Free speech is a positive right. It is a right to do something, to speak. Where it impinges on the negative rights of others such as the right not to be discriminated against, the right to not be slandered, then free speech has to be curtailed.
Where it impinges on a positive right, ie the right to listen to the birds singing, then it has to be culturally negotiated.

sounds about right.

Sorry rights were ment for adults, not kids. and that is just how it is. not that i agree with abuse, but no vote, no rights.

Surely Prisoners, Prisoners of war, people living in dictatorships with no votes have rights????

So no Vote/No right seems a bit harsh???

For rights as well we need to look beyond the fences and walls that have been created by man and think on a global scale!!!

Sorry rights were ment for adults, not kids. and that is just how it is. not that i agree with abuse, but no vote, no rights.

Your saying since kids don't have the right to vote, they shouldn't have rights?

They should have the same rights as us to a point.

Rights are in effect, enshrined freedoms. Now there exists somethign called positive freedom. The freedom to sing in the shower, the freedom to vote. There are also negative freedoms, freedom from abuse, freedom from imprisonment without trial. i.e. the difference is between freedom to (+ve) and freedom from (-ve).

As rights are freedoms, then there also exist positive and negative rights.
The pedophile, like the rest of us has the freedom to (+ve) persue his own happiness. This is a positive right. However this right is trumped by the right of the child to freedom from abuse, a negative freedom. So the pedophile can persue his happiness so long as he does not inflict harm. This means if he also obtains happiness from eating candy bars, then he should stick to doing that.

You argue that the right not to be slandered or discriminated against do not exist. As basic human rights they do exist in the right to be respected as a human. Additionally, rights are actually legal entities, they are things that you are endowed with by the law in your country / state. As far as I was aware, slander is illegal in nearly all countries, with some specified exceptions such as an MP within the House of commons in the UK. One does have a right not to be slandered, in the legal sense.

If you do not allow a difference between positive and negative rights, then how do you decide that the pedophile is wrong, not the child?

there is no such thing as a right to respect.
The pedophile would always be wrong because his actions would violate the right of the child to life and personal security.

Then how can you say he has the right to pursue happiness? If one says something is true, one implies that it is true in all cases. If I say something like "Mammals have hair," I'm implying that I believe all mammals have hair. Similarly, if Adam said Person A has the right to pursue happiness, he's implying that he always has the right to pursue happiness. Of course, if he said something like "People, in most cases, have the right to pursue happiness," he wouldn't be implying such a thing.
Your right to pursue happiness only goes as far as my personal space. When you violate my space, then you are trampling on my rights.
As children per se, don't really have rights (they don't have them until they are about 8 to 13), then you are violating not their rights but the property rights of the parents. At least that's how Americans see children. As property, all the way up to the day they turn 18 and in some cases beyond that.

Your right to pursue happiness only goes as far as my personal space. When you violate my space, then you are trampling on my rights.
As children per se, don't really have rights (they don't have them until they are about 8 to 13), then you are violating not their rights but the property rights of the parents. At least that's how Americans see children. As property, all the way up to the day they turn 18 and in some cases beyond that.

Children property?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's mental, disgusting and unbelievable!!! I wish I could say only in America but hey they have kids in sweat shops in indonesia.

Mind you this is coming from a government (notice how I don't say country) who deny that people have the right to food!!!

there is no such thing as a right to respect.
The pedophile would always be wrong because his actions would violate the right of the child to life and personal security.

The right to be treated as an end in yourself, as a person and not as a means to any other end. This right exists, and is fundamental to nearly all moral systems (Utilitarianism excepted). I could have stated it in this long winded way, but I prefer to abreviate the description to the simple description of respect.

If you think this does not exist, then where does the right to life and personal security come from?
(I am not discussing legal rights, as we are from many different states with different laws. I am discussing conceptual rights, those rights that the vast majority of us agree that we should have.)

Rights are in effect, enshrined freedoms. Now there exists somethign called positive freedom. The freedom to sing in the shower, the freedom to vote. There are also negative freedoms, freedom from abuse, freedom from imprisonment without trial. i.e. the difference is between freedom to (+ve) and freedom from (-ve).

As rights are freedoms, then there also exist positive and negative rights.
The pedophile, like the rest of us has the freedom to (+ve) persue his own happiness. This is a positive right. However this right is trumped by the right of the child to freedom from abuse, a negative freedom. So the pedophile can persue his happiness so long as he does not inflict harm. This means if he also obtains happiness from eating candy bars, then he should stick to doing that.

You argue that the right not to be slandered or discriminated against do not exist. As basic human rights they do exist in the right to be respected as a human. Additionally, rights are actually legal entities, they are things that you are endowed with by the law in your country / state. As far as I was aware, slander is illegal in nearly all countries, with some specified exceptions such as an MP within the House of commons in the UK. One does have a right not to be slandered, in the legal sense.

If you do not allow a difference between positive and negative rights, then how do you decide that the pedophile is wrong, not the child?

Which took precedence, Louis XVI's freedom from being overthrown or ninety-seven percent of the population's freedom to overthrow him? The former is a negative right; the latter is positive.

What's more important the right to say what you want, when you want?

Or the right to live your life peacefully and happily with out fear? :mp5:
i don't believe anybody has a "right" to live happily and without fear, since the government and society are not responsible for an individual's state of mind. you have the right to PURSUE your happiness, and the right to exercise those liberties which will not interfere with the liberties of others, but if you are unable to feel happy and safe then that's your problem.

Your right to pursue happiness only goes as far as my personal space. When you violate my space, then you are trampling on my rights.
"Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

bingo.