How can you expect to have a democracy without discussion?
The second word in free speech is speech.
If you believe in the one you must engage in the other.
The death of a supreme justice.
- Thread starter Chicken
- Start date
- Status
How can you expect to have a democracy without discussion?
The second word in free speech is speech.
If you believe in the one you must engage in the other.
Gdaddy
Well-Known Member
There's a proper time and place to engage in political discussion and this ain't it. Unless of course, you don't care who you might insult by your comments. It's a subject where people know the least while believing they know the most and have very strong emotional attachments invested in their opinions.
When it's about getting loud and insulting about ones position in public is the real stickler. Discussing points of view has always been encouraged with a decorum of civility. When it is boisterously yammered in an arrogant way, people are rightly insulted and prefer not to have brought it up. I've never seen political arrogance solve anything or lead to any change of opinion and instead separates people even further. So why do it? Does it make people feel Patriotic? Perhaps.
The best example and why we're talking about this, is several posts up when Chicken suggested..."We should bomb the middle East to the dark ages and be done". However, Cherute has relatives living in Lebanon. It's not difficult to see how insulting and divisive this can be.
So, it's not apathetic to hold your tongue when in a casual social setting with mixed company, it's polite. So just because you have the right to freedom of speech doesn't always make it right to do so.
So often in human affairs, diametrically opposite propositions are equally true in the same time and place. So it is here. To practice democracy we must lean on the one truth. To encourage apathy we have only to lean on the other. Your solution is to ban discourse. My solution is to not take offense.
It may be true that few are persuaded by discourse; but it is certain that none can be persuaded without it.
It may be true that few are persuaded by discourse; but it is certain that none can be persuaded without it.
Gdaddy
Well-Known Member
My solution is not to "ban discourse" and I didn't suggest that. I did say that "this ain't the place to do it".
Doing away with politeness in the guise of "practicing democracy" or "being a Patriot" and expecting people not to take offense when you suggest blowing up their relatives in a foreign land will never persuade anyone of anything. You're telling me YOU wouldn't be offended if this comment was directed at your family? There's a big difference between civil discourse and repeating inflammatory rhetoric.
Doing away with politeness in the guise of "practicing democracy" or "being a Patriot" and expecting people not to take offense when you suggest blowing up their relatives in a foreign land will never persuade anyone of anything. You're telling me YOU wouldn't be offended if this comment was directed at your family? There's a big difference between civil discourse and repeating inflammatory rhetoric.
A popular misconception of the 1st amendment is everyone is allowed (has the right) to say anything they want anywhere they want. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 1st amendment gives you the right to speak out against your government without fear of reprisal.
Time to move along.
Time to move along.
- Status
