Propaganda - and Social Media - and Free Speech

Bwaaaa haaa haaa .. another joke of a post twirling around crying

"your wrong your wrong" but not saying what about ..
"You don't like my answers" .. answers to what ?

all followed by an Ad Hom attack - full of name calling "Hard Left Statist Authoritarian"

Did you not remember ?.. did you forget clicking like on many of my posts slaming the left for various evils - as my arguments against Blue are way better than yours.

You my friend are a classic RINO - know naught of the founding principle - and despise the principles of Republicansm, and of our constitutional republic.

Question - you pro choice or anti abort ? Lets see what kind of Republican you are ... since you are so desperate to get personal - lacking any material to support your position.

 

You're wrong. It's you're: A contraction of you and are. Your is a pronoun.

A statement of fact is an attack?

Actions speak louder than words. You are acting like a hard left statist authoritarian in suggesting the state ought to interfere with a private company whose business practices you dislike.

[qute]You my friend are a classic RINO[/quote]
No. I am actually not. Not even close.

The defense of life, liberty and property. No more, no less.

Ironic considering I am not the one hopping up and down demanding the state intervene in the affairs of a private entity.

Off topic. Start a thread and I'll jump in.

Who says I'm any kind of Republican? Nor am I the topic of this thread.

I have supported my position with facts. You don't like my facts. Not my problem.

 

So you post a buch of personal attacks in an Ad Hom rant .. .cyring "Hard Left Statist Authoritarianism" -- and now cry "I am not the Topic" in hypocritical bliss.

Not sure who says you are a Republican - but they would be mistaken.. you hate the principles of republicanism (and libertarianism for that matter) .. despise free and fair markets .. and the founding principle - regardless of whether or not you realize it

 

I'm not sure this is the thread I was reading last week when I thought this reply but consider the following:
Americans talking to each other about America should not be read in China.
Americans might say things that make Chinese people think China and its Communism is bad and they might start a revolution.
Americans talking to each other about America should not be read in China.
Americans might say things that make Chinese people think that America and its Capitalist system is bad, eliminating any hope that China will ever turn capitalist.

 

Once again, it is not an attack to call you a hard left statist authoritarian when your actions are consistent with one.

Once I recognize my adversary is not actually here for substantive debate in good faith, I give as good as I get, child.

You implied it.

To which principles do you refer? You have referenced both Republicanism and republicanism. Which one are you talking about here?

Not even a little bit. Libertarianism is the antitheses of your doctrine (authoritarianism). A libertarian must recognize the agency of his fellow citizen, even if he disagrees vehemently. You refuse that mutual recognition, making you an authoritarian. You turn to the state to compel an act of a private entity under the threat of its monopoly on force, making you a statist. Your actions are consistent with the radical hard left -- who try at every turn use the organs of the state to shape a social outcome that pleases them. Do the math.

I'm not the one foaming at the mouth demanding state intervention into the affairs of a private entity. If you actually believed in free and fair markets, you'd acknowledge that not every private entity is going to behave in a manner that soothes your emotional predilection and you'd not be demanding the state force them to give you platform. You'd disavow your preposterous assertion that you have a right to post whatever the **** you want on someone else's property. But since you are a hard left authoritarian statist, you will never recognize the rights of your fellow citizens to engage in commerce in a manner that suits them.

The founding principle of our society is that the state exists to defend life, liberty, and property. No more, no less. Only a statist would demand more, and only an anarchist would demand less.

You worship the religion of statism and kneel at the altar of big government - regardless of whether you realize it or not.

 

Even if your name calling and personal attacks had some basis in fact. This is not Ad Hom Fallacy. ? Pretending that such actions support your claim - is Ad Hom fallacy. Nor is me calling you out on your continuous attemps to avoid making a valid argument via Ad Hom Fallacy -Ad Hom Fallacy.

"Debate" as per above - you have yet to figure out what debate is. An argument consists of 2 things
1) Statement of claim or premise
2) evidence or rational that shows your claim true.

You have managed 1) Regulation of any private companie's actions is Authoritarianism - not in keeping with the founding principles - which is not ( Life Liberty - persuit of happiness) - as you have been suggesting

What you have not managed to do is 2) rational that shows your claim true.

Insullting the person you are debating with .. is not (2) - is not valud support for claim. and thus Ad Hom Fallacy.

Now that you understand what an argument is -- make one - rather than continuous ad hom fallacy.

 

LOL. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. Classic. Calls me "child" and then complains about ad hominem fallacies.

I already made my argument days ago. You have yet to respond with a factual rebuttal.

 

Yeah .. you were tying to argue that walking into a bar and calling a black person the N-Word - would not have a significant probability of Violence. Simple denial of the obvious - not much to rebut.

You also were claiming that "Life - Liberty- Pursuit of happiness" were the founding principles -- wrong again - you simply don't understand what the founding principles are. "consent of the Governed" on the other hand is a founding principle.

 

Not surprisingly, you have me confused with somebody else. I never made that argument.

Life, liberty, property. Get it right if you're going to quote me.

The founding principle of our society is that the state exists to defend life, liberty, and property. No more, no less. Only a statist would demand more, and only an anarchist would demand less.
​

 

No, the Constitution does not mention chocolate cake or abortion or birth control, but it does contain the Ninth Amendment which explains that an exhaustive listing on any document of the rights of man is impossible. Thus, the enumeration of certain rights in the document SHALL NOT BE USED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE other rights retained by the people.

Your claim that the document protects corporations has not yet been proved accurate. Eating chocolate cake, walks on the beach, abortion or birth control are rights of the people. The government is granted enumerated powers by the document. Rights of the people and enumerated powers of the government are two different things, not to be confused.

If you could find some language in the document to validate your claim about its protecting corporations you would have a good point.

Otherwise, it appears we are quite close in our interpretations of constitutional law.

 

ahh

"The line comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in a 1919 opinion in Schenck v. United States wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” But Schenck was one of the most loathsome free speech decisions in the court’s history, and it was overturned 50 years ago.

In Schenck, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Charles Schenck, the secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing a pamphlet that opposed the draft during World War I. The pamphlet didn’t call for violence or even civil disobedience, but merely urged Americans to petition for a repeal of the draft and to “assert your rights.”

Holmes’ crowded theater line was simply his way of saying the First Amendment isn’t absolute. But it had no legal authority and wasn’t part of the actual ruling, which was that Schenck’s pamphlet posed a “clear and present danger” to the country. This absurd ruling was one of a trio of odious free speech decisions the Supreme Court issued in 1919 that landed peaceful anti-war protesters in prison.


But Schenck was overturned in the landmark 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which held that inflammatory speech, even speech that advocates violence — even, say, if the speaker is at a Ku Klux Klan rally where klansmen are burning crosses and carrying firearms — is protected by the First Amendment unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In other words, the First Amendment is expansive, and by trotting out the crowded theater line about a political documentary he doesn’t like, Vindman is putting himself on the side of the worst censorship decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court, a decision that has since been discredited, disgraced, and thrown into the dustbin of history."
https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/2...dman-is-the-dopey-hack-we-all-thought-he-was/

 

Without Trotting out ye old Philosophy of Law text .. if memory serves - Holmes was a Utilitarian at heart.. and as such instrumental - along with others - in moving our justice system away from the founding principels and into Utilitarian La La Land .. where the limits to Gov't power are removed..

Not that he had nothign good to say .. just part ways over the utilitarianism as sole justification for law. Mind you I have the benefit of hindsight .. as Utilitarianism has turned out to be a horrible disaster for the nation .. a Plague much bigger than Covid on our society at present.