Total Freedom of Speech is Bad

What if he has a broken leg and a tumor?
Do you say fuck off, get a job?

No that is basic social security what i am an advocate for, what i am talking about is enforcing laws on speech, let person solve their own problems if it bothers him\her so much

The voices think you're a spic.

I think the government should make the voices go away....

I tried to find a why millions of lives would be saved due to a global leftist society, in this post, but I could not. And, just as a heads up, you should not have said all life would be better off.

Edinburgh Uni actually, but a lot of people here seem to consider your ability to create poetical insults akin to a n ability to form good arguments, and I simply wished to point out it is not.

And here the fundamental difference, while I as a human am bound by empathy and can exercise a manner of control over the desires which my intellect concludes to be self-deleterious to humanity you lack such ability and attempt to rationalise your short-comings as the method through which humanity will gain happiness. It is typical of present-hedonistic time relations.

As you desire, however I would like you to consider that: one; many people here do not speak English as a first language and two; many may simply be accidental slips caused by quick typing. While pointing out mistakes is to be considered good once again, as is fundamental to this debate as a whole: it is the manner of your expression which denotes your non-humanity sympathies and marks you as an example of a political ideology that should long since have died.

Tradition: stupidity on purpose.

An argument which argues that the status quo is to be maintained for no other reason, that you expressed, other than because it is the status quo is an argument that would see humanity still in (insert any period of time in human history desired) and without any impetus for change and advancement.

Well then perhaps I can illicit a better response from you than Demondaze could provide. What term would you use to describe these restriction? A restriction to solicit a degree of security, when that security is capable of being infringed by other humans, must by its nature entail some manner of restriction of a freedom possessed by that human. Which freedom, if not freedom of speech is being restricted by defamation laws and what in Scotland would be called a section 5 offence for conduct that could be considered by a reasonable person to be abusive or likely to cause distress.

And by the way Scots Law isn't English law, I can, and people do, exercise their right to self-declare themselves as homophobes, insane Christians, even conservative as long as they aren't abusive about it.

"Fuck everyone else as long as I'm happy!"
(and p.s you spelt neighbour wrong (unless your using that dumbed down dialect: "American")

(I think you used the wrong "too" or missed a word somewhere at the start of that sentence seeing as, with the parenthesised clause removed, it makes no sense.)

And what of you! You who think nothing; and are content to stand against the march of progress because, in your blindness, you seek to stagnate humanity at a point which is reasonably conducive to your own pleasure. You and your kind who, for your own present-hedonistic thought cast aside with joyful glee your solemn duty as a human: to look at the world and see that though you may reside happily enough their stands all around you your fellow man; cringing in pain and suffering from the great weight of a civilisation long since decayed. And instead of desiring within yourself to examine this world and attempt to find solution to it you instead say to them "it is desirable"; hold the weight higher that I may feast more easily on its rotted banquet.

While I cannot claim truthfully to know how the world works; nor if my ideology will succeed in its desired effect, what I can say is that not trying is the mark of a man who has forsaken humanity, who would spit on the legacy of those gone before him who toiled and struggled to improve the lives of their fellows and advance humanity to ever greater heights. And though to you the view may seem quite resplendent I am ever thankful that the spirit of curiosity, determination and compassion still lives on in a few: and reminds them that just over that next mountain range is an even more wondrous and awesome vista. And they turn to their fellow man and they say to them, with a smile and a glint in their eye: "I have a plan."

I'd rather be reading Kant; his work is at least philosophical.

And I'll have you know that that "'dumbed' (not a word) down dialect" has been 1uping your ass for a century.

I'm flattered you would suggest that my writing would even be something you consider it necessary to state a preference for Kant over. I assumed that statement to be unnecessary.

And as far as English is concerned if you understood, and indeed if the reasonable person understood the meaning of the word, then it is, in fact, a word. (And some etymologists would say even this is too strict.) English is an unregulated language; which is why it continues to flourish.

And how exactly has it been "1uping" (also by your definition not a word) British English.

PS. I'd rather wait for Kali than continue this as he at least addresses the substance of a point as well as the asides; and does so in a manner which can be constructively responded to.

Are you a dictator or something?

Was just reading some more of the thread - I agree with what Kara said.
The world, and life itself would be a lot better off under socialism - That is an undeniable fact. To quote star trek "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". If any bourgeois-capitalists stand in the way of creating a livable world, freedom, and human progress, then I can completely justify sacrificing their personal freedoms, for the freedom, equality, and liberty for the many billions of people.

Actually I'm English so it's civilisation to me.

You actually wrote "civilisatoin".

It is never, ever as clear cut as that and don't pretend it is. One day it's "let's lock up Nazis." Then the next day, "Neocons are just as much of a threat." The following day, all those of a liberal persuasion need to be silenced, and the week after that, every one of your comrades that opposed these measures is accused of being a closet capitalist. A confession is extracted by torture, they are put on trial, and then executed. To people like Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky and Mao, anyone they didn't like was a capitalist. From some theatre owner who wrote vaguely critical poems, to other socialist world leaders that wrote long polemics full of ideological garbage about one another.

