NationStates Jolt Archive

Since, I am told, the anti-Iraq war protestors are giving encouragement to terrorists while demoralising the America troops. This means that they bear some responsibility for American deaths. How is this not a good reason to outlaw protest? The lives of soldiers are far more important than the right to free speech.

as you can already see, the leftist radicals and islamo facists have a pact...it is kinda like Germany and Italy of world war 2...they are busy dividing up their areas of control....

When the protesters protest it tells the insergents in Iraq to keep fighting, its working and it just raises their moral and will to fight.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9522526&postcount=106

Yes, but you really can't deny that the large number of people against the War in Iraq hurts the effort by keeping the insurgents going. The more possibility they see of the United States giving up on the effort do to lack of morale, the more optimistic they become, which keeps them going longer.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9522580&postcount=109

No one should be surprised by this. The extreme anti-americanism of the leftist protestors is just getting more vile each day.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9522603&postcount=112

I think so. It's stupid to say that the war would end if protesting stopped, but I think it's fair to say that it would run more smoothly, and that the insurgents wouldn't fight as hard.
Surely, given this, there is no justification for the continued permission of protest?

Dude, you're citing opinions posted on Nationstates as your sources for this? Do you honestly think there is any possible way that's going to fly?

Because the idea that anti-war protestors are in any way responsible for American soldiers' deaths is specious reasoning.

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were putting together a Moderation thread to accuse people of trolling. I know I certainly feel like I'm being baited when I'm accused of anti-Americanism because I choose to protest an immoral and unnecessary war.

Dude, you're citing opinions posted on Nationstates as your sources for this? Do you honestly think there is any possible way that's going to fly?

I think hes showing the irony of the above statements when seen alongside the 'free speech' thingy....

...or i could be utterly wrong :D :D :D

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were putting together a Moderation thread to accuse people of trolling. I know I certainly feel like I'm being baited when I'm accused of anti-Americanism because I choose to protest an immoral and unnecessary war.
Most of the posters I quoted are not trolls.

Well, this is always the danger of free speech and why people don't like it. I mean, I know I'd love it if the Klan and Aryan Nation would quit with their "up with whitey" crap, because really deep down I'm afraid they will change someone's mind and that person will begin to believe them.

Do I actually believe protesters are causing American deaths? No. The entire world knows we have free speech and use it with a vengeance. I think it would make more of an impact if it were outlawed and people were risking jail to get their opinions heard.

I don't think peaceful protest is ever wrong, although at times it is offensive (like calling them babykillers, murderers, etc.). That doesn't mean they should ever lose their right to protest, and should be allowed to protest where they want (as long as it doesn't violate security standards).

However, if it turns violent or physically abusive, they should be crushed with the fullest extent of the law. Free expression doesn't protect violence used in the exercising of that right.

Most of the posters I quoted are not trolls.
In your opinion.

In response to your actual question in this thread, however, all the justification I need to protest is contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. If someone else uses my words to further urge them on to wicked deeds, I can't be held responsible for that unless I'm doing the urging. While those who support this war may argue that my protests encourage the insurgents in Iraq, I can argue that their continued support of failed US policies not only encourages those insurgents, but gives them added incentive to up their attacks.

In the end, both charges are utter and complete bullshit, because the only ones who know what's motivating them are the insurgents, and their word on it, assuming we could even get it, would be untrustworthy, because they'd probably answer in whatever way they felt would garner them the greatest support--at least, that's the charge that would be made.

It's an endless cycle of assumption and re-assumption and in the end, no one knows anything about what motivates these people to do what they do and to curtail freedom of speech for that, well, you'd better kill me first, because I'm not shutting up.

There is some validity in the issue of protesters doing more harm than good. though to remove te right to assemble is too much.

However, These protests today are just getting out of hand. they're just a bunch of bitchy attention whores wanting tobitch about something. it's good to assemble and show your support or dislike for something, but dressing up like a cow and having a guy dressed like a lumberjack pantemime cutting your head off is retarded. I'm thinking there should be a code of conduct or something. you know? they don't have to stop bitching, they just shouldn't be such idiots about it. have some actual facts, get a case to bring to the table, don't meander around with a sign that makes a vain stab at the president by comparing him to hitler.

Since, I am told, the anti-Iraq war protestors are giving encouragement to terrorists while demoralising the America troops. This means that they bear some responsibility for American deaths. How is this not a good reason to outlaw protest? The lives of soldiers are far more important than the right to free speech.

