PDA

View Full Version : The Attack on the First Amendment


Southpaw2012
05-07-2015, 06:50 PM
The liberal media continues to attack the people who had the Muhammad cartoon drawing contest and basically saying that they deserved to be attacked by Islamic extremist savages. CNN blowhard Chris Cuomo continues to show his ignorance when it comes to the Constitution and this response by Volokh is 100% accurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Mr. Volokh has been cited numerous times by the U.S. Supreme Court for his expertise in First Amendment.

The Unreasoner
05-07-2015, 07:05 PM
I am 100% behind these cartoonists...but while I don't think they deserve to have been attacked, I can't say I'm surprised they were. Our Bill of Rights guarantees citizens freedom of worship and the right to bear arms. It would be retarded to assume perfect safety in the absence of a police state.

Do you really want that?

Kimon
05-07-2015, 07:18 PM
The liberal media continues to attack the people who had the Muhammad cartoon drawing contest and basically saying that they deserved to be attacked by Islamic extremist savages. CNN blowhard Chris Cuomo continues to show his ignorance when it comes to the Constitution and this response by Volokh is 100% accurate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Mr. Volokh has been cited numerous times by the U.S. Supreme Court for his expertise in First Amendment.

Ask yourself a simple question Southpaw - do you think that Pam Geller was hoping for this exact type of response? The answer is obviously yes. Is she within her rights under the 1st Amendment? Yes. Is it still quite clearly inciting violence? Yes.

I think you are confusing people attacking her, and her ethics, with people attacking the 1st Amendment.

If you walk down the streets of Baltimore calling every black man you pass a certain inflammatory word, are you exercising your right to free speech, or trying to start a fight? Or both?

Southpaw2012
05-07-2015, 11:54 PM
There are many people who are saying that:
A. Hate speech isn't protected by the 1st Amendment, and
B. These cartoonists were "asking for it."

Addressing the first criticism, hate speech IS protected by the 1st Amendment. The idiots at Westboro are protected, the KKK nut-jobs are protected, the Nazi sympathizing creeps are protected, and the Black Panther fools are protected. Just because a bunch of Islamic extremists get offended doesn't give them the right to silence Americans, and the time that they are able to silence us is the time that our freedom goes out the window and the jihadists win.

Addressing the second point, these people weren't "asking for it" like idiots at bottom of the barrel rated MSNBC claim. They were at a private event doing their own thing. Was it offensive? Sure, but everyone gets offended nowadays. You can't say anything anymore without people crying that their feelings are hurt. Most people complain, Muslims (extremists) shoot, decapitate, and blow up those they are "offended" by, though I think of it more of that as more of an excuse for them to kill us.

Get over it. And I'm not saying all of you here are against the cartoonists, as those of you who have commented claim you support that 1st Amendment right, but the attacks against it are coming from the Left and it's once again an attack on our Constitutional rights. I know, this administration and the new Progressive ideology in today's society wants America to become more European, but that will never happen as long as there are those willing to resist the encroachment on our Constitutional rights.

eht slat meit
05-07-2015, 11:56 PM
Ask yourself a simple question Southpaw - do you think that Pam Geller was hoping for this exact type of response? The answer is obviously yes. Is she within her rights under the 1st Amendment? Yes. Is it still quite clearly inciting violence? Yes.

I would say half-right, yes, and no.

Pam Geller and her ilk are HOPING for the best case scenario which victory in the form of freedom from the tyranny of violence to suppress speech. They were willing to settle for their hated enemy showing themselves for the violence pieces of excrement they are. They're not the first to do this. They're simply the most notable because apparently terrorist/jihadists really aren't interested in a hillbilly preacher with a goofy beard burning Qurans and would rather go for the big ticket targets in spreading fear.

Yes, she's within her rights. Someone can act within their rights and still be a toad.

And no, incitement to violence is a legally loaded term that this situation does not qualify for. If this situation qualified, every other episode of South Park would too.

I think you are confusing people attacking her, and her ethics, with people attacking the 1st Amendment.

The reason that mistake is so often made is because people care more about her lack of ethics than the lack of ethics of murdering filth who aren't going to stop being murdering filth just because someone doesn't disrespect them.

If you walk down the streets of Baltimore calling every black man you pass a certain inflammatory word, are you exercising your right to free speech, or trying to start a fight? Or both?

The difference between murdering terrorists and every black man in Baltimore is that every black man in Baltimore isn't a murdering terrorist.

My main objection here is the insane leap of logic that people are under any sort of obligation whatsoever to behave in a respectful fashion to religion.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, I'm not religious. Sad point of reality, that makes me and everyone like me a minority to most of the planet who falls into one big religion or another, or a vast variety of smaller ones. If I lose my rights to one religion, I have lost it to all of them, and that is completely unacceptable.

After all, if I'm provoking terrorists like these two stellar examples of humanity by a cartoon and have nobody to blame but myself, does that mean I also had it coming when some intellectual giant like Eric Rudolph decides to blow me up because of my open speech about my stance on abortion?

Southpaw would disagree but I suspect he's one of those two-faced religious folks that believe one religion in schools is okay while another is not....

Religion needs to be put the f*** in its place.

Yes, all of them, be they Christian or Muslim, and most especially if they are murdering pieces of garbage.

Kimon
05-08-2015, 12:21 AM
The difference between murdering terrorists and every black man in Baltimore is that every black man in Baltimore isn't a murdering terrorist.



You're missing the point. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, and most black men you'd cross paths with in Baltimore are not only not murdering terrorists but law-abiding citizens who would likely be quite pleasant if treated with respect, and quite pissed if you called them that particular word. Is not the same true of most Muslims? I wouldn't be pissed if someone made a satirical and insulting cartoon of Jesus, any more than I would if it was of god, or Moses. Nor obviously would I personally care about Muhammad. Heck, I wouldn't even care if they were making an offensive cartoon about Athena or Artemis, not that I really believe in them either, but I certainly revere them more than any of the Judeo-Christian pantheon.

Your typical Muslim on the other hand is apt to get upset at insults to Muhammad, and presumably to God to, though they seem to let Christians get away with the latter. Now we could certainly think to ourselves that's it's stupid to get upset when someone makes fun of a prophet whom we clearly don't believe in, but it's also stupid to ignore the fact that they will. Geller knew that she would piss certain people off, and was hoping to. She has an agenda. We shouldn't forget that. She had the right to do what she did. Doesn't change the fact that she's an a**.

