Is America Still the Last Best Hope on Earth

I would be grateful if you could prove your accusation of who can marry in France.
Charlie Hebdo is famous for being unique. You have at least one à werk.

 

Yeah, it is just interesting. What the terms liberal and conservative as applied to governments and politics in the 1800s and early 1900s is the opposite of what they roughly mean today.

 

You misunderstand. It is about faith [not religion] in the notion that man will respond better to the idea that there is moral guidance from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's weaknesses.

It is not faith that is empowering the state [as in your examples], instead, it is empowering the individual over and above the power of the state. This is what most Americans fail to realize about their own rights under The Constitution. Americans need only answer to the morality handed down by God. If the government does not uphold this ideal, the people were given the right to amend the problem.

 

More Free = Better.

The Voltaire quotes?

Pretty much, as far as the first two are concerned. The third, obviously, applies to restricting the first two.

1) In terms of free speech, we don't have "hate speech" laws, unlike many Western countries. We also don't have "blasphemy" laws that you find in many non-Western countries.

2) In terms of the right to bear arms, we don't have the restrictions you find in many other countries, such as:

We don't have to provide the government an explanation of why we should be able to own/purchase a firearm, i.e., exercise our right to bear arms

We don't have to get a hunting or target shooting license to own/purchase various firearms

We don't have the restrictions on various firearms, ammunition, etc., you find in other countries

Of course, my opinion comes from my own personal and national perspective. What other people in other countries think is better for them and their countries is their business, but I would never support implementing their restrictions on our fundamental rights here in the USA, most particularly the restrictions on freedom of speech/expression.

 

No, we do not have a Hebdo once a week. We have an issue with toxic black culture that means 13% of the US population commits 54% of all murders, and WOW the violence! Off the charts! Here; https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43

On to more French matters.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20190128/did-you-know-why-marrying-dead-people-is-possible-in-france/

It's in wiki of course, but that doesn't mean you should just because you can.

 

Yeah. OK.

 

I am not here to tell you about your poor and fantastical understanding of western culture laws and rights.
Please read the UN Bill of rights the European Court of Human Rights charter and the national and EU charters.
Youcdo have laws around hate speech. It is called laws against incitement and your ex président is learnig all about them.
Other countries have the right to go about their business without fear or daily reports of deaths by guns, accidental or not. We like the state investment in our safety and security.
It is what some of our taxes are for.
So excuse me but I am not prepared to challenge your gross misunderstandings in this matter. I have already explained to you where and what our rights dérive from. Primarily from France and England I am not preparedcto quote pages of Voltaire. Or Locke. Or Rousseau.

When you get your death by gun numbers down to ours, get back to me about the righteousness of your cause. It will be a very long time with those who share your myths.

 

Oh read the article and stop wasting my time.
You produce à year when you dont have more gun related incidents than the whole of thecrest of western Europe get back to me.
I am fed up with your using one offs in Europe. Your problem is that your évents are not one offs.
Until you can show me your attitudes to guns improved the life chances of your population and your death rate is lower than ours , you wiĺ be living à myth.

 

There's nothing there for you to tell, and we capitalize the W in Western when discussing Western culture, laws and rights.

Please read the ICCPR, but if one wants to research the "hate speech" laws and gun regulations in Western nations that's what they research - not the UN UDHR.

No, we don't have "hate speech" laws, and if you want to read about our laws involving incitement I suggest you read our Supreme Court's ruling in the Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) case.

Like I said, what other people in other countries think is better for them and their countries is their business, but I would never support implementing their restrictions on our fundamental rights here in the USA, most particularly the restrictions on freedom of speech/expression.

There are no gross misunderstandings for you to challenge, so your preparation is entirely unnecessary.

Actually, you haven't explained to me where and what our rights are derived from, nor is any explanation on your part necessary. This is a subject I am well familiar with, and I won't be quoting Huguccio, William of Ockham, Jean Gerson, Francisco de Vitoria for you nor will I be explaining the evolving and expanding interpretation of the term ius since Medieval civil jurists, canon lawyers and decretists began exploring it in the 11th Century.

I'll leave the righteousness to you. The people in our countries made decisions concerning their rights that they are free to make.

 

There are a lot of ways to die, pretending that one makes a country greater than another is self-satisfaction. The reality is we are citizens and our gov works for us, while you and the rest of Europe are subjects, and you bow to the whim of your gov.

We're not interested in living in a little cage the way you guys do. Funny thing is, you love that cage and we can't imagine why.

 

I repeat.
Stop creating liés out of your ignorance.
And when you can show me that you clock up fewer deaths by gun than the other nearly 60 countries PUT TOGETHER we call western democracies, get back to me.
WHAT FREEDOMS DO DEAD PEOPLE HAVE ?

 

Wow.

After pointing out some of the people who had a hand in the evolution of rights doctrines going back to the 11th Century, you come up the completely illogical fabrication that either myself, my compatriots or the Founders of the United States of America think we created those rights?

How and where in the world did you come up with that straw man fallacy?

FYI, rights are inherent - they are not created. Your claim that I/we think we created any right is ludicrous.

No, your restrictions are not our restrictions, whether it be your restrictions on the right to self-defense or your restrictions on freedom of expression.

When you get rid of your "hate speech" laws get back with me.

There is no "freedom to kill", and the people who make such preposterous claims are clearly unqualified to discuss the issues surrounding the right to self-defense, the right to bear arms, gun violence, gun control, etc.

Personal attack noted, and not only are you wrong, I understand why you need to believe and say that.

Personal attack #2 noted, and while I could analyze what is clearly evident in your personal attacks, fabrications, etc., I'm not willing to climb down into the sandbox with you.

Have a nice day.

 

It is not historically valid to lift some ideas from centurizs agovand déclare they are the robots of our civil tradition today. Some odd phrases may écho how we live but only if you ignore context.
Second I have been exchanging posts with one or two who think your cultural tradition as laid down by your FF are the manifestation of the word of god. It needs addressing. The FF were à logical and often copied extension of the concepts happening all over Europe at the time, initiated largely by the European Enlightenment.
And it was that movement that for the FiRST TIME introduced the idea of inhérent rights. Throughout the Elizabethan period .17th century) the prevalent idea of social position and accompanying rights were indeed god decreed. You were born into a position and it was a sin to try to move out of it . Along with these stations in what is called the world picture, came rights. When civilisation moved on those god given INHERENT rights changed. BECAUSE WE CHANGED THEM. So whenca cowherd didn't have the right by birthright to enter à certain building, we still had cowherds but CHANGED his rights. And we made new ones. Sometimes for some, sometimes for all (rights accorded to race for example. ) rights are not inhérent UNTIL we décide they are.
You too have hate speech laws. It is called incitement. Trump is à tad bothered by those as I write. Ours are no different.
When you have time, sit down and google European rights to free speech. Modern statements of it go back to the UN Convention on HumanvRights (1948 I think) and these basic rights, agreed and signed by dozens of nations, are written and rewritten into every national Constitution, the European Court of Human Rights is created SOLELY to deal with breachzs of these rights. THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT TO YOURS.
You too have restrictions to freedom of speech. The deplatforming of Speakers is a largelyxAmerican issue. And just today, Julian Assange may be indicated to the US to be charged due to his freedom to speak being denied. So look to your own first .
Legalised freedom to use guns in self defense is a freedom to kill. It can be nothing else.
Anything else you need help with?

 

I forgot to mention it because it was so improbable.
You clearly need help here.
An ad hominem is to one person. Not to someone who adopts the general cloak referred to.
IOW dont take it personally and then call it an ad hom. It was a général observation.

 

We get it, you don't understand self defense or you're unwilling to do it yourself. I guess you'd rather die than use a weapon to save yourself, congrats on being true to French nature.

 

I think you meant cesspool!

 

My freedom includes the fact that there is not the remotest possibilité I will have to defend myself.
Because the bad guys don't have guns either and fo à good job of protecting me.
Why do you constantly reject the possibilité of such freedom? Why are you so eager to continue your national shame?