The lives of soldiers are more important than free speech. Free speech is one of the most important rights in a democracy. Therefore soldiers should not be used to spread such ideas as free speech. Therefore the war in Iraq is wrong, as it's based on spreading freedom and democracy. Therefore we should excercise our free speech in ending it. Free speech could cause soldiers to get killed. The lives of soldiers are more important than free speech...

Error! Error! Bzzzz! Crackle! Boom! [head asplodes]

Ah yes, let's outlaw protesting. And while we are at it, let's get rid of those pesky elections! :rolleyes:

Most of the posters I quoted are not trolls.

No, every single one of them is. If you post stupid bullshit like that, you're a troll, no matter what else you may have done.

Since, I am told, the anti-Iraq war protestors are giving encouragement to terrorists while demoralising the America troops. This means that they bear some responsibility for American deaths. How is this not a good reason to outlaw protest? The lives of soldiers are far more important than the right to free speech.

Because we aren't Nazis?

Things people say get people killed all the time. That doesn't mean you can ban saying dangerous things, it just means you can point out how stupid those things are to say in the hopes that people won't say them as often.

Because we aren't Nazis?

Things people say get people killed all the time. That doesn't mean you can ban saying dangerous things, it just means you can point out how stupid those things are to say in the hopes that people won't say them as often.
I'm glad to see that, even though we don't agree on much else, we agree on this.

You know, if I didn't know any better, I'd think you were putting together a Moderation thread to accuse people of trolling. I know I certainly feel like I'm being baited when I'm accused of anti-Americanism because I choose to protest an immoral and unnecessary war.

Nazz

Could the iraqis have taken down Saddam themselves? If you really think so, then maybe the war is/was unnecessary.

Is freedom immoral? Isn't freedom a bastion of liberalism? What, exactly, is immoral about removing a dictator and giving a people the right to a free vote?

No, every single one of them is. If you post stupid bullshit like that, you're a troll, no matter what else you may have done.

How are the points quoted "stupid bullshit," as you so put it? Morale is one of many accepted indicators of how well a war will proceed, and when people tell you that you fight for a lie or that what you're doing is criminal, it lowers your morale. It's pretty obvious, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm glad to see that, even though we don't agree on much else, we agree on this.

Meh, I know it hurts... I just threw up a little. ;)

Because we aren't Nazis?

Things people say get people killed all the time. That doesn't mean you can ban saying dangerous things, it just means you can point out how stupid those things are to say in the hopes that people won't say them as often.Nicely put.

Can anyone show proof of a single instance where a soldier was killed because of something a protestor said?

Has a scientific poll ever been done to show how our troops feel about protestors? Have psychologists or experts on military morale ever done a survey of our Iraqi troops to see if this is a problem?

If we assume that the things the protestors are saying is baseless, then I think it's a fault of the soldier's training and their commanders if they become hopelessly demoralized because of something the protestors say.

I could just as easily, with as much factual support, say that the regular trashing of the more than 50% of Americans as being Anti-American for thinking the Iraq war is a bad idea causes the soldiers to question what they are fighting for and gets them killed. Why are they fighting for millions of Anti-Americans? How should the soldiers feel when they are told so many Americans hate America?

I could just as easily, with as much factual support, say that the regular trashing of the more than 50% of Americans as being Anti-American for thinking the Iraq war is a bad idea causes the soldiers to question what they are fighting for and gets them killed. Why are they fighting for millions of Anti-Americans?

Good point. However, I don't support the mass bashing of people as Anti-Americans, either.

Good point. However, I don't support the mass bashing of people as Anti-Americans, either.

That's because, even though we disagree on some things or details about things, you are sill a rational person. Hence why you are more than welcome in my Anti-Idiot party. :D

How are the points quoted "stupid bullshit," as you so put it? Morale is one of many accepted indicators of how well a war will proceed, and when people tell you that you fight for a lie or that what you're doing is criminal, it lowers your morale. It's pretty obvious, as far as I'm concerned.

How about...Instead of making them continue fighting an illegal war, you get them out?

Hey, no more morale issue!

Nazz

Could the iraqis have taken down Saddam themselves? If you really think so, then maybe the war is/was unnecessary.

