Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mia · Mar 4, 2004, 03:47 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
he said government cannot regulate speech, that doesn't mean private enterprises cannot, or that laws cannot be implaced... impenitent you have attacked a straw man, your refutation is invalid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No it's not. Who makes laws? The government. So if the governent makes a law they are REGULATING something.

Kyran · Mar 5, 2004, 06:49 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
It is pointless to argue this point about free speech as it is predicated on whether it's acceptable to regulate anything. We'd need to argue that first, which I do not care to.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Don't make straw men and then fear the consequences; everything can be debated. Don't worry so much though. I never said that it's unacceptable to regulate; I just have my own philosophy of rules to limit regulation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
You seem to think that absolutely everything can be proven "right" or "wrong" and coincidently you happen to be right on everything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am not arguing over whether regulation is desirable.

Instead of analyzing my brain, try to focus on the subject at hand. I know confidence attracts the ladies; but baby I'm not any good for ya. Let's just talk politics ok? I don't get personal over the internet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imp,

First off, when you ask me "if I've stopped beating my wife" you are making a personal attack. Telling me I make stupid assumptions is also a personal attack. This is childish conduct. Grow up punkass.

Where did I say you gave a flip about the christian-right? Quote me.

Stop telling me what I said. The justice system is neither a Law nor Regulation, especially against Free Speech. That is your assumption; which you claim I made and did not.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You responded with:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
punishable by law? starting a panic by FREELY SPEAKING?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, Imp, civil court will make damaging parties PAY the victims restitution.

Any act of property damage (to others' property) is punishable; but the system is not a law or regulation. You should have understood my "punishable by law" statement was misleading. What I meant was the damaging act is handled primarily by civil court.

Lastly, try to be realistic with your conclusion drawing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
good... your house is burning to the ground and you call 911 for the fire department... but no, the fire department is responding to a CRANK CALL and your house burns down completely and you can't do a thing about it... and the free speaker who helped your house burn gets no reprocussions<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Logical Fallacy #1: you assume I would be calling 911 in response to MY house being on fire

Logical Fallacy #2: you assume I don't own a fire extinguisher or hose

Logical Fallacy #3: you assume I'm "helpless" without that specific law (you can't do a thing about it)

Logical Fallacy #4: you relate someone to a disaster as an antagonist who bears no physical responsibility to it

Logical Fallacy #5: your argument predicates the idea that the law prevents emergency operators from being prank called

How about this? Martians invade your home and turn you into a woman. There's nothing you can do because it's LEGAL FOR MARTIANS TO ALTER YOUR GENDER!!! The cops were busy watching every phone in town and YOU HAD NO PROTECTION!

Do you see how utterly futile such argument formats are?

If you are not going to answer my questions, then we're not debating.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off.

Do we need to illegalize an act that is already solved by civil court?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Either answer the question and back it up with a logical argument, or see your way out of this thread. It's easy: Yes or No and Why. I want a clear explanation of the necessity for this law. If you are going to defend this law, then kindly extrapolate for us.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poet, thx for the support, but don't mind the misusage of words around here. It's no big deal. I lost interest in this thread after Imp came and stunk it up with character attacks. Once a person refuses to answer simple Yes/No questions, you've got em backed into a corner.

Impenitent · Mar 6, 2004, 04:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imp,

First off, when you ask me "if I've stopped beating my wife" you are making a personal attack.

:rolleyes: no, it is not a personal attack, it asks you a loaded question in return for your loaded question

Telling me I make stupid assumptions is also a personal attack.

:rolleyes: not when you do make stupid assumptions

This is childish conduct. Grow up punkass. ***exactly! childish indeed "punkass"

Where did I say you gave a flip about the christian-right? Quote me.

*****you were the one who brought up the censoring of preachers that you thought I would embrase...

Stop telling me what I said.

*****just using your own words to refute your argument...

The justice system is neither a Law nor Regulation, ***I never said it was*** especially against Free Speech. That is your assumption; which you claim I made and did not.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You responded with:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
punishable by law? starting a panic by FREELY SPEAKING?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, Imp, civil court will make damaging parties PAY the victims restitution.

