Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2014, 01:54 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(09-01-2014 09:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzGVateOWto

The above discussion addresses the heart of the issue, although it doesn't come to any conclusions.

I see it like this. There is a significant percentage of people, both children and adults, who are psychologically scarred by this nonsense. There are no benefits from it, only negatives. It's all about controlling people.

It's hard to know where to draw the line. I believe in free speech. Yet if that speech can be proven to cause serious negative effects on some people, especially children, then the rights to make it publicly must be questioned.

It could be argued that Hitler had the right to make anti Jewish speeches. Yet if someone had reigned him in, 6 million Jews might not have been killed. Once again, the question must be asked where do you draw the line, and that's an easy question to answer.
There is a difference between "kill the Jews" and "embrace Jesus or face Hell".

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
10-01-2014, 02:11 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech


Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BrokenQuill92's post
10-01-2014, 02:15 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(09-01-2014 09:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I see it like this. There is a significant percentage of people, both children and adults, who are psychologically scarred by this nonsense. There are no benefits from it, only negatives. It's all about controlling people.

Whether there are any benefits in a piece of communication isn't for you or a government bureaucrat to decide.

All forms of mass communication are about "controlling people". The point of advertising is "controlling people"; the point of advocacy campaigns is "controlling people"; the point of political campaign speeches is "controlling people".

Quote:It's hard to know where to draw the line.

No, it isn't. Common law drew the line at defamation and that's is where it should be.

Quote: I believe in free speech.

No you don't and asserting that you do doesn't change that.

Quote: Yet if that speech can be proven to cause serious negative effects on some people, especially children, then the rights to make it publicly must be questioned.

So where is your evidence of "serious negative effects on some people, especially children"? Present it or shut the fuck up with this rhetorical ploy.

Quote:It could be argued that Hitler had the right to make anti Jewish speeches. Yet if someone had reigned him in, 6 million Jews might not have been killed.

"It could be argued" by a histrionic idiot--as you've just demonstrated. There is no comparison to be had between Hitler's "anti Jewish speeches" (sic) and a public communication of Christian eschatology.

Quote:Once again, the question must be asked where do you draw the line, and that's an easy question to answer.

So now it's an easy question to answer? So the "line" should be drawn wherever you decide it should be drawn?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 02:59 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 01:54 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 09:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzGVateOWto

The above discussion addresses the heart of the issue, although it doesn't come to any conclusions.

I see it like this. There is a significant percentage of people, both children and adults, who are psychologically scarred by this nonsense. There are no benefits from it, only negatives. It's all about controlling people.

It's hard to know where to draw the line. I believe in free speech. Yet if that speech can be proven to cause serious negative effects on some people, especially children, then the rights to make it publicly must be questioned.

It could be argued that Hitler had the right to make anti Jewish speeches. Yet if someone had reigned him in, 6 million Jews might not have been killed. Once again, the question must be asked where do you draw the line, and that's an easy question to answer.
There is a difference between "kill the Jews" and "embrace Jesus or face Hell".

Absolutely.

So.....would you think it right for the German government to step in on a new Hitler? Just asking. Does Hitler "mark 2" have a right to make public speeches?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 03:05 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 02:15 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(09-01-2014 09:54 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I see it like this. There is a significant percentage of people, both children and adults, who are psychologically scarred by this nonsense. There are no benefits from it, only negatives. It's all about controlling people.

Whether there are any benefits in a piece of communication isn't for you or a government bureaucrat to decide.

All forms of mass communication are about "controlling people". The point of advertising is "controlling people"; the point of advocacy campaigns is "controlling people"; the point of political campaign speeches is "controlling people".

Quote:It's hard to know where to draw the line.

No, it isn't. Common law drew the line at defamation and that's is where it should be.

Quote: I believe in free speech.

No you don't and asserting that you do doesn't change that.

Quote: Yet if that speech can be proven to cause serious negative effects on some people, especially children, then the rights to make it publicly must be questioned.

So where is your evidence of "serious negative effects on some people, especially children"? Present it or shut the fuck up with this rhetorical ploy.

Quote:It could be argued that Hitler had the right to make anti Jewish speeches. Yet if someone had reigned him in, 6 million Jews might not have been killed.