Is freedom immoral? Isn't freedom a bastion of liberalism? What, exactly, is immoral about removing a dictator and giving a people the right to a free vote?You have a very odd definition of the word "necessary" apparently. And let's please wait until the new Iraqi government arises before we make any judgments as to whether it's better than Hussein. Hussein was a monster, no question, but is he any worse than, say, the people running the Sudan right now? How free are the citizens of the Sudan? How about Saudi Arabia--how do they stack up in the individual freedom category? And if Iraq winds up with the constitution it looks like they're leaning toward, one based on Islamic law that would turn women into chattel again, then just how big a favor have we done Iraq?

When I speak of necessity, I speak of the US's national interests, and in those terms, this war was utterly and completely unnecessary. And the way we were led into it, with lies and scare tactics, was immoral.

Nazz

Could the iraqis have taken down Saddam themselves? If you really think so, then maybe the war is/was unnecessary.

Is freedom immoral? Isn't freedom a bastion of liberalism? What, exactly, is immoral about removing a dictator and giving a people the right to a free vote?

Who would have thought the American Colonists, out gunned and out-trained, would succeed against England, one of the greatest powers of the day?

Can anyone show proof of a single instance where a soldier was killed because of something a protestor said?

It's not a direct effect, so no. It's a general concept that affects success indirectly.

If we assume that the things the protestors are saying is baseless, then I think it's a fault of the soldier's training and their commanders if they become hopelessly demoralized because of something the protestors say.

It doesn't matter whether what the soldiers hear is baseless. It still makes some of them question their roles in the war. It still makes them say to themselves, "Gee, I wonder if maybe the protestors are right."

Who would have thought the American Colonists, out gunned and out-trained, would succeed against England, one of the greatest powers of the day?
Hmm. One could argue that the war of independence was really a civil war given how many 'Americans' weren't willing to join in on the side of the 'revolutionaries'. Independence was a nice ideal for the participants but possibly they just wanted to evade taxes.

How about...Instead of making them continue fighting an illegal war, you get them out?

Hey, no more morale issue!

You just lost. I'm done trying to argue with you. I'm not like the homeless drunks you see on the street talking to brick walls.

It doesn't matter whether what the soldiers hear is baseless. It still makes some of them question their roles in the war. It still makes them say to themselves, "Gee, I wonder if maybe the protestors are right."
Good.

?

You just lost. I'm done trying to argue with you. I'm not like the homeless drunks you see on the street talking to brick walls.

What was the name of that internet law?

The one that says, "If you declare you've won a thread, you have in fact just lost."

Yeah, I think that applies here.

Good.

?

No, not good, because it hurts morale. Have you been reading at all?

What was the name of that internet law?

The one that says, "If you declare you've won a thread, you have in fact just lost."

Yeah, I think that applies here.

Where in this thread did I declare I won?

No, not good, because it hurts morale. Have you been reading at all?
Narrow view of what should lead one to define whether something is good, ne?

I have been reading, thankee, but mainly from sources other than NS General. I recommend it, sweetcheeks.

Where in this thread did I declare I won?

You just lost. I'm done trying to argue with you. I'm not like the homeless drunks you see on the street talking to brick walls.

If two people are arguing, and one declares the other has lost, it follows that they believe they won.

It's not a direct effect, so no. It's a general concept that affects success indirectly.



It doesn't matter whether what the soldiers hear is baseless. It still makes some of them question their roles in the war. It still makes them say to themselves, "Gee, I wonder if maybe the protestors are right."

They are still trained professionals, and their lives are on the line. Do you really think someone has time for philosophical thoughts when they're in the middle of a firefight? Furthermore, they have a more direct connection to their fellow soldiers than they do to some anonymous protestor half a world a way. They are not going to let their buddies down. I don't think anyone who belongs in the military anyway will fail to do their job competently just because of what someone says.

I dunno, maybe I just have more faith in our troops than you do. :D

Why do you hate our troops? :D

Those last two lines are facetious, by the way. They are merely put there for effect.

Narrow view of what should lead one to define whether something is good, ne?

Not really, because we're arguing about whether or not protestors negatively affect troop morale. If you were implying something else is good, it's a bit irrelevant.

I have been reading, thankee, but mainly from sources other than NS General. I recommend it, sweetcheeks.

Gee, that has a lot to do with this thread. :rolleyes:

If two people are arguing, and one declares the other has lost, it follows that they believe they won.

Yeah, but two people aren't arguing, like five people are. There are quite a few more people that have to lose before I win. Nice try.

God, an innocent wee comment ["Good. ?"] and I get jumped on. I really should be less flippant.