****civil court will not make them suffer criminal penalty... it is not good enough...

Any act of property damage (to others' property) is punishable; but the system is not a law or regulation.

You should have understood my "punishable by law" statement was misleading.

:rolleyes: punishable by law is criminal and/or civil... if you only meant it was punishable civilly, you should have said so... learn how to argue...

What I meant was the damaging act is handled primarily by civil court.

****and what if the damaging act results in personal injury or death?

Lastly, try to be realistic with your conclusion drawing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
good... your house is burning to the ground and you call 911 for the fire department... but no, the fire department is responding to a CRANK CALL and your house burns down completely and you can't do a thing about it... and the free speaker who helped your house burn gets no reprocussions<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Logical Fallacy #1: you assume I would be calling 911 in response to MY house being on fire

fallacy?!? which fallacy is that?
are you saying you would not call for help?

Logical Fallacy #2: you assume I don't own a fire extinguisher or hose

fallacy?!? which fallacy is that?
****I said burning to the ground, the fact that you think you can sprinkle out your house is your problem

Logical Fallacy #3: you assume I'm "helpless" without that specific law (you can't do a thing about it)

fallacy?!? which fallacy is that?
**** if there is no criminal law preventing the crank call you are helpless

Logical Fallacy #4: you relate someone to a disaster as an antagonist who bears no physical responsibility to it

fallacy?!? which fallacy is that?
***** there is a connection in the response time but you want to ignore it

Logical Fallacy #5: your argument predicates the idea that the law prevents emergency operators from being prank called

fallacy?!? which fallacy is that?
***** no, all I said was that you would have no course of action against the "FREE SPEAKER"

***** I would recommend that you read a logic text book and actually learn what a fallacy is before you continue calling nonfallacious statements fallacies...

How about this? Martians invade your home and turn you into a woman. There's nothing you can do because it's LEGAL FOR MARTIANS TO ALTER YOUR GENDER!!!

***LMAO!!! and?

The cops were busy watching every phone in town and YOU HAD NO PROTECTION!

****if only clinton had actually spent the money to put those 200,000 new cops on the street...

Do you see how utterly futile such argument formats are?

If you are not going to answer my questions, then we're not debating.

***** if you'd stop arguing in circles you would have noticed

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off.

Do we need to illegalize an act that is already solved by civil court?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

***** no, it is not solved in civil court... and you still need police to enforce the laws of the civil court

Either answer the question and back it up with a logical argument, or see your way out of this thread. It's easy: Yes or No and Why. I want a clear explanation of the necessity for this law. If you are going to defend this law, then kindly extrapolate for us.

**** I did and your argument is still REFUTED.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and it is you who are in a corner.

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mar 6, 2004, 03:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=37308

Article summary:
Howard Stern has been suspended by Clear Channel Communications for broadcasting "indecent" material which may not be in concordance with FCC regulations.

John Hogan, CEO of Clear Channel Radio:
"We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting."

Interpretation:

So much for freedom of speech. The government is still in the business of controlling what people can and cannot say. Take note that neo-con rightwingers have circulated articles and petitions demanding restrictions against use of the forbidden words on airwaves and television. Townhall.com had one such petition against the use of the "F" word. This isn't anything new.

I don't listen to Howard Stern. But that's my personal choice. I don't decide what Howard can and cannot say. He's big time enough that SOMEBODY out there wants to listen. Why should people who don't want to hear him have the power to shut him up when they can always change the channel?

How should we deal with this situation?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

why dont u make a topic about how they enforce speaking french in france?

Mia · Mar 6, 2004, 05:49 pm

Kyran, you did say that Freedom of speech should be absolute, no exceptions. Then you said some type of regulation is desireable. Did I misunderstand? Did you mean types of regulation other than on speech?