 

The modern progressive liberal Democrat has no business being called either liberal or progressive because they are certainly neither one of those things.

 

So there's not the remotest possibility you could be a victim of violent crime huh ? Lol... okay.

 

A determination of validity requires more specificity on your part...

I don't doubt that, given that many of the Founding Fathers (and mothers) believed the same thing themselves. However, what do we mean by "culture" and "cultural traditions", and what exactly did the Founders lay down? The Colonies were a kaleidoscope of the different cultures and cultural traditions that reflected the different cultures and cultural traditions they brought here from Europe and handed down to their progeny. There was no unified culture or cultural tradition, so what did they hand down? A system of government and laws? A synthesis of Judeo-Christian, Classical, Medieval and Enlightenment Era ideas? The incomplete product of the struggle for individual rights that has spanned thousands of years and continues to this day? All of the above?

True, the Founders were all that and more, and it is constantly addressed in this country....

As much as we might like to take credit for that we can't. The idea was introduced a long long time ago, and as far as movements are concerned, the Franciscans led by William of Ockham, the School of Salamanca led by de Vitoria, the English Levellers (not to be confused with the Diggers/True Levellers) led by Lilburne, Overton and Walwyn, and the radical Whigs (Algernon Sydney, John Locke, et al) who fomented the Glorious Revolution "introduced" this idea long before the American Founders did.

True, and that was the case in England before the Tudors came to power....

On that we disagree, and the argument you are presenting here misses the points of the inherence and affirmation of rights, i.e., they are not created and we do not create them. Some would argue that they are endowed to us by God. Others argue they are endowed by our Nature and Reason. We are born with these rights, and they are ours regardless of whether or not our societies and governments choose to defend or violate them.

What people, societies and governments create are laws and privileges, not rights. This is the distinction the Founders made clear in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Of course, everyone doesn't agree with this, but Americans are fortunate that the Founders believed in it, even though many of them didn't live up to the lofty ideals they professed in word but not deed (although many of them did).

No, we don't have hate speech laws. Racists and bigots of all stripes are free to verbally express their hatred and stupidity and incite hostility against their racial, ethnic, national, religious group of choice without fear of being hauled into a courtroom for their words.

As for Trump and "incitement", I once again refer you to the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling of 1969, and I'm afraid you'll be disappointed that he'll never be convicted of a crime, because nothing he said or did qualifies as such, which also explains why he hasn't been charged with a crime. Democrats can hold all the political show trials they want, but that's all their trials will ever be - political.

When you have time, sit down and google European rights to free speech. Modern statements of it go back to the UN Convention on HumanvRights (1948 I think) and these basic rights, agreed and signed by dozens of nations, are written and rewritten into every national Constitution, the European Court of Human Rights is created SOLELY to deal with breachzs of these rights. THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT TO YOURS.

They are different. For a brief overview:

Hate speech laws by country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country

And while I don't agree with these laws on principle, I understand why European do this after what they experienced in the 1930s and 40s.

Of course, we do. For example, defamation is not protected under the First Amendment, but we don't have "hate speech" laws.

And many Americans are adamantly opposed to it (hello Elon Musk and Twitter), but deplatforming occurs in private spaces which is why Twitter, Facebook and the Political Forum are free to do it.

Assange's case is not a free speech case. It might be considered a free press case, but I think he's also being charged with assisting Bradley Manning in obtaining the information that Manning legally acquired. Personally, I think the latter charge is the only one the government can make stick, and it will have to produce evidence of Assange's participation to do so. If the DOJ can't, I think it's highly likely that Assange will be acquitted of the charges.

I disagree, and so do many of our laws.

I don't need any help, but if you'd like to clarify the two opening sentences of your post feel free to do so.

 

Where in the world is there a country where no bad guys have guns other than maybe possibly some complete police state???

 

the fact that you think you’re immune to crime is pretty funny.
So, if it turns out you’re not Batman and you have to defend your own life does that make you a murderer?

 

Certainly not in France where the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan shootings never occurred.

 

It makes her dead.

Unlike my wife who can fully disassemble and reassemble an M16....