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 12:43 AM
You're missing the point. Most Muslims aren't terrorists,

Nobody said that they were, including Geller. Where's the point? Clarify.

and most black men you'd cross paths with in Baltimore are not only not murdering terrorists but law-abiding citizens who would likely be quite pleasant if treated with respect, and quite pissed if you called them that particular word.

Is not the same true of most Muslims?

Yes, and I rickon mose dem Chrishuns would get demselves right pissed off if you made sacrilgeious displays like the ones that people were gettin all uptight about here in Michigan last Christmas.

Do not care. There is no right not to be offended. No right to be pissed off.

This especially goes for trash who hide behind their religion and want everyone to respect their own while refusing to respect anyone else. I, C, etc.

In fact, I can and do, along with South Park, Bill Maher and other personalities of wildly variant ideologies, reserve to be as offensive as a I damn well please.

I won't, usually, because that's not how I roll.
Emphasis usually.

Your typical Muslim on the other hand is apt to get upset at insults to Muhammad, and presumably to God to, though they seem to let Christians get away with the latter.

That's okay. They seem to let us atheists get away with the latter as well. Cuz see, that's normal behavior, and like you say.... most Muslims are normal people.

The problem is that 100% of all murdering terrorists are murdering terrorists and they are using their specific brand of religion as an excuse for their behavior. We do not have to take THEIR feelings into account. We should not. Ever. Period.

As for the vast majority of perfectly decent Muslims.... well, sorry bro-folks. You get the same consideration I give every other tool who worships invisible spaghetti monsters. Zero. I do happily lol at the aforementioned South Park episodes.

Now we could certainly think to ourselves that's it's stupid to get upset when someone makes fun of a prophet whom we clearly don't believe in, but it's also stupid to ignore the fact that they will.

My point is this. There are two groups of Muslims that are relevant to what you are saying.

Decent Muslims. Same as everyone else. Same special privileges as everyone else. None.

Murdering terrorists. They do not have an opinion that counts. If you shape your life to appease them, you have no freedom. You might as well pick up the gun and shoot yourself in the face.

It does not matter one wit whether either group has a legitimate reason to be offended or not. The good ones will behave like decent people and suck it up. The bad ones will be bad no matter what you do.


If it were your sole point that Geller is an ass, we would be in complete agreement.

Nazbaque
05-08-2015, 02:02 AM
Ah yes free speech. A right that can't be defined in a way that can't be abused. Should people have it? Yes. Are there people who don't deserve it? Geller for one. Should the right be taken away because some don't deserve it? No. Are there extremist muslims who have commited a number of atrocities? Oh yes. Does that mean all muslims deserve to be insulted? No. Are Islam and Christianity prone to producing violent religious nut jobs? Well looking at history one would have to say at least a bit. Is that a reason to condem all religion? Well no if it can be said that there are religions that don't produce violent nut jobs. Like Taoism? Okay those nut jobs are pretty damn rare. Isn't blaming the violent habits of some believers in some religions on all religion a bit illogical? Well there are a few steps in between that certainly should be proven conclusively. But why not jump straight to human nature that so readily takes religion as an excuse to do wrong? Well... I don't know. Isn't blindly blaming it all on religion exactly the same unthinking oversimplification that religious belief is blamed for making the blamer a huge hypocrite? Well since you put it that way... yes.

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 02:15 AM
Is that a reason to condem all religion? Well no if it can be said that there are religions that don't produce violent nut jobs.

If that were the only thing I had against religion in general, I might agree. I will generalize primarily because the worst offenders also have the largest memberships and overshadow all others by sheer scale.

If you are specifically addressing my comment regarding all those smaller ones, I consider my freedoms no less lost when lost to a smaller one as a larger one. Fortunately the more inoffensive religions such as the one you've noted....

.... they already know their place. They don't need to be put in it.

As you say, religion isn't the root of the problem, however it's typically the nastiest manifestation.

Nazbaque
05-08-2015, 03:13 AM
As you say, religion isn't the root of the problem, however it's typically the nastiest manifestation.
Just as people like Geller are at the front of free speech abuse but it's not right to blame it on the first amendment? It's pretty much the same thing. The philosophers and prophets who pondered the nature of reality for the most part didn't intend their words to be an excuse for violence and the people who penned the first amendment didn't intend it to be a shield for insulting behaviour towards innocent people.

GonzoTheGreat
05-08-2015, 05:15 AM
The liberal media continues to attack the people who had the Muhammad cartoon drawing contest and basically saying that they deserved to be attacked by Islamic extremist savages.
Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is it merely unfounded libel?

After reading the link you supplied, I noticed that it did not contain examples of what you suggested it did. I'm not even sure it was particularly liberal, come to that.

As for the Geller crowd: they try to get as close as they can to the legal limits of what they can say to (and even more: about) Muslims. Inevitably, they will now and then cross that line, and then claim that they have been misunderstood.

Suppose that some right wing leader asked in a meeting with his followers: "Do you want more or fewer Jews?" Suppose that his followers then chanted "Fewer, fewer, fewer!" And this leader answered them "We will arrange it." Sounds a lot like what happened 80 years ago in Germany, doesn't it?
Of course, Geller cum sui aren't like that. When Wilders made this remark, he used "Moroccans" where I just substituted "Jews". Obviously there's some big difference, though what it is somewhat escapes me. In the USA, planning genocide is probably protected by the first two Amendments to your Constitution.

Davian93
05-08-2015, 07:58 AM
I see it as a free speech thing too FWIW. You shouldn't have to worry about getting shot because you drew an image of Mohammed.

South Park shouldn't be censored because they showed Mohammed in an episode (the only episode that is never syndicated and the only one you cant stream on their website). That's utter garbage and its this sort of crap that makes me despise extremism.

Daekyras
05-08-2015, 08:45 AM
If you walk down the streets of Baltimore calling every black man you pass a certain inflammatory word, are you exercising your right to free speech, or trying to start a fight? Or both?

That would be totally ok as long as someone was walking behind you saying "daypro" to the same guys....

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 10:45 AM
Just as people like Geller are at the front of free speech abuse but it's not right to blame it on the first amendment?

The difference between free speech and religion is that one is a legal principle and the other is a
cluster-bomb of anti-reality spirituality.

people who penned the first amendment didn't intend it to be a shield for insulting behaviour towards innocent people.

Sure they did. There is no right not to be insulted, no matter how innocent one is. No right not to be offended, nor pissed off.

That's why free speech is there right next to freedom of religion, despite the fact that the two regularly give rise to offense when pitted against each other.