Not really, because we're arguing about whether or not protestors negatively affect troop morale. If you were implying something else is good, it's a bit irrelevant.

So, you're saying that the benefit or cost of protesting should only be considered on very selective criteria?

And should we debate the relative benefit or cost of safe sex while only considering the fact that sex is really fun, while totally disregarding STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

Yeah, but two people aren't arguing, like five people are. There are quite a few more people that have to lose before I win. Nice try.

Total nonsense. You declared that I lost. To you. No one else was involved.

In response to your actual question in this thread, however, all the justification I need to protest is contained in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
That is legal justification (within the borders of America) but is it also moral justification?

Because we aren't Nazis?

Things people say get people killed all the time. That doesn't mean you can ban saying dangerous things, it just means you can point out how stupid those things are to say in the hopes that people won't say them as often.
Why are words more valuable than life? I expected you of all people to back me up on this.

You have a very odd definition of the word "necessary" apparently. And let's please wait until the new Iraqi government arises before we make any judgments as to whether it's better than Hussein. Hussein was a monster, no question, but is he any worse than, say, the people running the Sudan right now?
We were talking about Iraq. Why did you jumpt to Sudan?

When I speak of necessity, I speak of the US's national interests, and in those terms, this war was utterly and completely unnecessary. And the way we were led into it, with lies and scare tactics, was immoral.
There are more important things than selfish national interests! Why is it right that anyone lives in suffering due to accident of birth? That goes for people oppressed everywhere, whether by dictators, exploitation or poverty.

Who would have thought the American Colonists, out gunned and out-trained, would succeed against England, one of the greatest powers of the day?
They had foreign powers like France and the Netherlands intervening on their behalf. If it weren't for them, they would not have prevailed.

Do you really think someone has time for philosophical thoughs when they're in the middle of a firefight?

No, definitely not. But they have time during the eight hours they're hiding in a trench waiting for the firefight.

Furthermore, they have a more direct connection to their fellow soldiers than they do to some anonymous protestor half a world a way. They are not going to let their buddies down.

True enough, but there are only ten to twenty fellow soldiers against thousands of protestors. Plus, the fellow soldiers could be experiencing similar doubts.

I don't think anyone who belongs in the military anyway will fail to do their job competently just because of what someone says.

I wouldn't go that far. What other people think has a way of affecting even the most secure individuals - and not everyone in the military is a secure individual.

I dunno, maybe I just have more faith in our troops than you do. :D

That's probably true enough.

Total nonsense. You declared that I lost. To you. No one else was involved.

No, I didn't. I just said you lost. Quit lying and please go away or say something intelligent.

That is legal justification (within the borders of America) but is it also moral justification?
Next time, read the entire explanation, or quote it--I gave a moral justification.

We were talking about Iraq. Why did you jumpt to Sudan?
I was responding to another poster who was speaking in very vague general terms about abstracts like freedom. Again--look at the context, the entire context, before you ask a question like that.


There are more important things than selfish national interests! Why is it right that anyone lives in suffering due to accident of birth? That goes for people oppressed everywhere, whether by dictators, exploitation or poverty.

I agree--but that's not what was under discussion at the time. If I ruled the world, there would be a far more equitable distribution of wealth, but I don't--and many here are damn glad of that, I imagine--and when speaking of the current political system, in our current situation, I have to deal with what the reality is in this country. When Bush argued that this was a necessary war, he was not arguing for humanitarian reasons--he was arguing from a national security standpoint, and he continues to this day to link the Iraq War and the 9/11 attacks, a further sign of his continued dishonesty. When I say that the Iraq War was unnecessary, it is in that limited context--Iraq was no threat to the security of the US, and therefore a preventive war against it was unnecessary.

No, I didn't. I just said you lost. Quit lying and please go away or say something intelligent.

Okay, so if, at the time, I had only one post, which was a reply to you and because of that post you declare that I lose...In what sense does that not mean losing to you?

You're just coming up with random nonsense to save face. The lying bit...That's pretty funny. Quit being disingenuous.
.

Since, I am told, the anti-Iraq war protestors are giving encouragement to terrorists while demoralising the America troops. This means that they bear some responsibility for American deaths. How is this not a good reason to outlaw protest? The lives of soldiers are far more important than the right to free speech.




http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9522526&postcount=106


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9522580&postcount=109


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9522603&postcount=112


Surely, given this, there is no justification for the continued permission of protest?

Are you familiar with a document called " The US constitution " ?
why would you be so willing to throw your rights away ? not to mention every one elses . I wonder if you can even understand the true value and importance of the first ammendment ?

So, you're saying that the benefit or cost of protesting should only be considered on very selective criteria?

I just said that protesting should be legal...

And should we debate the relative benefit or cost of safe sex while only considering the fact that sex is really fun, while totally disregarding STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

Somebody help me out here. Does anyone else have any clue what this guy is rambling on about?

I just said that protesting should be legal...

So? You also seem to be saying that people shouldn't do it, because it hurts moral. And when the point that maybe there are other benefits out there, you respond with a, "That's not relevant."

Which is nonsense. It's relevant.

Somebody help me out here. Does anyone else have any clue what this guy is rambling on about?

It's really quite simple. When you debate something and ignore all the arguments but the ones you want to hear, then it is a pointless debate.

Got it, yet?

When Bush argued that this was a necessary war, he was not arguing for humanitarian reasons--he was arguing from a national security standpoint, and he continues to this day to link the Iraq War and the 9/11 attacks, a further sign of his continued dishonesty. When I say that the Iraq War was unnecessary, it is in that limited context--Iraq was no threat to the security of the US, and therefore a preventive war against it was unnecessary.
The ends justify the means. You are saying that the questionable nature of the means of the war (lies) nullify any positive ends. This is actually common right-wing logic, and I disagree with it.

When the result is freedom and security for Iraqis, the means are justified, and the lies told to start the war don't really matter. I don't see why people are still so hung up on them. If the welfare of Iraqis matters to you at all, why should their fate hang on whether Bush is honest or not?

So? You also seem to be saying that people shouldn't do it, because it hurts moral. And when the point that maybe there are other benefits out there, you respond with a, "That's not relevant."

Which is nonsense. It's relevant.



It's really quite simple. When you debate something and ignore all the arguments but the ones you want to hear, then it is a pointless debate.

Got it, yet?

I can say from experience that he doesn't ignore arguments, but that he is lessinclined to listen to arguments couched in a confrontational manner. 'm pretty left, but I find that he agrees with me or says "good point," often when I lay out my arguments in a reasonable manner.

The ends justify the means. You are saying that the questionable nature of the means of the war (lies) nullify any positive ends. This is actually common right-wing logic, and I disagree with it.

When the result is freedom and security for Iraqis, the means are justified, and the lies told to start the war don't really matter. I don't see why people are still so hung up on them. If the welfare of Iraqis matters to you at all, why should their fate hang on whether Bush is honest or not?
When you argue that the ends justify the means, then you can justify any number of immoral and irrational actions. And as of yet, I can't point to any positive ends that have come out of this war. Iraqis are dying at a faster rate today than they were under Hussein, and half the country is about to become effectively disenfranchised and returned to chattel status under this new Constitution. That's not progress in my book. That's simply trading one form of authoritarianism for another, and in this case, half the country is worse off for it. Women actually had rights under Hussein's rule--they won't have them under an Islamic constitution.

I can say from experience that he doesn't ignore arguments, but that he is lessinclined to listen to arguments couched in a confrontational manner. 'm pretty left, but I find that he agrees with me or says "good point," often when I lay out my arguments in a reasonable manner.

Oh yeah?

Why don't you go back and watch his reaction to my first post and everything that followed?

He sure did debate the point I first made really well. If you want to talk about confrontational, look to him.

Why do I get the feeling that this whole terrorism and war thing is intended to justify attacks on freedom?

So? You also seem to be saying that people shouldn't do it, because it hurts moral. And when the point that maybe there are other benefits out there, you respond with a, "That's not relevant."

Which is nonsense. It's relevant.

When have I ever done that?



It's really quite simple. When you debate something and ignore all the arguments but the ones you want to hear, then it is a pointless debate.

Got it, yet?

Your entire argument consisted of, "No, protestors is goods for us, we should leave illegal war," the latter of which is no longer factually true, and the former of which depends upon the accuracy of the latter.

Oh yeah?

Why don't you go back and watch his reaction to my first post and everything that followed?

He sure did debate the point I first made really well. If you want to talk about confrontational, look to him.

Yeah, one instance says everything about a person. I'm basing my appraisal of him on several posts. You do your side of the argument no good when you get all worked up and jump to conclusions (and the same goes for him or anybody.)