There were actually a few communists back in the day that recognised this idiocy but between you authoritarian fools and the powers of brutish early 20th century capitalism, they were all silenced.

You can sit there and argue "nononono, it won't be like that this time!" but frankly, history indicates otherwise, and every scrap of Leninst writing and political thought is ALL ABOUT centralising power in the hands of a single "revolutionary vanguard" in a dictatorship of the proletariat. So are the rest of us supposed to take your word for it that 'this time' it'll all be flowers and sunshine and that you won't go down the same path that every socialist country did in reality? Or shall we just stick with what we have because frankly while in many ways it sucks, it's not really that bad. I vote the latter. Seems to me the option that has a higher likelihood of me NOT ending up interned in a camp somewhere anyway.

^^
You can tell when someone's really angry when they're using caps.

Not really. When typing a large post, caps are perfect for putting emphasis on certain parts of said post. The other reason is using italics, but that emphasis is lost in quotes.

That, and the fact that your post both has no relevance and is a pretty weak way of trying to discredit someone, changing the subject or trying to cover up the fact that you in fact do not have an argument.

Because that's worked out so well for the past few thousand years? Open a history book man. It's one Goddamn famine after another plague after another brutal war.

And locking up everyone who's against you which, and open a history book now, if you will, inevitably leads to some paranoid and tyrannical regime that will be overthrown by the people it's supposed to protect. That, and in history (open a book about it, I heard you can read all kinds of interesting shit in it) plagues and famines aren't exclusively caused by not being socialist.

Yeah... there were goddamn huge famines in Lenin's, Stalin's and Mao's respective rulerships. In case you'd forgotten that small detail.

There wasn't much of a famine under Lenin and what problems were caused were caused because of the Capitalists constantly fighting with him. Fuck, the Germans burned like half his country.

And I suppose Stalin and Mao were just supposed to control the weather? If you notice it's not like the famine lasted forever, either. Both the famines ended quite quickly as weather patterns returned to normal. Course that didn't help much because Stalin got to fight WWII, but you know how it is.

Of course there's a few things like who isn't an extremist and who is, but for the most part it is that clear cut. The Right inhibits the Left (and vice-versa). So by dismantling the Right the Left will no longer be held back and a near-utopian society can be created.

It's completely silly to say that because it assumes we're a bunch of heartless bastards. We don't want to lock people up because they threaten our splendor or some shit. We want to lock them up because they threaten peace, equality, and progress. Yes, it's morally wrong. But it's also morally wrong to let millions die from easily preventable causes because of the bullshit they spout.

One of the primary reasons for a Leftist society is because it is far more just than a Capitalist one. I see no reason that you'd think by being Leftist our Justice System would become a sham for executing dissenters. And the death penalty is barbaric anyway, just because they threaten society doesn't mean we have to be cruel.

That's not true, quite simply. For instance, Stalin didn't like Anarchists but he didn't go around saying they were Capitalist. And Lenin and Trotsky never hurt much of anyone.

Our ideal Leftist society does not prevent you from having an opinion, you know. It merely prevents you from spreading an idea that hurts people. No one would die because of a "vaguely critical poem" and you're only convincing yourself when you say that.

And is it so wrong for Stalin to be a poet?

And the fact that the Capitalists basically did anything they could to silence the dissenters. From shooting at protesters, to burning entire nations in the case of the Russian Revolution and it's following interventions.

Ya, I can because it's true. It's not like I'm basing this off of some Stalinist writings, it's completely different.

And do you know like anything about history? Red Scare much? It's not like we're the only ones who would want to imprison those who we see as threats to society. You're side has done and does it too.

Do you know how many people have been shot down for striking, protesting, etc. ? It's huge and has happened in nearly every country on Earth. And you know historically America has had Japanese Internment camps, slaves, racism, sexism, rebellions, etc. Historically this nation should be a complete shithole. Yet, it's not because that's just historically speaking. It's nonsense to judge something by what it did a hundred years ago because it's different.

And I'm not a Leninist. Though he is right, there needs to be a dictator of the proletariat. Democracy is a good idea on paper, but in practice it's a fallacy.

You can, or you can look at the facts and see we'd be taking you to a paradise.

Well if you want to a useless tool of political rhetoric, then yes, you can believe that. But it's in plain denial of the facts and more importantly what is right and wrong in the world.

Ya, things are going great. There's only like, what, a few billions people whom live in poverty? Just a couple hundred millions starving to death. Just a few genocides and wars. Maybe a touch of curable diseases wiping out thousands of people. It's all good.

Ya, but you wouldn't if you were in South Sudan. They'd probably rather live in a society that, you know, helped people once in a while.

Man, you should've been born an ant, you'd love the oh-no-you-can't-have-a-mind-of-your-own hive mind thing they have going on there.

Having an opinion is not a threat to society, it's when that opinion materializes into something like locking up immigrants or hating an ethnicity. Then the government must stop it for the sake of those who'd be harmed.