I don't have the right not to be offended by the personalized religious attacks that so often come from the mouths of I and C.

They don't have the right not to be offended when I insult or attack them.

Ironically, you seem to be arguing for a double-standard since the WORST abusers of free speech when it comes to insulting others are the religious.... and not those insulting religion.

The founding fathers had their slow moments, like that whole equal rights thing at the same time as having slaves, but they knew perfectly well that without freedom to offend, you don't have free speech.

This whole YOU DUNT HAF DA RITE TO OFFEND ME is new and ignorant nonsense that is intended to keep the right to free speech in the hand of a privileged few.

GonzoTheGreat
05-08-2015, 11:01 AM
Well, in the USA, free speech was never intended for the three fifths, was it?

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 12:31 PM
Well, in the USA, free speech was never intended for the three fifths, was it?

... and?

I have no idea what that means unless you're taking a ride on the Southpaw train.

fdsaf3
05-08-2015, 01:00 PM
I'm only partially serious about this, but sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't blow up the entire Constitution and start over.

For my taste, there are far too many people with an inadequate understanding of the nuances and complexities of the American jurisprudence system. It's bad enough that we have 27 amendments to the Constitution that people have to keep track of. What's worse is that how those amendments are applied depend on centuries of decisions and other jurisprudence. In my opinion, it shouldn't take a law degree and/or a study of historical case law to know what is and isn't legal.

If we could somehow clean up and streamline the Constitution, I think the benefit here would be twofold. First, it would give laypeople a better understanding and appreciation for their rights as citizens of this country. Instead of arguing about what is and is not "free speech", we could hammer out an actual prescriptive definition rather than rely on the nebulous understanding that we all think we share.

The second benefit is that we can update the rights we all share to reflect modern sensibilities. To be frank, I'm a little sick of the reverence people in this country have for the ideas of men who lived 250 years ago. Granted, they were brilliant men with brilliant ideas. But we can do better. The reliance we have on those ideas belies an undercurrent of social conservatism I don't agree with.

Yes, this is a "pie in the sky" kind of what-if scenario. Yes, there are mountains of problems with doing the kind of massive overhaul and revision I'm talking about. I'm not discounting those challenges. I'm just saying it would be nice to do.

yks 6nnetu hing
05-08-2015, 03:01 PM
I'm only partially serious about this, but sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't blow up the entire Constitution and start over.

For my taste, there are far too many people with an inadequate understanding of the nuances and complexities of the American jurisprudence system. It's bad enough that we have 27 amendments to the Constitution that people have to keep track of. What's worse is that how those amendments are applied depend on centuries of decisions and other jurisprudence. In my opinion, it shouldn't take a law degree and/or a study of historical case law to know what is and isn't legal.

If we could somehow clean up and streamline the Constitution, I think the benefit here would be twofold. First, it would give laypeople a better understanding and appreciation for their rights as citizens of this country. Instead of arguing about what is and is not "free speech", we could hammer out an actual prescriptive definition rather than rely on the nebulous understanding that we all think we share.

The second benefit is that we can update the rights we all share to reflect modern sensibilities. To be frank, I'm a little sick of the reverence people in this country have for the ideas of men who lived 250 years ago. Granted, they were brilliant men with brilliant ideas. But we can do better. The reliance we have on those ideas belies an undercurrent of social conservatism I don't agree with.

Yes, this is a "pie in the sky" kind of what-if scenario. Yes, there are mountains of problems with doing the kind of massive overhaul and revision I'm talking about. I'm not discounting those challenges. I'm just saying it would be nice to do.aww, a fellow appreciator of Napoleon's civil law code.

:rolleyes:

I am SO going to Waterloo on June 18th. Nerdgasm like you wouldn't believe...

Kimon
05-08-2015, 05:11 PM
Nobody said that they were, including Geller. Where's the point? Clarify.



Here's what you said:

The difference between murdering terrorists and every black man in Baltimore is that every black man in Baltimore isn't a murdering terrorist.

There are layers of distinction here obviously. Many black men would likely be offended if you said that. Many would likely do nothing, or else just respond verbally. Some would do more. Few would obviously do as much more as these idiots did that shot at Geller's little art club, but the same is true of Muslims, is it not? That was the point that I was trying to make. Many Muslims knew what she was doing, and just chose to ignore her, as it was clear what she wanted was a reaction. Those fools fell for her bait, likely in a fashion violent enough perhaps even to have surprised some at the event, though clearly not all, as even the FBI notified the Garland police about the risk posed by the chatter around the event...

Two weeks before the Garland event, which invited artists to draw illustrations of Muhammad, the FBI and Homeland Security warned law enforcement agencies across the country that it was at risk of being targeted by Islamic extremists. The advisory noted that supporters of ISIS and other terror groups had posted links to the contest on Twitter.

Simpson was reading those posts, and communicated with an American in Somalia who'd called for attacking the event, investigators have said.

The FBI then developed information that Simpson might be interested in traveling to Garland, Comey said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-says-it-alerted-garland-police-about-elton-simpson-n355526

Indeed the only person other than the shooters (whose demise none of us are apt to care about) to be wounded was not one of the participants, but a security guard. I wouldn't suggest that she share in any criminal or even civil culpability had he died as well, but she was nonetheless responsible for putting him and others in harms way so that she could conduct her demagoguery. Had she just been naive, it would be one thing, even had she been trying to make a legitimate point about hypocrisy and closed-mindedness in hopes of convincing Muslims that cartoons of Muhammad were no big deal, what she did would be, if foolish, still reasonable. But that's not what she was doing. What she was doing was little different than walking down the street yelling you know what at every black man she passed - not alone obviously, surrounded by saps and security, you know, just in case.

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 06:10 PM
Here's what you said:

There are layers of distinction here obviously. Many black men would likely be offended if you said that.

I think they'd be far more offended at your insinuation that blacks should be compared to violent extremist animals who enforce their views with bullets.

Many would likely do nothing, or else just respond verbally. Some would do more. Few would obviously do as much more as these idiots did that shot at Geller's little art club, but the same is true of Muslims, is it not?

This is why I made the distinction that you ignored. Some few blacks might react with extreme violence and murder attempts. 100% of all violent extremists would react with extreme violence or plan it for a later date. Basic math here.

These weren't just your average Muslims. These were part of a specific class of Muslim known as violent extremist terrorist, pick-your-ist-here, much as there are a specifc class of Christian known as fundamentalist extremist domestic terrorist etc.

That was the point that I was trying to make.

It's an unfounded comparison that insults black people is why I don't accept that point.

These aren't fools who fell for bait. They are people who have and continue to plan violent acts when any act of disrespect against their religion is shown. Their reaction is calculated and methodical. They are willing to die for it. They don't get "suckered" into dying. They know they're in Texas, and know that Cappin Yuckabilly and his 18 half-brothers-and-sisters have a gun and will shoot them dead.

The point was to send a message. Respect us or die. Submit. Sadly, too many already do. Nobody should. We don't submit to the Catholics and their goddamn peodphiliac conspiracies and we don't submit to the Christians and their goddamn child-bride domestic armaggedon cults.

And yes.... the majority of Muslims, Christians and Catholics aren't like that.

Which is why i am making the DISTINCTION of extremists.

I wouldn't suggest that she share in any criminal or even civil culpability had he died as well, but she was nonetheless responsible for putting him and others in harms way so that she could conduct her demagoguery.

Putting himself in harm's way is his job, much like the police. If there were nothing to do, he wouldn't have a job.

What she was doing was little different than walking down the street yelling you know what at every black man she passed - not alone obviously, surrounded by saps and security, you know, just in case.

No, they're nothing alike, because every black man isn't part of a violent extremist movement, whereas 100% of violent extremists terrorists are part of a violent extremist movement. The terrorist will react violently, the black only might. And most won't, because most are decent people able to recognize profoundly stupid freaking morons when they see them.

I think the problem is that you are trying to treat a specific small and violent subsection of a greater population as ordinary and average people who are deserving of extra special dignity and respect.

These weren't just ordinary average Muslims. This is why people go "duh" when they get attacked. Because extremists will react while your average Muslim will not.

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 06:14 PM
On a side note, how normal people react to the situation you hypothesize:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/04/parking-lot-racist-rant/9982371/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4aw53NLqeE

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/brooklyn-yeshiva-headmaster-defends-security-guard-who-roughed-up-man/

Some rough behavior, but nary a sign of an execution.

Kimon
05-08-2015, 06:29 PM
I think they'd be far more offended at your insinuation that blacks should be compared to violent extremist animals who enforce their views with bullets.



This is why I made the distinction that you ignored. Some few blacks might react with extreme violence and murder attempts. 100% of all violent extremists would react with extreme violence or plan it for a later date. Basic math here.

These weren't just your average Muslims. These were part of a specific class of Muslim known as violent extremist terrorist, pick-your-ist-here, much as there are a specifc class of Christian known as fundamentalist extremist domestic terrorist etc.



It's an unfounded comparison that insults black people is why I don't accept that point.

These aren't fools who fell for bait. They are people who have and continue to plan violent acts when any act of disrespect against their religion is shown. Their reaction is calculated and methodical. They are willing to die for it. They don't get "suckered" into dying. They know they're in Texas, and know that Cappin Yuckabilly and his 18 half-brothers-and-sisters have a gun and will shoot them dead.

The point was to send a message. Respect us or die. Submit. Sadly, too many already do. Nobody should. We don't submit to the Catholics and their goddamn peodphiliac conspiracies and we don't submit to the Christians and their goddamn child-bride domestic armaggedon cults.

And yes.... the majority of Muslims, Christians and Catholics aren't like that.

Which is why i am making the DISTINCTION of extremists.



Putting himself in harm's way is his job, much like the police. If there were nothing to do, he wouldn't have a job.



No, they're nothing alike, because every black man isn't part of a violent extremist movement, whereas 100% of violent extremists terrorists are part of a violent extremist movement. The terrorist will react violently, the black only might. And most won't, because most are decent people able to recognize profoundly stupid freaking morons when they see them.

I think the problem is that you are trying to treat a specific small and violent subsection of a greater population as ordinary and average people who are deserving of extra special dignity and respect.

These weren't just ordinary average Muslims. This is why people go "duh" when they get attacked. Because extremists will react while your average Muslim will not.

I'll give you this, you are at least consistent. It is nonetheless sad that when we have so few posters left that two of the frequent lingerers are trolls.

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 07:36 PM
I'll give you this, you are at least consistent. It is nonetheless sad that when we have so few posters left that two of the frequent lingerers are trolls.

I'm consistent because I stand by my principles. In parts they may agree with your own, in others they may not. I hope that the fact that we disagree on this doesn't mean I'm one of the "trolls" you're referring to.

Kimon
05-08-2015, 08:04 PM
I'm consistent because I stand by my principles. In parts they may agree with your own, in others they may not. I hope that the fact that we disagree on this doesn't mean I'm one of the "trolls" you're referring to.

There is a thematic tone to your posts, that and the fact that you never seem to bother reading what the other person is saying...

eht slat meit
05-08-2015, 08:18 PM
There is a thematic tone to your posts, that and the fact that you never seem to bother reading what the other person is saying...

I'm aware of what the word thematic means, and that makes absolutely no sense. Consistency in holding to one's principles isn't a "theme" and it sure isn't trolling.

I've read what you're saying and you've made it clear that you've no interest in addressing the things that I actually talk about and instead ascribe things to me that I actually haven't said in order to suggest that people might be offended by them. I make distinctions, and you don't read and determine what that distinction is.

That bit about the distinction between average blacks and violent extremists for example. That is a clear case of you projecting on to me exactly what you are accusing me of doing here.

Honestly, it sounds at this point like you're not simply willing to accept that we disagree and would rather dismiss me as a troll.

A lack of good faith in your argument is painfully obnoxious.

Kimon
05-08-2015, 09:39 PM
I'm aware of what the word thematic means, and that makes absolutely no sense. Consistency in holding to one's principles isn't a "theme" and it sure isn't trolling.

I've read what you're saying and you've made it clear that you've no interest in addressing the things that I actually talk about and instead ascribe things to me that I actually haven't said in order to suggest that people might be offended by them. I make distinctions, and you don't read and determine what that distinction is.

That bit about the distinction between average blacks and violent extremists for example. That is a clear case of you projecting on to me exactly what you are accusing me of doing here.

Honestly, it sounds at this point like you're not simply willing to accept that we disagree and would rather dismiss me as a troll.

A lack of good faith in your argument is painfully obnoxious.

The issue here, as in all the times we have crossed paths, is that you don't bother debating the issue and instead just resort to invective. If you simply disagreed with me I would not find you so obnoxious, it is that you constantly ignore everything that I write and simply spout nonsensical insults. It is admittedly possible that you are just a schmuck, and not a troll. The difference between the two is however in my opinion slight.

GonzoTheGreat
05-09-2015, 04:41 AM
Well, in the USA, free speech was never intended for the three fifths, was it?

... and?

I have no idea what that means unless you're taking a ride on the Southpaw train.
I was referring to the US Constitution itself, to which that free speech clause is a mere amendment. Specifically to this passage from Article I, Section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The Founding Fathers were quite clear that they made a distinction between WASPs and all others. Sometimes people lose sight of this reality, so I brought it to your attention.
Free speech (and freedom of religion, and the right to carry arms and so forth) was meant for the privileged few, not for everyone.

I do hope you know who those "three fifths" were.

Nazbaque
05-09-2015, 01:18 PM
The issue here, as in all the times we have crossed paths, is that you don't bother debating the issue and instead just resort to invective. If you simply disagreed with me I would not find you so obnoxious, it is that you constantly ignore everything that I write and simply spout nonsensical insults. It is admittedly possible that you are just a schmuck, and not a troll. The difference between the two is however in my opinion slight.

Well his username is an anagram for "the salt item". You can't expect much from such a person.

Kimon
05-09-2015, 01:20 PM
Well his username is an anagram for "the salt item". You can't expect much from such a person.

Hmm, for some reason every time I decide to reply to him I think to myself, this is "the last time" I bother engaging this twit.

Frenzy
05-10-2015, 07:11 PM
Arguing about free speech was apparently much more fun in the 70s. Nowadays it's religion and dead bodies, with an unhealthy dose of victim blaming. Back then it was Larry Flynt and bad porn.

GonzoTheGreat
05-11-2015, 04:28 AM
I suspect that in those days, religion hadn't been invented yet (it's hardly ever mentioned in Star Trek, showing that it was just future fiction when that series was shot, and outlandish at that).

Can we blame Microsoft for religious intolerance, or is some other big company responsible?

Daekyras
05-11-2015, 04:48 AM
Arguing about free speech was apparently much more fun in the 70s. Nowadays it's religion and dead bodies, with an unhealthy dose of victim blaming. Back then it was Larry Flynt and bad porn.

Hmmm. This seems to imply there is good porn.

Would you give examples/reasoning for your views on this matter frenzy? I will then examine the examples you give. For academic reasons of course.

Nazbaque
05-11-2015, 05:52 AM
Hmmm. This seems to imply there is good porn.

Would you give examples/reasoning for your views on this matter frenzy? I will then examine the examples you give. For academic reasons of course.

Well the hentai manga scene has some really good stuff. Mostly because there is an actual story to it a lot of the time. Of course there is also some pretty fucked up stuff there (pun intended) and I don't mean the tentacles. The real evil is with the netorare section. Some of the things there will scar you for life. So if you want to find the good stuff you have to risk running into the really awful stuff.

Daekyras
05-11-2015, 06:00 AM
Well the hentai manga scene has some really good stuff. Mostly because there is an actual story to it a lot of the time. Of course there is also some pretty fucked up stuff there (pun intended) and I don't mean the tentacles. The real evil is with the netorare section. Some of the things there will scar you for life. So if you want to find the good stuff you have to risk running into the really awful stuff.

NO Naz. NOOOOOOO. I looked up something you told me about before and it is burned into my brain. I.....can't....delete....it...

Nazbaque
05-11-2015, 06:10 AM
NO Naz. NOOOOOOO. I looked up something you told me about before and it is burned into my brain. I.....can't....delete....it...

Hmmm... I don't think I've told about the really bad ones. Which one did you check? Just so I know your tolerance level.

Daekyras
05-11-2015, 06:21 AM
Hmmm... I don't think I've told about the really bad ones. Which one did you check? Just so I know your tolerance level.

It was in japanese(the english version, not the glyphs). It came up in another thread and you dared us. It was really bad. Ill search through the threads and find it but I am not looking at it again. Urgh!

Nazbaque
05-11-2015, 06:54 AM
It was in japanese(the english version, not the glyphs). It came up in another thread and you dared us. It was really bad. Ill search through the threads and find it but I am not looking at it again. Urgh!

Ah, Kyoushi to Seito to by Fuuga. But that one is actually one of the good ones. Unless... was it the other couple? The incest one? Yeah that has some shock value.

Well there is stuff out there that is a lot tamer. I chose that one for a dare because Fuuga likes to build up a story and the character desings aren't all that extreme in body proportions. A brother-sister incest s&m side relationship isn't even close to how bad it gets, but in hindsight I see it was a bit too much.

Nazbaque
05-11-2015, 07:35 AM
On the subject of proving the existance of good porn. There is the Boing Boing Teacher series and its continuation Boing Boing Onsen by Hidemaru. The body proportions are a bit on the exaggerated side, but it actually fits in pretty well since it's a comedy in nature making fun of the japanese porn industry, the whole ecchi genre of anime/manga in general and the harem story set up in particular. It's really long (eight 200+ page volumes) and it's been a while since I read it, but I don't think there was anything that shocking in there. But one doesn't have to read the whole thing anyway as it's more a series of episodes than one big story.

Ozymandias
05-11-2015, 06:44 PM
The reliance we have on those ideas belies an undercurrent of social conservatism I don't agree with.


This is the problem with your entire post. You disagree with the social/political arguments being made by a certain segment of the country, and object to what you view as their insistence on twisting the arguments made by men long dead to suit their purpose. They would likely say the same of you.

I find the disgusting hypocrisy of many conservative (or "literalist/originalist") judges to be contemptible, since if you are going to take a position on how to interpret the law, it should at least be consistent, but I also object to the evident cause of your discontent; e.g. that people you disagree with are reading the Constitution differently than you are. Just because you can interpret a document two ways doesn't mean we should rip it apart.

Nazbaque
05-11-2015, 08:31 PM
This is the problem with your entire post. You disagree with the social/political arguments being made by a certain segment of the country, and object to what you view as their insistence on twisting the arguments made by men long dead to suit their purpose. They would likely say the same of you.

I find the disgusting hypocrisy of many conservative (or "literalist/originalist") judges to be contemptible, since if you are going to take a position on how to interpret the law, it should at least be consistent, but I also object to the evident cause of your discontent; e.g. that people you disagree with are reading the Constitution differently than you are. Just because you can interpret a document two ways doesn't mean we should rip it apart.