"It could be argued" by a histrionic idiot--as you've just demonstrated. There is no comparison to be had between Hitler's "anti Jewish speeches" (sic) and a public communication of Christian eschatology.

Quote:Once again, the question must be asked where do you draw the line, and that's an easy question to answer.

So now it's an easy question to answer? So the "line" should be drawn wherever you decide it should be drawn?

"histrionic idiot" ....that's ironic coming from you

"So now it's an easy question to answer?" Sorry....that should have been "not an easy"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 03:50 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
http://journeyfree.org/rts/understandingrts/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 04:21 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 03:05 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "histrionic idiot" ....that's ironic coming from you

No, it's apt for a person that compares a street preacher to Adolf Hitler.

Quote:"So now it's an easy question to answer?" Sorry....that should have been "not an easy"

So it's not an easy question to answer and at the same time you are answering it not with cogent argumentation and high-quality evidence but with an appeal to your claimed moral superiority?

You just know that freedom of speech should be constrained according to your arbitrary aesthetic values as if you have had some sort of divine revelation which everyone else on this thread that disagrees with you has been denied. There is no substantive content to your position--it is entirely vacuous except for your irrelevant emotivism. It really is as crude as, "I don't like something so the government should make it illegal". You have nothing more than that so you disingenuously invoke hypothetical victims as if you were citing substantive evidence of real people harmed by street preachers.

You are an empty husk of a person. Your position on this is as devoid of justification as your commitment to "otrthomolecular medicine" and other pseudoscientific nonsense. With that you were able to at least initially hide the vacuity of your position with your interminable appeals to authority--which fooled the simpletons of this forum. On this issue where you lack even the option of making spurious appeals to your alleged authority your lack of intellect is readily apparent.

You couldn't argue a point if your scrawny hide depended on it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 04:37 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 03:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  http://journeyfree.org/rts/understandingrts/

A blog article by someone with a "Ph.D...in Human Development and Family Studies" from an unspecified university has no evidentiary value. But you aren't deterred by an absence of evidence for your silly beliefs are you?

Christians must supply evidence for their beliefs on pain of irrationality but clearly you have a different evidentiary standard for yourself. All you've done is supply a link to a blog article which is just an opinion piece that just repeats your opinion. That would be the same as a Christian supplying a link to a blog article of another Christian--where the article simply repeats their unsubstantiated claims-- and then trumpeting that as "evidence" for his beliefs.

You are a simple-minded fool.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 06:20 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 04:37 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(10-01-2014 03:50 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  http://journeyfree.org/rts/understandingrts/

A blog article by someone with a "Ph.D...in Human Development and Family Studies" from an unspecified university has no evidentiary value. But you aren't deterred by an absence of evidence for your silly beliefs are you?

Christians must supply evidence for their beliefs on pain of irrationality but clearly you have a different evidentiary standard for yourself. All you've done is supply a link to a blog article which is just an opinion piece that just repeats your opinion. That would be the same as a Christian supplying a link to a blog article of another Christian--where the article simply repeats their unsubstantiated claims-- and then trumpeting that as "evidence" for his beliefs.

You are a simple-minded fool.

Chippy, I get that you don't really like Mark, but what is your hard-on for this guy? Do you seek out his posts and feel compelled to waste your time on a "simple-minded fool"?

You think every thing out of his mouth is garbage, and he thinks you are a dick. End of story. You will never see it his way (mostly because you have confirmation bias that he is already an idiot so you are predisposed to refute anything he says) and he will never receive any of your information because he has confirmation bias that you are a pompous ass.

So why do you keep making it a point to comment on his posts. I haven't seen him specifically address any of these comments to you. What is your hardon for him? Just ignore him!

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 06:33 AM
RE: Is threatening hell to others freedom of speech
(10-01-2014 06:20 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So why do you keep making it a point to comment on his posts. I haven't seen him specifically address any of these comments to you. What is your hardon for him? Just ignore him!

He's an intellectual fraud, closet fascist and a quack and I intended to relentlessly demonstrate that to be the case. He is a thorough charlatan and hypocrite with a few knob-heads hanging off his undersized limp cock. That is my "hardon for him".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: