Is it time to ban democracy?

oldercon1953

Toe the line as in they aren't allowed to exercise "freedom of speech" (read be as offensive as they want).

That's EXACTLY what I mean, however, not wanting to be included with the elitists who seek to limit my speech I would say, "...be as offensive as WE need to be.
You did show what side you are on by your use of the word,"they".

Reply 161

yudothis

20

Original post by oldercon1953

That's EXACTLY what I mean, however, not wanting to be included with the elitists who seek to limit my speech I would say, "...be as offensive as WE need to be.
You did show what side you are on by your use of the word,"they".

Exactly, because I am definitely on the side of people who think freedom of speech means going around being offensive.

Reply 162

oldercon1953

13

Original post by yudothis

Exactly, because I am definitely on the side of people who think freedom of speech means going around being offensive.

"...going around being offensive." That's it? Freedom Of Speech serves no other purpose except to offend?
There seems to be no lack of offensive comments and offended people here on TSR even with a curtailed freedom of speech.
Would you favor further restrictions on speech or subject matter to avoid these offences?

Reply 163

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by oldercon1953

"...going around being offensive." That's it? Freedom Of Speech serves no other purpose except to offend?
There seems to be no lack of offensive comments and offended people here on TSR even with a curtailed freedom of speech.
Would you favor further restrictions on speech or subject matter to avoid these offences?

The only way to avoid offense is to avoid communication, these days everything will be offensive to someone.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 164

yudothis

20

Original post by oldercon1953

"...going around being offensive." That's it? Freedom Of Speech serves no other purpose except to offend?
There seems to be no lack of offensive comments and offended people here on TSR even with a curtailed freedom of speech.
Would you favor further restrictions on speech or subject matter to avoid these offences?

Yes, I would.

I suppose you would agree going around saying "we must exterminate all Muslims" should not fall under free speech? Likewise anything in that category. So we look at the next slightly less worse category, whatever it may be and say well that shouldn't be free speech either. Now of course this turns into the sand heap problem - you have a heap of sand and remove one grain at a time, at what point will it no longer be a heap? A single sand grain surely couldn't make that happen, but where do you draw the line.

So yes, it is not easy, but to use "freedom of speech" as an excuse to offend, to discriminate, to spread hate, is something I would curtail, yes.

Reply 165

oldercon1953

13

Original post by yudothis

Yes, I would.

I suppose you would agree going around saying "we must exterminate all Muslims" should not fall under free speech? Likewise anything in that category. So we look at the next slightly less worse category, whatever it may be and say well that shouldn't be free speech either. Now of course this turns into the sand heap problem - you have a heap of sand and remove one grain at a time, at what point will it no longer be a heap? A single sand grain surely couldn't make that happen, but where do you draw the line.

So yes, it is not easy, but to use "freedom of speech" as an excuse to offend, to discriminate, to spread hate, is something I would curtail, yes.

I certainly do agree with the example you've used, however, to throw someone in jail or to prohibit them from speaking when there has been no actual offense has been committed would be an over reaction. I know you would say the offense is in the speech itself but I don't agree; in this case anyway. Even in America, where the average person on the street is probably the most UN-informed in the industrialized world, such speech would not be taken seriously. Is it the role of Gov. to protect us from ourselves in even the most unlikely situations? At some point doesn't a free populace have the right to be treated as such? The nature of progressive liberalism being what it is, namely to work unrelentingly toward a "perfect" world and legislators to write and pass laws, I think at some point we have to have a certain measure of faith in the governed to use common sense regarding their reaction to what they hear. Is the one calling for the extermination of muslims just some unknown fellow with no following or the chief of police of a city. the difference being that while the unknown fellow has little chance of carrying out his threat, the chief of police is quite capable of carrying out, at least his version of extermination and maybe enlisting the help of some of those under him. These two threats would not pose the same danger to the muslim community.

Last week I was going back and forth with someone on this site about Trump. He was parroting the liberal line and after a few exchanges I tired of it and told him, using almost these same words, that he, "didn't know what he was talking about." I've supported Trump from the start and have been called a moron, dumb, and all the other usual descriptions you see here. Nothing I would consider truly harsh or profane. After two or so days I was informed that one of my comments was being reviewed or considered or some such thing by some committee. I believe the next day I received a note that my comment had been declined and that I should review the community standards warnings and to pay close attention to the parts about saying things that inflame others. Should I fail to conform, I would receive a full blown yellow something or the other.
I realize TSR is a, I assume, private enterprise and has every right to impose any restrictions they see fit on the ways ideas are expressed here but if I lived in the same country that moderator lived in I would be concerned that what is todays moderator might be tomorrows legislator

Reply 166

HandiCapanda

3

Original post by Jammy Duel

The only way to avoid offense is to avoid communication, these days everything will be offensive to someone.

Posted from TSR Mobile

This offends me !

Away with you !

Reply 167

Crb822

3

Original post by intelligent con

After first Brexit and now a Trump vote I am starting to go off democracy. Plato believed democracy was a terrible form of government and this latest result really proves his point about the stupidy of the average voter, showing why they shouldn't be trusted to make their own decisions. Instead I'd say a benevolent dictatorship led by someone like Tony Blair would be far better for the world, at least until voters become better educated.

Tony Blair messed up the country the first time

Reply 168

Azraall

7

Ban Democracy? What are you going to replace it with a dictator ship? So when the government does something you disapprove of you can't do ****. Self governing like that's practicle not all people do the rational thing. Basically you want to ban democracy because you didn't get an outcome you agree with so you're propelling yourself above the majority saying you are right and they are wrong because you believe that to be the case which sounds kinda hypocritical if you ask me

Reply 169

Axel__Amps

9

Original post by Vesniep

Democracy in my opinion can be tyranny of majority : everyone has to follow what the majority wants , but the majority are not experts

Democracy itself is defined as a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives..
What this means is that you are allowing the people a direct say in the lives.So what if they aren't experts, the majority of the time decisions which are made in parliament dont directly affect the politicians but rather the everyday people.So it almost silly to not allow them their say and exercise their democratic right.

Is it time to ban democracy?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you