Actually that's exactly what you should do. The law is impractical (too easily interpreted to suit any cause) so repeal it (tear it apart). You know, get over your sentimental issues and fix a problem the ancients didn't foresee when they first wrote the damn thing.

fdsaf3
05-12-2015, 10:06 AM
This is the problem with your entire post. You disagree with the social/political arguments being made by a certain segment of the country, and object to what you view as their insistence on twisting the arguments made by men long dead to suit their purpose. They would likely say the same of you.

I find the disgusting hypocrisy of many conservative (or "literalist/originalist") judges to be contemptible, since if you are going to take a position on how to interpret the law, it should at least be consistent, but I also object to the evident cause of your discontent; e.g. that people you disagree with are reading the Constitution differently than you are. Just because you can interpret a document two ways doesn't mean we should rip it apart.

You really, really missed the point of what I wrote. Normally I would encourage someone who was so off base to go through and reread what I wrote to pick up on the intended meaning, but I have a feeling you don't care to do so.

eht slat meit
05-13-2015, 12:53 AM
The issue here, as in all the times we have crossed paths, is that you don't bother debating the issue and instead just resort to invective.

I will happily admit to using invective. It is entirely appropriate and relevant when the subject at hand is murdering terrorists. There is absolutely no reason this should bother you as none of it was directed at you or personalized.

However, that is NOT "resorting to" it is IN ADDITION to debating the issue. I realize that you're projecting here, that you're now not just claiming I don't read what you said and debate things you haven't said, but now am not debating things at all.

You know that consistency you mentioned? Show it.

If you simply disagreed with me I would not find you so obnoxious

I suspect that you're not being honest here, and what really offends you is that I not just disagree with you, but that I am not convinced by your reasoning. I've noticed that the people who love others most in debates are the ones they've managed to swing around to their way of thought on a subject. Love/hate. It's acceptable for me to disagree until you've presented your arguments, and then I need to admit that I am wrong about everything.

If you weren't showcasing a method of completely copping out of a debate that is older than both you and I by personally abandoning the discussion and personally attacking me, I could believe that you actually cared about this discussion instead of simply trying to assert the dominance and righteousness of your opinion by dismissing me with personal attacks.

it is that you constantly ignore everything that I write and simply spout nonsensical insults.

Where in this argument did I insult you? you jumped me with that "trolling" crack, had the option to leave it alone, and when I questioned it, you went full bore, not the other way around. YOU lowered the tone here.

It is admittedly possible that you are just a schmuck, and not a troll. The difference between the two is however in my opinion slight.

There might be a line between hypocrisy and simply being offended by my vulgarity, but you crossed it several posts back with the personalized shots at me for so-called trolling that you're now stepping away from in favor of personal shots.

Look, if you want to believe that I'm simply not resopnding to what you SAY, that's cool, but that's because you're not seeing beyond me disagreing with you.

I'll be the first to admit that while I DO read and respond to what you are saying, I do not have a deep understanding of where you are coming from.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me when you start arguing about something I'm not even talking about, because clearly that's got something to do with what you think and not what I've been saying.

There is obviously more to your arguments than you actually say, and you expect me to know what that is, to undersatnd it, and to respond to it. I'm not not left, not liberal, not a Democrat. Don't expect that. It would be as equally unrealistic coming from the right, the conservatives and the Republicans, who I have the same problem with.

The differnece is that the right is easy to hate because I've grown up exposed to religion throughout my life and seen its corrupting influence on everything. The best of people are not the religious, but the spiritual, between which there is a very great divide.

As such, I have a very low tolerance for the hatefulness and spite that comes out of that part of our society, and far, far less for outright murder and tyranny. Yes, I do respond to it with invective. As I pointed out, I consider that appropriate, and despite what admitted trolls like Nazbaque will claim, that is not hypocrisy. I am responding to unfounded invective that is part and parcel of religion with founded invective. That, the difference.

Maybe you're copping out, or just angry that I'm not accepting what you feel is superior logic and lashing out, but grow up and knock it off already.

But if you're going to keep up with this, you might as well admit that YOU are the problem here, and that you are the troll. It may be a tried-and-true method that's older than dirt, but I'm not going to accept acts of projection and hypocrisy being couched as legitimate criticism.

eht slat meit
05-13-2015, 01:23 AM
Hmm, for some reason every time I decide to reply to him I think to myself, this is "the last time" I bother engaging this twit.

The sad irony of this statement is that this isn't true at all. I remembered we'd had a long and productive discussion/argument awhile back, and couldn't remember what it was about, so I went back and looked. Same kind of discussion, with me slipping invectives where and when I felt appropriate and not once directed at you. At the time, you seemed to realize that and that's why you were just fine with having a long and drawn out discussion where we actually agreed on some points.

http://theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8372

Sad. This conversation is a radical departure for you, and not for the better.

Whereas Nazmack, who I'd completely forgotten, seems to have gotten extremely slack in his trolling. Holy smoke man, you trolled me hard and I bought it. Well played, jerk.

Nazbaque
05-13-2015, 04:45 AM
The sad irony of this statement is that this isn't true at all. I remembered we'd had a long and productive discussion/argument awhile back, and couldn't remember what it was about, so I went back and looked. Same kind of discussion, with me slipping invectives where and when I felt appropriate and not once directed at you. At the time, you seemed to realize that and that's why you were just fine with having a long and drawn out discussion where we actually agreed on some points.

http://theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8372

Sad. This conversation is a radical departure for you, and not for the better.

Whereas Nazmack, who I'd completely forgotten, seems to have gotten extremely slack in his trolling. Holy smoke man, you trolled me hard and I bought it. Well played, jerk.

And by the sound of it, now almost a year later you still don't understand what I actually meant.

Also you've been bringing me up so much lately that I'm starting to think that you masturbate to the idea of me being tortured or something. A bit kinky but I guess I should be honoured for having someone masturbate to me.

Incidentally, could this be the thread where southpaw got the "99% of us lick Obama's balls" stuff? From a post by Sodas?:eek::eek::eek:

Kimon
05-13-2015, 04:44 PM
I will happily admit to using invective. It is entirely appropriate and relevant when the subject at hand is murdering terrorists. There is absolutely no reason this should bother you as none of it was directed at you or personalized.

However, that is NOT "resorting to" it is IN ADDITION to debating the issue. I realize that you're projecting here, that you're now not just claiming I don't read what you said and debate things you haven't said, but now am not debating things at all.



On the off chance that this was an honest request for clarification, rather than merely another trolling or just a stubborn desire to get in the last retort, I'll take the bait, and against my better judgment, reply.