Kyran · Mar 6, 2004, 07:52 pm

Yes Mia, and like I said about the Do Not Call list, "anytime, anywhere" speech is not my argument. In that example, you decide who can and cannot call your telephone. Remember some people tried to argue that the Right to Free Speech entitles one to trespass on another's phone service.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
****and what if the damaging act results in personal injury or death?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I've already answered this question. Go back and read. Damages which can be fixed belong in civil court. Damages that cannot be fixed belong in criminal court.

Imp, thanks for at least half-answering the question I put forth. Let's get moving right along.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
no, it is not solved in civil court... and you still need police to enforce the laws of the civil court<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Then you have distorted the meaning of "solved" in order to reflect your personal preference of justice. An eye for an eye is equal; but an eye and 30 days for an eye is unjust. Your argument is inhumane, and promotes a lawless standard.

When party A damages party B to the sum of $500, A should pay that amount in restitution. If I were the theatre owner, I would be satisfied with this amount of justice. However, you would not be satisfied; and you're not willing to give anyone else the choice over the matter. In your eyes, this action deserves jailtime.

Prove me wrong. Describe the standards or principles on which you base your position. I've described how my Standard, concerning justice, applies to the above situation.

It will be very interesting to see you try to argue against Equal Retribution for Damages Rendered.

Mia · Mar 6, 2004, 08:22 pm

On the "yelling fire in a movie theater". The law prohibiting it comes with a fine, correct? Not a jail sentance.

The fine goes to the state which pays for the police to come and ennforce it.

Everyone knows this and so they don't do it thus it works as the deterrent it's intended to. The owner can sue for restitition also.

To me this is a lot simpler than the owner of the theater having to endure the damages, assess the damages, and go to a civil court to get restitition.

If your argument is that this will still provide the deterrence and it's preferable because it doesn't involve tax-supported police, OK.

But who pays the judges and all the other employees of the civil court you have to go to under your plan?

And what if the offender can't pay restitition and then there is no deterrent involved?

I'm just not seeing the difference and how this is preferable. Please elaborate, if you would.

Kyran · Mar 6, 2004, 09:29 pm

No, Mia, it's not simpler. That's the problem.

That theatre owner is concerned primarily with his operation; not our lawbooks. It doesn't make a difference to him what happens to Chicken Little as long as his enterprise is duly (sp?) compensated.

If a big factory polluted my house and my yard, and got slapped with a fine, I would wonder what the heck the government is thinking. I would still assess the damage done and file a lawsuit.

The taxmoney spent on creating & enforcing these regulations could be spent to speed up our court processes. Chicken Little is still going to see a judge. The system has done it this way before; the concept did not originate with me. I don't have a position on how civil court should be funded; but a discussion would lead me to one.

Civil court is better deterrance than a government-decided fine. Why? Because Chicken Little might cause more damage than any fine covers. See why I don't find any necessity to tack on these additional punishments?

I believe the government still jails people for not paying restitution, and this does not remove their responsibility to pay.

Also, the more laws created to "deter crime" we have, the more complicated our system is. Lawyers and law schools capitalize on this aspect, because the more laws there are to learn the more money they make.

Impenitent · Mar 7, 2004, 01:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)

Imp, thanks for at least half-answering the question I put forth. Let's get moving right along.

****Ignoring the fact that your argument was refuted...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
no, it is not solved in civil court... and you still need police to enforce the laws of the civil court<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Then you have distorted the meaning of "solved" in order to reflect your personal preference of justice.

:rolleyes: no, your idea of solved isn't justice or solved at all

An eye for an eye is equal; but an eye and 30 days for an eye is unjust. Your argument is inhumane, and promotes a lawless standard.

:rolleyes: you still need a police state to prosecute the civil cases

:rolleyes: inhumane? an eye for an eye is equal... an eye for $50 is NOT equal

When party A damages party B to the sum of $500, A should pay that amount in restitution. If I were the theatre owner, I would be satisfied with this amount of justice.

:rolleyes: and what if your spouse or children were trampled and killed in the theatre because skippy yelled "fire" as part of his free speech? mmm? what civil penalty for that? your idea of justice is not justice

However, you would not be satisfied; and you're not willing to give anyone else the choice over the matter. In your eyes, this action deserves jailtime.