Please review a number of posts by me before you make up your mind about me. You'll probably find that we agree about a lot of things. I consider myself a moderate radical lefty. :D

When have I ever done that?

From this very thread:
Not really, because we're arguing about whether or not protestors negatively affect troop morale. If you were implying something else is good, it's a bit irrelevant.



Your entire argument consisted of, "No, protestors is goods for us, we should leave illegal war," the latter of which is no longer factually true, and the former of which depends upon the accuracy of the latter.

How would you know? You dismissed my very first post in the thread with, "You lose." We haven't even gotten into the actual meat of the issue.

After that, you've simpy been maligning my character.

And hey, I'll change my wording to 'illegal occupation'. Whatever.

Outlawing protests would be a violation of the constitution. No matter how traitorous the protestors or vile their speech, they still have a right to speak.

However, that doesn't mean I can't pulp them for 'offending' me :D

Outlawing protests would be a violation of the constitution. No matter how traitorous the protestors or vile their speech, they still have a right to speak.

However, that doesn't mean I can't pulp them for 'offending' me :D

Sure you can, as long as you accept the punishment for your actions and the occasional whuppin' you'll get.

No, definitely not. But they have time during the eight hours they're hiding in a trench waiting for the firefight.
Stop living in the past. No one uses trench warfare anymore.

However, that doesn't mean I can't pulp them for 'offending' me :D
You go do that. Then tell Bubba I said "Hi".

Sure you can, as long as you accept the punishment for your actions and the occasional whuppin' you'll get.
Yeah, I love how some right-wingers think that liberals are a bunch of limp-wristed pantywaists who can't mix it up. Just because we'd rather not fight doesn't mean we can't, and even a cursory study of the labor movement in the US should prove that we can throw down when necessary.

Alright! The game is up! I admit that I don't really advocate the criminalisation of anti-war protestors. Althought I am pro-war, I don't think that they should be outlawed nor do I think that they are harming the soldiers. I mainly started this thread to see what the people quoted would say when presented with the logical conclusion of their remarks.

When you argue that the ends justify the means, then you can justify any number of immoral and irrational actions.
And when you argue that means justify ends, you can act like a objectivist capitalist and justify any number of dreadful ends.

That's not progress in my book. That's simply trading one form of authoritarianism for another, and in this case, half the country is worse off for it. Women actually had rights under Hussein's rule--they won't have them under an Islamic constitution.
The Sunnis are not sufficiently participating in the process of their own accord. In any case, they will not be the victims of genocide, which is more than can be said for the Kurds under Hussein.

"We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the recieved opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigourously and earnestly contested, it will by most of those who recieve it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering and ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."
-- John Stuart Mill, Chapter 2 - Of The Liberty of Thought and Discussion, On Liberty

Mill gives us four reasons why opinion should never be banned or restricted:

1) The banned opinion may very well be truth.
2) The banned opinion may contain a portion of truth.
3) The opinion not banned will no longer be held from reason or pursuit of truth...
4) ...Resulting in the loss of any truth that opinion may have held, replaced by zealotry, bias, and irrationality.

LOL, would the soldiers fight as hard for freedom if they knew it was an illusion? ;)

"I am told"??? Form your own damn opinion. Unless somebody's done a study on it or it's mindfuckingly obvious, then it's not enough reason to outlaw it.

Oh yeah, and the First Amendment.

Too many who have gone before me have fought, bled and died for our consititution, and what it means and represents.

Do I think that what these protesters are doing is wrong? Yes. Do I think they should be arrested? No.

However, i believe that these current protesters are more of a media creation than a real spontanious protest.

And when you argue that means justify ends, you can act like a objectivist capitalist and justify any number of dreadful ends.I never argued that the means have to justify the ends. You posited that freedom for the Iraqis--an abstract which has no concrete definition--warranted military intervention and that whatever arguments were given in order to make that happen, honest or not, were justified in order to make that undefined objective a reality. I said that 1) the argument that the ends justify the means allows the arguer to rationalize any sort of behavior, even immoral behavior and that 2) what is being argued is freedom for the Iraqis is not, by my definition, freedom, by any stretch of the imagination, and that in some respects, fully half of the country will be worse off under an Islamic Republic than they were under Hussein's totalitarian regime. Means justifying the ends is nowhere in that argument.

The Sunnis are not sufficiently participating in the process of their own accord. In any case, they will not be the victims of genocide, which is more than can be said for the Kurds under Hussein.
Even if the Sunnis were completely invested in this process, that wouldn't change the fact that, at best, we're going to wind up with a fundamentalist Islamic Republic that will deny women the most basic of rights. That's not an improvement in my book.