Do you really not see what irritated me? It was not that you disagreed.

Where in this argument did I insult you? you jumped me with that "trolling" crack, had the option to leave it alone, and when I questioned it, you went full bore, not the other way around. YOU lowered the tone here.

This began because I made what seemed an obvious point of comparison. That there was a similarity between intentional forms of insult designed to elicit a reaction (ironic, under the present circumstances, nay?), that as such, while drawing insulting images of Muhammad is clearly free speech that we should not overlook the fact that at times it is akin to use of that other word.

I made this comparison and you said this:

I think they'd be far more offended at your insinuation that blacks should be compared to violent extremist animals who enforce their views with bullets.


Calling someone a racist because you disagree with their point isn't in your opinion a nonsensical insult? It wasn't trolling?

Had this been an isolated incident I would have simply taken it as an unfortunate bit of pique, but it is a pattern of behavior.

Terez
05-13-2015, 06:38 PM
Had this been an isolated incident I would have simply taken it as an unfortunate bit of pique, but it is a pattern of behavior.
I can agree with that. I'm not entirely sure it is intentional, though.

Nazbaque
05-14-2015, 03:15 AM
Well he did use the word "animal" to describe the violent extremists. That alone is a sign that he doesn't think much and so very little of what he does is intentional.

eht slat meit
05-16-2015, 02:31 PM
This began because I made what seemed an obvious point of comparison. That there was a similarity between intentional forms of insult designed to elicit a reaction (ironic, under the present circumstances, nay?), that as such, while drawing insulting images of Muhammad is clearly free speech that we should not overlook the fact that at times it is akin to use of that other word.

I made this comparison and you said this:

Nice, I'm actually starting to get an inkling of your perspective. You're distilling this whole thing to acts, while I'm keeping those acts within context of the people. That may seem a subtle differnece, but it means a lot in how things are interpreted and conveyed.

However, I also see you taking insult where one was neither given nor intended.

You said:
"If you walk down the streets of Baltimore calling every black man you pass a certain inflammatory word, are you exercising your right to free speech, or trying to start a fight? Or both? "


I considered your point nonsensical, as I didn't realize that you were coming at this solely as an act, completely eliminating the all-important context of people committing the acts.

After all, you could (though I didn't recognize/acknowledge it at the time) compare the acts, without comparing the people committing them.

That's why I responded with:

"The difference between murdering terrorists and every black man in Baltimore is that every black man in Baltimore isn't a murdering terrorist."

That is indeed a difference.... if you keep it in context of the people committing the acts, instead of distilling it to the act, which is something I consider illogical.

I thought that's what you were saying when you responded by elaborating, and that's why I pointed out what was illogically being insinuated. And yes, I deliberatley use the word "insinuating" rather than "implying" because it indicates a lack of possible/probable lack of malicious intent on your part.

Your statement can be construed that way, though I don't believe you intended it that way or that you are a racist.

I still don't understand why you didn't bring that up when I said it, rather than waiting and making the false claim that it is part of a pattern of behavior that it is certainly not, but perhaps you can clarify that too.

eht slat meit
05-16-2015, 02:35 PM
Well he did use the word "animal" to describe the violent extremists. That alone is a sign that he doesn't think much and so very little of what he does is intentional.

My, what a tempting morsel that is in front of me. It seems to have been poorly placed on a shiny hook. Perhaps the master has lost his knack for baiting?

Kimon
05-16-2015, 03:15 PM
I still don't understand why you didn't bring that up when I said it, rather than waiting and making the false claim that it is part of a pattern of behavior that it is certainly not, but perhaps you can clarify that too.

I did.

I'll give you this, you are at least consistent. It is nonetheless sad that when we have so few posters left that two of the frequent lingerers are trolls.

That should have been clear enough, as should my point of initial comparison. But as you clearly were and are incapable of reading between the lines I have been far more blunt than I usually would be.

Nazbaque
05-16-2015, 04:03 PM
My, what a tempting morsel that is in front of me. It seems to have been poorly placed on a shiny hook. Perhaps the master has lost his knack for baiting?

And so distracted by the obvious he gets caught in the subtle. I still am a master baiter.

Ozymandias
05-18-2015, 02:40 PM
You really, really missed the point of what I wrote. Normally I would encourage someone who was so off base to go through and reread what I wrote to pick up on the intended meaning, but I have a feeling you don't care to do so.

Don't assume anything about what I do and do not care to do. Instead of insulting whatever you assume to be my level of reading comprehension, perhaps you should try and work on phrasing your argument in such a way that your final thoughts on an issue don't prejudice the rest of what you've written?

You maek a decent argument point our Constitution is complex and poorly understood. This isn't a reflection of the Constitution so much as it is a reflection of the fact that few Americans care to take the time to understand it. But fine, I'll agree that perhaps a streamlining is needed.

But I'd argue that there are important socio-historical reasons for keeping the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) the way it is. Yes, it should go without saying that women can vote and African Americans are actual human beings. But the fact that those things are enshrined in the legal record of our nation's history is an important reminder of past mistakes and a collective heritage we share and bear responsibility for, even if its a reprehensible and evil one. Maybe others disagree, but I don't think its worth papering over that for a small amount of additional simplicity.

I just didn't love the reference to social conservatism. Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but when you start discussing "modern sensibilities" as a plus and "social conservatism" as a negative, well, I read that as a very thinly veiled attack on literalist interpretations of the Constitution and on conservative social mores in general.

Mind you, I think social conservatism is just a nice word for "bigotry", but I still don't think that disagreeing with the way one faction interprets a document or law is a fair basis for calling for a revision of said document. That is a slippery slope.

GonzoTheGreat
05-19-2015, 03:32 AM
Mind you, I think social conservatism is just a nice word for "bigotry", but I still don't think that disagreeing with the way one faction interprets a document or law is a fair basis for calling for a revision of said document. That is a slippery slope.
Maybe, but if it is that other side which is doing the official interpreting (because they have the majority of Supreme Judges), then your options do seem to be limited to accepting bigotry as law of the land, changing said law, or impeaching those judges. Impeaching judges doesn't happen often at all, so while in theory that is possible, it would seem to be a very remote possibility.

Ozymandias
05-19-2015, 06:04 PM
Maybe, but if it is that other side which is doing the official interpreting (because they have the majority of Supreme Judges), then your options do seem to be limited to accepting bigotry as law of the land, changing said law, or impeaching those judges. Impeaching judges doesn't happen often at all, so while in theory that is possible, it would seem to be a very remote possibility.

