Author Topic: A Problem (Read 38903 times)

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2009, 10:23:13 AM »

Ahem.

Assuming you're referring to the Salem Witch Trials:

1. The "witches" were hanged, not burned or stoned.

2. The church warned the courts against the use of "spectral," or supernatural evidence, or the testimonies of the "afflicted" people, as proof during the trials.

CrossEyed7 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2009, 01:41:42 PM »

Besides, if your point is that it's bad for people of one religion to kill people of another religion because of their religion, and that it's good to say that it's bad and to stop those people from killing, then shouldn't you be against this UN thing?

SolidShroom · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:05:57 PM »

All I'm saying is that free speech is already limited, so why not limit it a little more if it'll save lives?

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:20:24 PM »

How would it save lives? I must be missing something.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM »

Quote from: SolidShroom on March 13, 2009, 02:05:57 PM

All I'm saying is that free speech is already limited, so why not limit it a little more if it'll save lives?

Because theres a difference between being able to say whatever you want, with no restrictions whatsoever, and free speech.

It might be the work of Islams who want their religion to not be questioned at all. But that is really beside the point, the main point is that freedom of speech is the most important right we have, and they want to violate it. To any extent that is bad.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:34:31 PM »

Quote from: Shyguy92 on March 13, 2009, 02:23:50 PM

Because theres a difference between being able to say whatever you want, with no restrictions whatsoever, and free speech.

If that's true, then what does free speech even mean?

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:44:57 PM »

Look it up.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:47:24 PM »

The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, According to dictionary.com. By this definition, we don't have the right of freedom of speech

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 13, 2009, 02:50:59 PM »

Quote from: SolidShroom on March 13, 2009, 02:47:24 PM

The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, According to dictionary.com. By this definition, we don't have the right of freedom of speech

Example?

Anyway the point is we do have free speech, but, as was said before, it's limited to a fairly reasonable degree.

This is getting really redundant.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #24 on:** March 13, 2009, 05:05:17 PM »

I'm sad because Turtlekid doesn't know history. :(

Turtlekid1 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 13, 2009, 05:18:53 PM »

I'm sad because Chupperson believes every negative thing he's told about the Puritans :(

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #26 on:** March 13, 2009, 05:47:22 PM »

I wasn't even thinking of the puritans.

SolidShroom · « **Reply #27 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:03:55 PM »

Quote from: Shyguy92 on March 13, 2009, 02:50:59 PM

Example?

Anyway the point is we do have free speech, but, as was said before, it's limited to a fairly reasonable degree.

You just answered your own question. It isn't free speech if it's limited.

Shyguy92 · « **Reply #28 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:42:25 PM »

What's your point? Your killing this thread.

nensondubois · « **Reply #29 on:** March 13, 2009, 06:43:33 PM »

The day we lose free speech is a sad day for America and it's coming close to that. That's all I'm saying. The puritans came to the new found land now known as America to escape religious persecution in America and set colonies and they... well to make a long story short; We basically are slowly losing what the colonist fought for. said, isn't it? My point: all of our rights including free speech are slowly being liquidating on a day-by-day basis.