:rolleyes: damn straight... but if you'd prefer to go back to the state of nature ala john locke... you'd be happy...

Prove me wrong. Describe the standards or principles on which you base your position. I've described how my Standard, concerning justice, applies to the above situation.

It will be very interesting to see you try to argue against Equal Retribution for Damages Rendered.

******you think you offer EQUAL RETRIBUTION? that is laughable...

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Mia · Mar 7, 2004, 01:23 am

What if an investigation is required? The police do this for no direct charge to you (part of your tax dollars) and yet you can use it in your civil suit. What if the owner can't afford an investigation?

I still think the police come in handy in circumstances like this.

Write Winger · Mar 7, 2004, 01:38 pm

Yes let us not confuse Europe with the United States.,... The US is supposed to be a free country..Europe really doesn't have the same basis for that claim. They regulate all kinds of speech they disagree with.

The problem is the same problem that exists with everything when you are dealing with a government that has grown so far beyond its constitutional mandate as has the US govt. They are whoever and whatever they say that they are....that is why you have extra constitutional crap like a Department of Education, Energy an Health and Human Services.

The govt decided long ago that while they couldn't stop a free press in a written or printed format because of the 1st amendment. So they claimed ownership of the airwaves to be held "for the people." Basically such a notion is claptrap...but so far the courts (also a part of government) have held that the govt does indeed own them...the power of ownership is the power to regulate...unless you are talking private property...the govt has claimed the right ro regulate that as well.

We are a nation of renters....the govt owns pretty much everything through the power of unbridled taxation.

So Howard Stern has the right to free speech....he does not have the right to a microphone....he is free to say anything he wants...just not on the publically owned airwaves. It is wrong...but it is true and is the law of the land. In order to fix it we need to take a whole lot of power away from the govt....unfortunately roughly half the people think big mamma govt is just dandy.

You big govt lovers out their make note.....the government big enough to give you want you want is also big enough to take all you have.

Kyran · Mar 8, 2004, 09:37 pm

Imp, you lost. Just get over it.

Your "ideas of justice" are not better than mine. You have no standard and have yet to prove otherwise. There is no point in furthering this discussion.

Btw nice straw man again,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: inhumane? an eye for an eye is equal... an eye for $50 is NOT equal<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yet another thing I never said.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
******you think you offer EQUAL RETRIBUTION? that is laughable...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

An eye for an eye isn't equal? Then what's equal to an eye?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mia, I don't have a comment on the usage of investigations. Oh, I'm not implying that we should reduce our police force; in case you were wondering.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Write, thanks for bringing up the proper refutation I was expecting. Notice the amount of argument I receive for challenging the jurisdiction of government over the parts of homo sapien anatomy. The emotional response was not warm or kind; but prideful and arrogant. Drow societies are interesting to live in, no?

Impenitent · Mar 9, 2004, 12:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Imp, you lost. Just get over it.

Your "ideas of justice" are not better than mine. You have no standard and have yet to prove otherwise. There is no point in furthering this discussion.

Btw nice straw man again,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
:rolleyes: inhumane? an eye for an eye is equal... an eye for $50 is NOT equal<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yet another thing I never said.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
******you think you offer EQUAL RETRIBUTION? that is laughable...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

An eye for an eye isn't equal? Then what's equal to an eye?

<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

lost? hardly... it was your argument that was refuted, not mine...

"There is no point in furthering this discussion."
I'll take that as your concession

there was no straw man there...

yes, an eye for an eye is equal

you said "When party A damages party B to the sum of $500, A should pay that amount in restitution. If I were the theatre owner, I would be satisfied with this amount of justice."

then you can be satisfied when both your eyes are gouged out and you are offered $1,000

and you can rejoice in the streets after the killer of your family pays you $500 a head... oh the justice is great there...

your idea of "equality" doesn't work...

Kyran, you lost. Just get over it.

Kyran · Mar 10, 2004, 02:21 am

I can't wait till straw man attacks get people banned.

Mar 4, 2004, 03:47 am	#41 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) he said government cannot regulate speech, that doesn't mean private enterprises cannot, or that laws cannot be implaced... impenitent you have attacked a straw man, your refutation is invalid.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No it's not. Who makes laws? The government. So if the governent makes a law they are REGULATING something. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 5, 2004, 06:49 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) It is pointless to argue this point about free speech as it is predicated on whether it's acceptable to regulate anything. We'd need to argue that first, which I do not care to.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Don't make straw men and then fear the consequences; everything can be debated. Don't worry so much though. I never said that it's unacceptable to regulate; I just have my own philosophy of rules to limit regulation. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) You seem to think that absolutely everything can be proven "right" or "wrong" and coincidently you happen to be right on everything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am not arguing over whether regulation is desirable. Instead of analyzing my brain, try to focus on the subject at hand. I know confidence attracts the ladies; but baby I'm not any good for ya. Let's just talk politics ok? I don't get personal over the internet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Imp, First off, when you ask me "if I've stopped beating my wife" you are making a personal attack. Telling me I make stupid assumptions is also a personal attack. This is childish conduct. Grow up punkass. Where did I say you gave a flip about the christian-right? Quote me. Stop telling me what I said. The justice system is neither a Law nor Regulation, especially against Free Speech. That is your assumption; which you claim I made and did not. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You responded with: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) punishable by law? starting a panic by FREELY SPEAKING?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, Imp, civil court will make damaging parties PAY the victims restitution. Any act of property damage (to others' property) is punishable; but the system is not a law or regulation. You should have understood my "punishable by law" statement was misleading. What I meant was the damaging act is handled primarily by civil court. Lastly, try to be realistic with your conclusion drawing. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) good... your house is burning to the ground and you call 911 for the fire department... but no, the fire department is responding to a CRANK CALL and your house burns down completely and you can't do a thing about it... and the free speaker who helped your house burn gets no reprocussions<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Logical Fallacy #1: you assume I would be calling 911 in response to MY house being on fire Logical Fallacy #2: you assume I don't own a fire extinguisher or hose Logical Fallacy #3: you assume I'm "helpless" without that specific law (you can't do a thing about it) Logical Fallacy #4: you relate someone to a disaster as an antagonist who bears no physical responsibility to it Logical Fallacy #5: your argument predicates the idea that the law prevents emergency operators from being prank called How about this? Martians invade your home and turn you into a woman. There's nothing you can do because it's LEGAL FOR MARTIANS TO ALTER YOUR GENDER!!! The cops were busy watching every phone in town and YOU HAD NO PROTECTION! Do you see how utterly futile such argument formats are? If you are not going to answer my questions, then we're not debating. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off. Do we need to illegalize an act that is already solved by civil court?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Either answer the question and back it up with a logical argument, or see your way out of this thread. It's easy: Yes or No and Why. I want a clear explanation of the necessity for this law. If you are going to defend this law, then kindly extrapolate for us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Poet, thx for the support, but don't mind the misusage of words around here. It's no big deal. I lost interest in this thread after Imp came and stunk it up with character attacks. Once a person refuses to answer simple Yes/No questions, you've got em backed into a corner.

Mar 6, 2004, 04:01 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Imp, First off, when you ask me "if I've stopped beating my wife" you are making a personal attack. :rolleyes: no, it is not a personal attack, it asks you a loaded question in return for your loaded question Telling me I make stupid assumptions is also a personal attack. :rolleyes: not when you do make stupid assumptions This is childish conduct. Grow up punkass. *exactly! childish indeed "punkass" Where did I say you gave a flip about the christian-right? Quote me. *you were the one who brought up the censoring of preachers that you thought I would embrase... Stop telling me what I said. *just using your own words to refute your argument... The justice system is neither a Law nor Regulation, I never said it was especially against Free Speech. That is your assumption; which you claim I made and did not. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)** Do we need to prohibit an act that is already punishable by law? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You responded with: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) punishable by law? starting a panic by FREELY SPEAKING?!?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, Imp, civil court will make damaging parties PAY the victims restitution. **civil court will not make them suffer criminal penalty... it is not good enough... Any act of property damage (to others' property) is punishable; but the system is not a law or regulation. You should have understood my "punishable by law" statement was misleading. :rolleyes: punishable by law is criminal and/or civil... if you only meant it was punishable civilly, you should have said so... learn how to argue... What I meant was the damaging act is handled primarily by civil court. and what if the damaging act results in personal injury or death? Lastly, try to be realistic with your conclusion drawing. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) good... your house is burning to the ground and you call 911 for the fire department... but no, the fire department is responding to a CRANK CALL and your house burns down completely and you can't do a thing about it... and the free speaker who helped your house burn gets no reprocussions<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Logical Fallacy #1: you assume I would be calling 911 in response to MY house being on fire fallacy?!? which fallacy is that? are you saying you would not call for help? Logical Fallacy #2: you assume I don't own a fire extinguisher or hose fallacy?!? which fallacy is that? *I said burning to the ground, the fact that you think you can sprinkle out your house is your problem Logical Fallacy #3: you assume I'm "helpless" without that specific law (you can't do a thing about it) fallacy?!? which fallacy is that? * if there is no criminal law preventing the crank call you are helpless Logical Fallacy #4: you relate someone to a disaster as an antagonist who bears no physical responsibility to it fallacy?!? which fallacy is that? * there is a connection in the response time but you want to ignore it Logical Fallacy #5: your argument predicates the idea that the law prevents emergency operators from being prank called fallacy?!? which fallacy is that? * no, all I said was that you would have no course of action against the "FREE SPEAKER" * I would recommend that you read a logic text book and actually learn what a fallacy is before you continue calling nonfallacious statements fallacies... How about this? Martians invade your home and turn you into a woman. There's nothing you can do because it's LEGAL FOR MARTIANS TO ALTER YOUR GENDER!!! LMAO!!! and? The cops were busy watching every phone in town and YOU HAD NO PROTECTION! *if only clinton had actually spent the money to put those 200,000 new cops on the street... Do you see how utterly futile such argument formats are? If you are not going to answer my questions, then we're not debating. * if you'd stop arguing in circles you would have noticed </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Can a theatre owner sue somebody for starting a panic inside his place of business? Yup! He can make that idiot pay for everything that was broken by the people who ran off. Do we need to illegalize an act that is already solved by civil court?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> * no, it is not solved in civil court... and you still need police to enforce the laws of the civil court Either answer the question and back it up with a logical argument, or see your way out of this thread. It's easy: Yes or No and Why. I want a clear explanation of the necessity for this law. If you are going to defend this law, then kindly extrapolate for us. ** I did and your argument is still REFUTED. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and it is you who are in a corner. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 6, 2004, 03:37 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
gecko Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=37308 Article summary: Howard Stern has been suspended by Clear Channel Communications for broadcasting "indecent" material which may not be in concordance with FCC regulations. John Hogan, CEO of Clear Channel Radio: "We will not air Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations until we are assured that his show will conform* to acceptable standards of responsible broadcasting."* Interpretation: So much for freedom of speech. The government is still in the business of controlling what people can and cannot say. Take note that neo-con rightwingers have circulated articles and petitions demanding restrictions against use of the forbidden words on airwaves and television. Townhall.com had one such petition against the use of the "F" word. This isn't anything new. I don't listen to Howard Stern. But that's my personal choice. I don't decide what Howard can and cannot say. He's big time enough that SOMEBODY out there wants to listen. Why should people who don't want to hear him have the power to shut him up when they can always change the channel? How should we deal with this situation?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> why dont u make a topic about how they enforce speaking french in france?