Yes well I happen to believe that however their appointment may happen, the Supreme Court is, well, supreme. I may think their opinions are bigoted bogus. But a large portion of the population of this country believes that, too. The fact that I disagree, even the fact that said judges are often enormous hypocrites, does not invalidate that their word is law, so to speak.

The very second we decide that popular opinion should supersede SCOTUS is the second the foundation of our government begins unraveling. Just because I disagree with their opinion and think much of it is based in bigotry and small mindedness is not a reason to seriously consider the idea that we should scrap the system for that very reason. That is why we are a representative democracy and not a democracy... because people are stupid and cannot be trusted, and while fdsaf3 may have only the best intentions, it is inevitable that the precedent such an action would set would do far more harm than good.

Nazbaque
05-19-2015, 06:15 PM
You mean you believe it hasn't already started to unravel?

Ozymandias
05-19-2015, 06:33 PM
You mean you believe it hasn't already started to unravel?

No...

Nazbaque
05-19-2015, 06:34 PM
How preciously naive of you.

Ozymandias
05-20-2015, 03:09 PM
How preciously naive of you.

Ha. You're an idiot. Our government was designed to work ineffectively and inefficiently. If you think a little gridlock is a sign of the proverbial end times, you don't know much at all.

Neither partisanship nor Washington gridlock is as bad as its been in the past, so why is this the beginning of the end? Probably because you are alive to experience it firsthand, the way every other generation thinks they're seeing the ultimate nadir.

Davian93
05-20-2015, 03:15 PM
Ha. You're an idiot. Our government was designed to work ineffectively and inefficiently. If you think a little gridlock is a sign of the proverbial end times, you don't know much at all.

Neither partisanship nor Washington gridlock is as bad as its been in the past, so why is this the beginning of the end? Probably because you are alive to experience it firsthand, the way every other generation thinks they're seeing the ultimate nadir.

Well, we've had an unprecedented number of filibusters and unprecedented blocking of federal judicial appointments...and essentially a "do-nothing" congress since 2010. Partisanship is as high as it was in the 1850s which isn't a great sign either. Sure, its been worse than this in the past but the last time it was, we had a civil war. Not ideal by any means.

Ozymandias
05-20-2015, 04:01 PM
Well, we've had an unprecedented number of filibusters and unprecedented blocking of federal judicial appointments...and essentially a "do-nothing" congress since 2010. Partisanship is as high as it was in the 1850s which isn't a great sign either. Sure, its been worse than this in the past but the last time it was, we had a civil war. Not ideal by any means.

A far cry from the government unraveling.

To begin to chip away at the Constitutional balance of power would be a far graver threat to the integrity of the government than if all of Congress started shooting each other over every minor dispute (that might actually help things).

Nazbaque
05-20-2015, 04:17 PM
Ha. You're an idiot. Our government was designed to work ineffectively and inefficiently. If you think a little gridlock is a sign of the proverbial end times, you don't know much at all.

Neither partisanship nor Washington gridlock is as bad as its been in the past, so why is this the beginning of the end? Probably because you are alive to experience it firsthand, the way every other generation thinks they're seeing the ultimate nadir.

Not what I was refering to. Nor did I mean that the government itself is unraveling just its foundation. It is the rule of corruption. The longer any government stays the same the closer it gets to becoming an unofficial plutocracy. The politicians hold power momentarily but the parties themselves are never accountable in any official manner. A faux pas only results in the de facto punishment of losing voters and that merely potentially. In the long term those with money hold the power and those with power see to it that they get money. The elections are pretty much just another sport.

Kimon
05-24-2015, 10:50 PM
Nothing to see here, other than an idiot who can't post in the right thread...

Terez
05-24-2015, 10:50 PM
Wrong thread dude.

Kimon
05-24-2015, 10:55 PM
Wrong thread dude.

How the heck did I do that? I'll move it into the right thread.

GonzoTheGreat
05-25-2015, 04:08 AM
Nothing to see here, other than an idiot who can't post in the right thread...
One of the most important features of the 1st Amendment is the right to remain silent. Far too few people are aware of that right.

fdsaf3
05-26-2015, 02:50 PM
Yes well I happen to believe that however their appointment may happen, the Supreme Court is, well, supreme. I may think their opinions are bigoted bogus. But a large portion of the population of this country believes that, too. The fact that I disagree, even the fact that said judges are often enormous hypocrites, does not invalidate that their word is law, so to speak.

The very second we decide that popular opinion should supersede SCOTUS is the second the foundation of our government begins unraveling. Just because I disagree with their opinion and think much of it is based in bigotry and small mindedness is not a reason to seriously consider the idea that we should scrap the system for that very reason. That is why we are a representative democracy and not a democracy... because people are stupid and cannot be trusted, and while fdsaf3 may have only the best intentions, it is inevitable that the precedent such an action would set would do far more harm than good.

So, a couple of things in response. I realize that this conversation has turned into a broader discussion than I originally intended. With that in mind, I can't possibly speak to all the different nuances and facets that are being discussed.

I can offer a bit of clarification or insight into my original proposition. I tried to make this clear in my first post the basic premise that the American legal system is simply too complex. In my opinion, understanding what citizens' rights are should not require a comprehensive and systematic knowledge of centuries of jurisprudence and court decisions. In an ideal world (and yes, I fully acknowledge that the world we live in is far from ideal), the rights of citizens would be transparent and easy for the lay public to understand. That was the first piece of my hypothetical "what if" scenario, and it seemed to me that there was some consensus that the American legal system is too complex.

The second piece which was not nearly as universally agreed upon is that in my opinion, the Constitution is outdated. Personally, I find the reverence we have for the founding fathers in this country to be more than a bit disingenuous given the fact that there are such obvious moral disasters embedded in the language of the original document. The foundation is good - I just think the document needs to be updated to reflect modern sensibilities. I don't mean to cast aspersions on social conservatism as a political movement, but I do have a problem with people who try to interpret the words of a document written 250 years ago as a guidepost for modern behavior. Again, in the context of "wouldn't it be nice", I think it would be wonderful if somehow we could wave a magic wand and somehow bring the Constitution up to date to reflect the nuances and challenges presented by 21st century technology and, generally speaking, the 21st century way of life.

I hope that maybe clears up a bit of what I was trying to say and where I was coming from in my previous post.

Also, my apologies for being snarky in my previous response.