...
Surely, given this, there is no justification for the continued permission of protest?

Except maybe that what makes US the greatest nation in the world is the respect for Freedom and Democracy. Unless that has changed and now God gets all the respect.

So? You also seem to be saying that people shouldn't do it, because it hurts moral. And when the point that maybe there are other benefits out there, you respond with a, "That's not relevant."

Which is nonsense. It's relevant.

Not really, because we're arguing about whether or not protestors negatively affect troop morale. If you were implying something else is good, it's a bit irrelevant.

Gee, you really nailed me there. Oh, wait, the point I called irrelevant had nothing to do with showing the existence of "other benefits." Nice try, again, though.

And hey, I'll change my wording to 'illegal occupation'. Whatever.

Also incorrect, thus just as unjustified a point.

because of the belive in freedom of speech.....eventhough i am not a fan of protestors of the anti-war verity.

because of the belive in freedom of speech.....eventhough i am not a fan of protestors of the anti-war verity.

Because of the speed in freedom of speech, even though you are not a fan of protestors of the anti-war fact? That doesn't even make since.

PS: I understood what you meant, I just found the fact that 2/3 of your misspellings were other words to be amusing.

i am saying that you cannot outlaw anti-war protests because of the 1st amendment.




sorry for the spelling just got back from work i am dead tired.



Because of the speed in freedom of speech, even though you are not a fan of protestors of the anti-war fact? That doesn't even make since.
also what do mean in that line.

also what do mean in that line.

If I'm not mistaken, belive means immediately, or perhaps just quickly. I can't remember. Look it up.

The right to peaceful protest is guaranteed in our constitution and if it were outlawed we would be violated our own bill of rights and that just isnt going to happen. YOu may not agree with what that person says but they have the right to say it ..would you want someone to shut you up if you were voicing your opinion esp. if it were un popular. The Iraq war was about removing Hussein from office and allowing free elections it is not about terrorism that is in Afghanistan. Protesting is not helping the terrorist it is participating in the democratic process we are supposed to be fighting for so you see the opposite would be true. To shut them up with laws would be giving in to the terrorists.

The right to peaceful protest is guaranteed in our constitution and if it were outlawed we would be violated our own bill of rights and that just isnt going to happen. YOu may not agree with what that person says but they have the right to say it ..would you want someone to shut you up if you were voicing your opinion esp. if it were un popular. The Iraq war was about removing Hussein from office and allowing free elections it is not about terrorism that is in Afghanistan. Protesting is not helping the terrorist it is participating in the democratic process we are supposed to be fighting for so you see the opposite would be true. To shut them up with laws would be giving in to the terrorists.

...

American General: "Well, guys, fight your asses off, democracy is working to its fullest back in the states. All the protestors are making sure everyone knows how stupid they think what you're fighting for is. Rest comfortably in the knowledge that half of the people at home think you're dying for nothing."

Terrorist Leader: "Well, guys, you may as well give up, half the Americans back in the U.S. think the soldiers are killing you for no good reason, and are in support of a lie, which is bad news for us because they are free to say that."

I'm sorry, but that statement just didn't make any sense.

General: "Well, guys, fight your asses off, democracy is working to its fullest back in the states. All the protestors are making sure everyone knows how stupid they think what you're fighting for is. Rest comfortably in the knowledge that half of the people at home think you're dying for nothing."
Half the people would be thinking they were dying for nothing anyway. They just wouldn't be allowed to say so in public for fear of being dragged away and shot. :rolleyes:

And I ask again, how happy would the soldiers be, being told they're fighting for freedom and democracy, if they don't have it at home? Something tells me you would be doing more harm to morale than good.

Since, I am told, the anti-Iraq war protestors are giving encouragement to terrorists while demoralising the America troops. This means that they bear some responsibility for American deaths. How is this not a good reason to outlaw protest? The lives of soldiers are far more important than the right to free speech.

Surely, given this, there is no justification for the continued permission of protest?

Please keep in mind that free speech is not a privilege granted by permission. It is a right bought by blood.

The justification is that they are there to protect freedom in the first place. When a soldier gives his life, it is because he or she decided to serve an idea that the freedom of others is more important than their own lives. To say that that freedom should be squelched is the wrong conclusion.