Mar 6, 2004, 05:49 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	Kyran, you did say that Freedom of speech should be absolute, no exceptions. Then you said some type of regulation is desireable. Did I misunderstand? Did you mean types of regulation other than on speech? "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 6, 2004, 07:52 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	Yes Mia, and like I said about the Do Not Call list, "anytime, anywhere" speech is not my argument. In that example, you decide who can and cannot call your telephone. Remember some people tried to argue that the Right to Free Speech entitles one to trespass on another's phone service. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) **and what if the damaging act results in personal injury or death?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I've already answered this question. Go back and read. Damages which can be fixed belong in civil court. Damages that cannot be fixed belong in criminal court. Imp, thanks for at least half-answering the question I put forth. Let's get moving right along. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)** no, it is not solved in civil court... and you still need police to enforce the laws of the civil court<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Then you have distorted the meaning of "solved" in order to reflect your personal preference of justice. An eye for an eye is equal; but an eye and 30 days for an eye is unjust. Your argument is inhumane, and promotes a lawless standard. When party A damages party B to the sum of $500, A should pay that amount in restitution. If I were the theatre owner, I would be satisfied with this amount of justice. However, you would not be satisfied; and you're not willing to give anyone else the choice over the matter. In your eyes, this action deserves jailtime. Prove me wrong. Describe the standards or principles on which you base your position. I've described how my Standard, concerning justice, applies to the above situation. It will be very interesting to see you try to argue against Equal Retribution for Damages Rendered.

Mar 6, 2004, 08:22 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	On the "yelling fire in a movie theater". The law prohibiting it comes with a fine, correct? Not a jail sentance. The fine goes to the state which pays for the police to come and ennforce it. Everyone knows this and so they don't do it thus it works as the deterrent it's intended to. The owner can sue for restitition also. To me this is a lot simpler than the owner of the theater having to endure the damages, assess the damages, and go to a civil court to get restitition. If your argument is that this will still provide the deterrence and it's preferable because it doesn't involve tax-supported police, OK. But who pays the judges and all the other employees of the civil court you have to go to under your plan? And what if the offender can't pay restitition and then there is no deterrent involved? I'm just not seeing the difference and how this is preferable. Please elaborate, if you would. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 6, 2004, 09:29 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	No, Mia, it's not simpler. That's the problem. That theatre owner is concerned primarily with his operation; not our lawbooks. It doesn't make a difference to him what happens to Chicken Little as long as his enterprise is duly (sp?) compensated. If a big factory polluted my house and my yard, and got slapped with a fine, I would wonder what the heck the government is thinking. I would still assess the damage done and file a lawsuit. The taxmoney spent on creating & enforcing these regulations could be spent to speed up our court processes. Chicken Little is still going to see a judge. The system has done it this way before; the concept did not originate with me. I don't have a position on how civil court should be funded; but a discussion would lead me to one. Civil court is better deterrance than a government-decided fine. Why? Because Chicken Little might cause more damage than any fine covers. See why I don't find any necessity to tack on these additional punishments? I believe the government still jails people for not paying restitution, and this does not remove their responsibility to pay. Also, the more laws created to "deter crime" we have, the more complicated our system is. Lawyers and law schools capitalize on this aspect, because the more laws there are to learn the more money they make.

Mar 7, 2004, 01:04 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Imp, thanks for at least half-answering the question I put forth. Let's get moving right along. **Ignoring the fact that your argument was refuted... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)** no, it is not solved in civil court... and you still need police to enforce the laws of the civil court<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Then you have distorted the meaning of "solved" in order to reflect your personal preference of justice. :rolleyes: no, your idea of solved isn't justice or solved at all An eye for an eye is equal; but an eye and 30 days for an eye is unjust. Your argument is inhumane, and promotes a lawless standard. :rolleyes: you still need a police state to prosecute the civil cases :rolleyes: inhumane? an eye for an eye is equal... an eye for $50 is NOT equal When party A damages party B to the sum of $500, A should pay that amount in restitution. If I were the theatre owner, I would be satisfied with this amount of justice. :rolleyes: and what if your spouse or children were trampled and killed in the theatre because skippy yelled "fire" as part of his free speech? mmm? what civil penalty for that? your idea of justice is not justice However, you would not be satisfied; and you're not willing to give anyone else the choice over the matter. In your eyes, this action deserves jailtime. :rolleyes: damn straight... but if you'd prefer to go back to the state of nature ala john locke... you'd be happy... Prove me wrong. Describe the standards or principles on which you base your position. I've described how my Standard, concerning justice, applies to the above situation. It will be very interesting to see you try to argue against Equal Retribution for Damages Rendered. ******you think you offer EQUAL RETRIBUTION? that is laughable... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 7, 2004, 01:23 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	What if an investigation is required? The police do this for no direct charge to you (part of your tax dollars) and yet you can use it in your civil suit. What if the owner can't afford an investigation? I still think the police come in handy in circumstances like this. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 7, 2004, 01:38 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Write Winger Molten Ash Location: Texas Posts: 96	Yes let us not confuse Europe with the United States.,... The US is supposed to be a free country..Europe really doesn't have the same basis for that claim. They regulate all kinds of speech they disagree with. The problem is the same problem that exists with everything when you are dealing with a government that has grown so far beyond its constitutional mandate as has the US govt. They are whoever and whatever they say that they are....that is why you have extra constitutional crap like a Department of Education, Energy an Health and Human Services. The govt decided long ago that while they couldn't stop a free press in a written or printed format because of the 1st amendment. So they claimed ownership of the airwaves to be held "for the people." Basically such a notion is claptrap...but so far the courts (also a part of government) have held that the govt does indeed own them...the power of ownership is the power to regulate...unless you are talking private property...the govt has claimed the right ro regulate that as well. We are a nation of renters....the govt owns pretty much everything through the power of unbridled taxation. So Howard Stern has the right to free speech....he does not have the right to a microphone....he is free to say anything he wants...just not on the publically owned airwaves. It is wrong...but it is true and is the law of the land. In order to fix it we need to take a whole lot of power away from the govt....unfortunately roughly half the people think big mamma govt is just dandy. You big govt lovers out their make note.....the government big enough to give you want you want is also big enough to take all you have. My book... Write Winger: Solutions for the Politically Oblique available from Booklocker.com

Mar 8, 2004, 09:37 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	Imp, you lost. Just get over it. Your "ideas of justice" are not better than mine. You have no standard and have yet to prove otherwise. There is no point in furthering this discussion. Btw nice straw man again, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: inhumane? an eye for an eye is equal... an eye for $50 is NOT equal<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yet another thing I never said. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) ******you think you offer EQUAL RETRIBUTION? that is laughable...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> An eye for an eye isn't equal? Then what's equal to an eye? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mia, I don't have a comment on the usage of investigations. Oh, I'm not implying that we should reduce our police force; in case you were wondering. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Write, thanks for bringing up the proper refutation I was expecting. Notice the amount of argument I receive for challenging the jurisdiction of government over the parts of homo sapien anatomy. The emotional response was not warm or kind; but prideful and arrogant. Drow societies are interesting to live in, no?

Mar 9, 2004, 12:46 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Imp, you lost. Just get over it. Your "ideas of justice" are not better than mine. You have no standard and have yet to prove otherwise. There is no point in furthering this discussion. Btw nice straw man again, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) :rolleyes: inhumane? an eye for an eye is equal... an eye for $50 is NOT equal<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yet another thing I never said. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) ******you think you offer EQUAL RETRIBUTION? that is laughable...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> An eye for an eye isn't equal? Then what's equal to an eye? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> lost? hardly... it was your argument that was refuted, not mine... "There is no point in furthering this discussion." I'll take that as your concession there was no straw man there... yes, an eye for an eye is equal you said "When party A damages party B to the sum of $500, A should pay that amount in restitution. If I were the theatre owner, I would be satisfied with this amount of justice." then you can be satisfied when both your eyes are gouged out and you are offered $1,000 and you can rejoice in the streets after the killer of your family pays you $500 a head... oh the justice is great there... your idea of "equality" doesn't work... Kyran, you lost. Just get over it. "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 10, 2004, 02:21 am	#54 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	I can't wait till straw man attacks get people banned.