Half the people would be thinking they were dying for nothing anyway. They just wouldn't be allowed to say so in public for fear of being dragged away and shot. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but the other half wouldn't be experiencing the same doubts the one half was.

And I ask again, how happy would the soldiers be, being told they're fighting for freedom and democracy, if they don't have it at home? Something tells me you would be doing more harm to morale than good.

They don't need protestors telling them they fight for a lie to realize that freedom and democracy still exists at home. And democracy existing at home would not damage insurgent morale as much as protestors existing at home boosts it.

Ah yes, let's outlaw protesting. And while we are at it, let's get rid of those pesky elections! :rolleyes:
right on!

dont these people understand how hard it is to wage war when it has to be JUSTIFIED?? why dont they just close their eyes and send their son and daughters to fight no matter what the reasons?

Gee, you really nailed me there. Oh, wait, the point I called irrelevant had nothing to do with showing the existence of "other benefits." Nice try, again, though.


Narrow view of what should lead one to define whether something is good, ne?

So suggesting that the protests may have effects beyond troop morale that are beneficial isn't relevant to protests possibly having effects beyond troop morale that are beneficial?

See, it's not that the point had nothing to do with other benefits. It's that you dismissed it before Werteswandel ever got anywhere with it.

Also incorrect, thus just as unjustified a point.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The war was illegal to begin with, it follows that everything following is illegal as well.

Snip
Bill O'Reilly once said, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" It's an interesting quote.

So suggesting that the protests may have effects beyond troop morale that are beneficial isn't relevant to protests possibly having effects beyond troop morale that are beneficial?

Jesus Christ, that's not what he suggested, will you just think for two seconds before you speak? I'm really losing my patience with you. I would swear you're trying to flamebait me.

See, it's not that the point had nothing to do with other benefits. It's that you dismissed it before Werteswandel ever got anywhere with it.

If you or he had an actual, relevant point to make, you should have made it instead of making petty little one-sentence comments, unless you wanted your comments to be treated as such and ignored.

Saying it doesn't make it so. The war was illegal to begin with, it follows that everything following is illegal as well.

The war was hardly illegal. It was sketchy because a large part of the U.N. didn't like it. The president has every right to go into war for a limited time without Congressional approval. He did so, Congress approved during that time, it was legal.

Jesus Christ, that's not what he suggested, will you just think for two seconds before you speak? I'm really losing my patience with you. I would swear you're trying to flamebait me.



If you or he had an actual, relevant point to make, you should have made it instead of making petty little one-sentence comments, unless you wanted your comments to be treated as such and ignored.



The war was hardly illegal. It was sketchy because a large part of the U.N. didn't like it. The president has every right to go into war for a limited time without Congressional approval. He did so, Congress approved during that time, it was legal.


Hey, you're wrong!

And you want to talk about snippy one sentance posts? Jesus, kettle, meet pot.

As to flamebaiting...Reread that last sentance.

Hey, you're wrong!

And you want to talk about snippy one sentance posts? Jesus, kettle, meet pot.

As to flamebaiting...Reread that last sentance.

My posts with regard to the intended subject weren't one-lined, void of substance, and otherwise incorrect. I just don't spend as much time replying to your posts because it's not worth it.

My posts with regard to the intended subject weren't one-lined, void of substance, and otherwise incorrect. I just don't spend as much time replying to your posts because it's not worth it.

Does your memory only last two minutes?

Oh, and hey, more hypocrisy. And you accuse me of flamebaiting.

Does your memory only last two minutes?

Oh, and hey, more hypocrisy. And you accuse me of flamebaiting.

Okay, I'm really done this time. You make no sense, you twist words, your points are either irrelevant or nonexistent, I quit. I really can't make another reply to you without getting forumbanned for another five days. You win, go tell all your buddies that filibustering really works. :headbang:

Anti-War protesting is definitly hurting our troops moral. From now on no anti-war protesting.

But wait! Some fool is protesting our president's other policies? How will the news that people disagree with the presidents tax policy affect our troops? They may start wondering if the president might have made such a wrong move there, he might have made a wrong move with the war! No protesting the president.

But whats this! Oposition parties are condeming the war. Surly this will affect our troops morale! Opposition parties can't protest.

In fact, having an oposition party is to much of a liability. From now on, one party rule.

But members of the presidents own party are disagreeing! Thats it! No more democracy! Our troops might question why their fighting! From now on we'll have a dictatorship.

:rolleyes: