free speech gone too far?

[James]

[color=#707875]The beauty of free speech is that you [i]are[/i] responsible for your own words. Your words can and will affect those around you.

Case in point; the recent visit by President Bush to Australia.

When he addressed Parliament, a Greens Party MP stood up and blasted him over the war, yelling stuff like "We are not America's Sheriff!" and so on.

Now, while Mr. Brown's opinions might have validity...I felt that it was in extremely, [i]extremely[/i] bad taste to yell and rant while a foreign leader was speaking. It was rude, distasteful and an embarassment.

However, there are two points to make about this. Firstly, Senator Brown did have the right to say his piece; his free speech is absolutely protected. And, at the same time, his choice of time and venue (as well as his choice of language) will be something he will take responsibility for.

So, yes, he's managed to get his point across. At the same time, he's probably lost the support of 90% of the population. Consequences for his actions? You bet.[/color]

[Manic Webb]

[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/quote]

Basically, Congress can't make any laws against speech. This means that the legislative government has no control over what you say. All restrictions on free speech come from elsewhere.

Lies would be libel and slander. Libel and slander cases are brought forth through lawsuits, and are handled by state courts, not federal intervention. In fact, congress-persons cannot be sued for slander, except for in extreme cases.

Basically, you can lie in public all you want until somebody sues for it.

Also, an organization or business or workplace restricting your speech is a lot different. First of all, unless you have a government job, your boss is not the government. When you work for a business, you're agreeing to abide by their company policies. Chances are you signed an agreement when you got or applied for your job. If the company policy restricts your freedom of speech, you're free to quit.

[Raiha]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by lea2385 [/i]
[B]i have to agree:)

the song the country singer was talking about was one in some new cd he is putting out...
[/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=royalblue]Ah yes, I saw it on sale today in a Fry's ad. If anyone does buy it....I'll be very impressed. One more thing, I heard very little about Bush's trip to Australia. Does anyone care to enlighten me about this?

What exactly did he say?[/COLOR]

[Baron Samedi]

Hah. Hah. Ha.

Eh. To get down to the original issue at hand, I don't think the singer has anything to get in trouble for. it may be inappropriate, it may be foolish, stupid, ignorant. it may be demeaning. Don't listen to it. Don't allow it to be aired on radio. Then you will only hear it when you want to. No biggie.

Freedom of Speech; yes it can be taken to far but humans will always want to test the limits with disregard to other people's feeling. Or beliefs etc. What are we supposed to do about it? We have done this for years, and will likely continue to do it. it is a shame that we are this way, but it is so. I think Freedom of Speech is something that we need, but once again, it needs to be in moderation. We have the right to speak out, and we deserve it. But what we have a right to, and yet don't particularly deserve it, is our right to criticise [in regard to people in an offensive context]. it can be misused, and harmfully at that. We should all respect each other, but there will nearly always be some bigot who can't tolerate other views. Forget about them. ignore them, shut them out. or keep your opinions to yourself. We can speak out, but put-downs are not needed.

And South park? Hah. A truly crass and awful show. If you don't like it, don't watch it. The beauty of channels and the off switch.

To finish this, lighten up. Freedom of speech can be taken too far, maybe it shouldn't be. but it is, so... Put up with it. Eventually people will hopefully realise that they shouldn't. Hopefully.

EDIT*******

Raiha: From what I can remember, when Bush was giving his speech in our parliament house, two [or only one?] Green's MP's stood up, and started abusing him over the war. They were escorted out of the room. Nothing to serious, but they just amde fools of themselves. However, Bush should have expected it

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]You are still free to say whatever you want.

I am free to say "I'm going to kill the president."

BUT, that doesn't mean I won't be held accountable for what I say. If I were to say such a thing, the government has every right to come and bust my ***. I've just made a serious threat, one with potentially devastating effects on the entire nation.

Maybe I'm misreading this or something though... are you saying "I should be able to say 'I'm going to kill the president' without being busted"? [/B][/QUOTE]

I am saying that saying someting like "I'm gonna kill ________" is not within the limits of Free Speech... it's a threat.... against the law. I'm just saying that we do not have a complete freedom of speech... it's actually not free anything... people keep saying "there's limits to freedom".... it's not freedom if there's limits.... thats an oxymoron.... technically, we do not have free speech.... we have the right to say whatever we want within the limit of the government.... which is obviously not free or else we could say anything without breaking the law. It's the ability to say and do more than most countries, but it's simply not "free." Unless ofcourse you mean freedom as the ability to say [i]many[/i] things without having government intervention on your rights. Then, yes, we have free speech.

Freedom of speech works two ways... So I honestly don't have an opinion.... I'd liek alot of things to be stopped from being said (ie: KKK stuff, etc for example)... but I'd also like the ability to say alot of things.

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]I am saying that saying someting like "I'm gonna kill ________" is not within the limits of Free Speech... it's a threat.... against the law.[/B][/QUOTE]

But you still have every right to say it.

I mean, yeah, you're gonna get the SWAT team on your *** in a hurry, but you can still say it if you want. It's not that they're attacking you due to what you said, they're attacking you because of what you are planning on doing...

But are saying that an absolute "freedom of speech" would be that I can say "I'm going to kill the president" and nothing happens to me?

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]But you still have every right to say it.

I mean, yeah, you're gonna get the SWAT team on your *** in a hurry, but you can still say it if you want. It's not that they're attacking you due to what you said, they're attacking you because of what you are planning on doing...

But are saying that an absolute "freedom of speech" would be that I can say "I'm going to kill the president" and nothing happens to me? [/B][/QUOTE]

You have every right to say it to yourself.... if you publicized it you'd be arrested very quickly for stating a threat on someone's life.... Yes, thats true... it's not what you say essentially, it's what you're going to do, but thats still brought onto you with what you said... You could plan to killt he president and not saying anything and the SWAT team would know a damn thing, but because you say it, thats when it hits the fan...

And yes, absolute freedom of speech would be the ability to say WHATEVER you want and the government would not interfere in your doing so.

[wrist cutter]

Well... ok... then... that's established...? Help me out here Beavis...

For absolute free speech, it would require an anarchy pretty much. What we have in America is as close to free speech as you can get, I guess... even though I'm not completely convinced that we are being restricted in our speech.

I mean, yeah, you're going to be confined for saying "I'm going to kill the president"... but they can't exactly charge you for murder for that. So you can say it all you want really, and they can't persecute you other than putting you in a cell or something. And in there you can say anything you want. There's free speech for ya.

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]I mean, yeah, you're going to be confined for saying "I'm going to kill the president"... but they can't exactly charge you for murder for that. So you can say it all you want really, and they can't persecute you other than putting you in a cell or something. And in there you can say anything you want. There's free speech for ya. [/B][/QUOTE]

You're right, they can't charge you for murder.... but they can charge you for atempted treason or assault (a threat is considered assault) or they can just hold you for no reason what so ever like they have to many Americans since 9/11. Hell they may even through in attampted murder.... either way you're life will be ruined for saying 6 little words. Doesn't seem so free now.

[lea]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]I am saying that saying someting like "I'm gonna kill ________" is not within the limits of Free Speech... it's a threat.... against the law. Freedom of speech works two ways... So I honestly don't have an opinion.... I'd liek alot of things to be stopped from being said (ie: KKK stuff, etc for example)... but I'd also like the ability to say alot of things. [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=blue]one time, when i was in 11 grade, some kid really really hated me (i never knew why, but it doesnt matter now).
anyways, he caused some trouble, and the teacher called him to tell him to go to the office. he told the teacher he (the kid) was going to bring an ax to school, and chop me up to little peices....
well, duh, i was scared when the teacher pulled me aside and told me what the kid said. when i went home, i called the police, and a police guy came over. he said that in the free speech law, that kid can say whatever he wants. he said that kid can stand on the edge of my drive way, and yell all the death threats he wants.....the law changes when he [I]actually comes on my property[/I] ........ [/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]You're right, they can't charge you for murder.... but they can charge you for atempted treason or assault (a threat is considered assault) or they can just hold you for no reason what so ever like they have to many Americans since 9/11. Hell they may even through in attampted murder.... either way you're life will be ruined for saying 6 little words. Doesn't seem so free now. [/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=blue]hmm....maybe that rule applies only if your somone important.....

why do you think the government held people for no reason on and since 9/11? i agree with you, i just want to know why you think that....

[/COLOR]

[Mitch]

[size=1] I hate country music.

That said, on I go.

I don't believe there is a thing such as freedom. Taking freedom for its definition:

[quote]Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: 'frE-d&m
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE[/quote]

"The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." Wouldn't one like to call this not existing in the first place? Or not having any being or thought. Who knows. Having not thought or choice in action reminds me of Toby Keith. Perhaps he is freedom? Perhaps he is the pied piper dancing merrily to his tune?

If one is not marching along with one's crowd, then by gods he's just dancing to his own tune, a drummer beating his sticks and bones to his own heart and head.

I don't think freedom is exactly indepence. It's something more. It's meant to be unattainable.

Freedom. Absolution etc etc. What stupid words for a cold world.

Being free to me is not existing--and isn't it what the definition points towards? Indeed.

Freedom of speech cannot go too far. You just have to be sensitive enough to know that it's someone else's opinion, someone else's understanding, someone else's words. People often take things too personally--religion being the main.

Now, Toby Keith's writing totally irks me. He rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes. Country music in general is like this. How annoying? Yes.

Was he the one that wrote that "Have You Forgotten" song? Don't even get me started on that.

He basically takes what's generally happening in America and sees what general stupid red-neck Americans think and makes a stupid song about it which is then accepted broadly and as "amazing" and ooh and ahh and wow.

In the end this comes to where I come to on a lot of things. I don't care. He has the right to do this. So let him. It doesn't do anything to me as ignorantly ignorant and so blissfully bladdered as it is.

You know, Toby Keith reminds me of a man as yellow as piss, and as full of substance as feces.[/size]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by lea2385 [/i]
[B][COLOR=blue]one time, when i was in 11 grade, some kid really really hated me (i never knew why, but it doesnt matter now).
anyways, he caused some trouble, and the teacher called him to tell him to go to the office. he told the teacher he (the kid) was going to bring an ax to school, and chop me up to little peices....
well, duh, i was scared when the teacher pulled me aside and told me what the kid said. when i went home, i called the police, and a police guy came over. he said that in the free speech law, that kid can say whatever he wants. he said that kid can stand on the edge of my drive way, and yell all the death threats he wants.....the law changes when he [I]actually comes on my property[/I] ........ [/COLOR] [/b][/quote]

He said this on school property? That police-man was wrong. Making a threat is considered assault, which is against the law. Even worse is that he said that on school property. Thats just one messed up situation...


[quote][b][COLOR=blue]hmm....maybe that rule applies only if your somone important.....

why do you think the government held people for no reason on and since 9/11? i agree with you, i just want to know why you think that....

[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

It was "in the interest of freedom".... it's the price we pay to have freedom apparently.... by taking the freedoms away from other America citizens.

[KarmaOfChaos]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1] I hate country music.

That said, on I go.

I don't believe there is a thing such as freedom. Taking freedom for its definition:



"The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." Wouldn't one like to call this not existing in the first place? Or not having any being or thought. Who knows. Having not thought or choice in action reminds me of Toby Keith. Perhaps he is freedom? Perhaps he is the pied piper dancing merrily to his tune?

If one is not marching along with one's crowd, then by gods he's just dancing to his own tune, a drummer beating his sticks and bones to his own heart and head.

I don't think freedom is exactly indepence. It's something more. It's meant to be unattainable.

Freedom. Absolution etc etc. What stupid words for a cold world.
[/quote] [/B][/size]
[color=deeppink]
I agree with you partially. From the definition, it would seem freedom would be a state of absolute nothingness. But I don't think it's unattainable. When you're inside your own mind, simply laying there without worrying about anything else, just wandering some sort of endless path, that's freedom. True, you're constrained but the limits of your own mind. But you have to take into account that there are some limits that cannot be escaped. Freedom is simply not being held back by any outside force, not being told what to do or think. The ultimate escapism.

Of course...if freedom is an escape, is it too an act of cowardice? Fear of control. Or maybe I'm totally out on a limb there. Heh.
[/color]
[quote][B][size=1]
Now, Toby Keith's writing totally irks me. He rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes and rhymes. Country music in general is like this. How annoying? Yes.
[/quote][/B][/size]
[color=deeppink]
Rhyming in itself isn't bad. It's just when the rhymes are there simply for the sake of rhyming, and don't really mean anything. Which, granted, is what most country music does. But then, I wasn't arguing in the name of country music, now was I?
[/color]
[quote][B][size=1]
He basically takes what's generally happening in America and sees what general stupid red-kneck Americans think and makes a stupid song about it which is then accepted broadly and as "amazing" and ooh and ahh and wow.
[/quote][/B][/size]
[color=deeppink]
You spelled red-neck wrong. ^-~

-Karma
[/color]

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KarmaOfChaos [/i]
[color=deeppink]
I agree with you partially. From the definition, it would seem freedom would be a state of absolute nothingness. But I don't think it's unattainable. When you're inside your own mind, simply laying there without worrying about anything else, just wandering some sort of endless path, that's freedom. True, you're constrained but the limits of your own mind. But you have to take into account that there are some limits that cannot be escaped. Freedom is simply not being held back by any outside force, not being told what to do or think. The ultimate escapism.

Of course...if freedom is an escape, is it too an act of cowardice? Fear of control. Or maybe I'm totally out on a limb there. Heh.
[/color][/quote]

[size=1] Living inside your mind is still not nothingness. It is still not ""the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." Only non-existence, in my thinking, can be that.

[quote]
[color=deeppink]
Rhyming in itself isn't bad. It's just when the rhymes are there simply for the sake of rhyming, and don't really mean anything. Which, granted, is what most country music does. But then, I wasn't arguing in the name of country music, now was I?
[/color][/quote]

Yup, that's what I meant. He overuses it PURPOSELY, heh.
[quote][color=deeppink]
You spelled red-neck wrong. ^-~

-Karma
[/color] [/QUOTE]

Error fixed, my queen. :)[/size]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1] Living inside your mind is still not nothingness. It is still not ""the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action." Only non-existence, in my thinking, can be that.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

Mitch, NO.

If one is truly able to live within one's mind, then they are MOST DEFINITELY of "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

Unlocked mental potential is the ultimate form of freedom. Think about it. When one is able to live within one's mind, they are free. They have escaped EVERY necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. In essence, it's a transcendence of physical rules...a pure consciousness...the kind of consciousness that's capable of traveling the universe, much like Star-Child.

In a sense, it's very similar to Neo, too. Neo becomes...Neo achieves full potential and thus is not limited by any rules or constraints.

Also, "freedom" is NOT nothingness, for the very fact that freedom in one's mind is not nothingness. "The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action" is not nothingness, far from it, in fact. It is purity of life. The core essence of what life is or should be. And you are saying that the core of life is nothingness? You are depressed. I suggest you seek counseling.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]Mitch, NO.

If one is truly able to live within one's mind, then they are MOST DEFINITELY of "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

Unlocked mental potential is the ultimate form of freedom. Think about it. When one is able to live within one's mind, they are free. They have escaped EVERY necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. In essence, it's a transcendence of physical rules...a pure consciousness...the kind of consciousness that's capable of traveling the universe, much like Star-Child.

In a sense, it's very similar to Neo, too. Neo becomes...Neo achieves full potential and thus is not limited by any rules or constraints.

Also, "freedom" is NOT nothingness, for the very fact that freedom in one's mind is not nothingness. "The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action" is not nothingness, far from it, in fact. It is purity of life. The core essence of what life is or should be. And you are saying that the core of life is nothingness? You are depressed. I suggest you seek counseling. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] If someone lives in their mind, they are still bound by the rules inside of their mind. This is not freedom. They are still bound the chemical interactions of the brain. They are still bound by something.

"The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

Okay. Breaking this down piece-by-piece. Is there an abscence of necessity in the mind? No. Your brain will feed you the hunger of food and varying things. Scratch that. Coercion? That's not scratched. In your mind you're your own boss. Constraint? If one is inside their mind, they are constraining. They are living away from the full implications of life. They are living in a dream world. I'd call this "constraining." I'd call this holding back. But then there's this "in choice and action" part. It still isn't relevant..if you are constraining something, you are holding back some choice or action. You aren't living the way you should. Life isn't meant to be lived internally. It's meant to be lived both inward and outward. So scratch that as well.

It doesn't make sense. You're still bound to your humanness inside your brain. This isn't freedom. You're still enslaved by some implication, some interdiction; that of your own consciousness.

Nothingness. Non-existence. These are the only things that are true freedom. These are the only things having
"the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

And I also suggest that you seek the help of a psychologist. You're too happy. You're a zealot whereas I'm a pragmatist.[/size]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i]
[B][size=1] If someone lives in their mind, they are still bound by the rules inside of their mind. This is not freedom. They are still bound the chemical interactions of the brain. They are still bound by something.

"The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

Okay. Breaking this down piece-by-piece. Is there an abscence of necessity in the mind? No. Your brain will feed you the hunger of food and varying things. Scratch that. Coercion? That's not scratched. In your mind you're your own boss. Constraint? If one is inside their mind, they are constraining. They are living away from the full implications of life. They are living in a dream world. I'd call this "constraining." I'd call this holding back. But then there's this "in choice and action" part. It still isn't relevant..if you are constraining something, you are holding back some choice or action. You aren't living the way you should. Life isn't meant to be lived internally. It's meant to be lived both inward and outward. So scratch that as well.

It doesn't make sense. You're still bound to your humanness inside your brain. This isn't freedom. You're still enslaved by some implication, some interdiction; that of your own consciousness.

Nothingness. Non-existence. These are the only things that are true freedom. These are the only things having
"the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action."

And I also suggest that you seek the help of a psychologist. You're too happy. You're a zealot whereas I'm a pragmatist.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE]

"If someone lives in their mind, they are still bound by the rules inside of their mind. This is not freedom. They are still bound the chemical interactions of the brain. They are still bound by something."

Mitch, you're still not thinking outside the box. If you achieve total mental potential, your body doesn't matter. Chemicals don't matter. If you achieve ultimate freedom, then you are no longer weighed down with trivial things like physicality. You can keep talking about chemicals and such, and I'll keep telling you that chemicals don't matter when you've achieved pure consciousness.

[quote]"The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

Okay. Breaking this down piece-by-piece. Is there an abscence of necessity in the mind? No. Your brain will feed you the hunger of food and varying things. Scratch that. Coercion? That's not scratched. In your mind you're your own boss. Constraint? If one is inside their mind, they are constraining. They are living away from the full implications of life. They are living in a dream world. I'd call this "constraining." I'd call this holding back. But then there's this "in choice and action" part. It still isn't relevant..if you are constraining something, you are holding back some choice or action. You aren't living the way you should. Life isn't meant to be lived internally. It's meant to be lived both inward and outward. So scratch that as well.[/quote]

---

"Is there an abscence of necessity in the mind? No. Your brain will feed you the hunger of food and varying things."

You're limiting yourself here. You're still basing your ideas on a world built on physical rules. That's not very abstract of you. :)

---

"Coercion? That's not scratched. In your mind you're your own boss."

Precisely. You understand that, why not the rest?

---

"Constraint? If one is inside their mind, they are constraining. They are living away from the full implications of life. They are living in a dream world. I'd call this "constraining." I'd call this holding back. But then there's this "in choice and action" part. It still isn't relevant..if you are constraining something, you are holding back some choice or action. You aren't living the way you should. Life isn't meant to be lived internally. It's meant to be lived both inward and outward."

Again, you're limiting yourself to the physical realm, locking yourself into physicality. You are not open to the idea of pure consciousness. Pure consciousness, might I add, is the ultimate step of being. You achieve pure consciousness when you have mastered the physical realm. Look at Buddhism or Hinduism. That's pure consciousness.

Mitch, I think your problem is, you don't like things that aren't what you think. You need to broaden your horizons and not limit yourself to a belief of only the physical and none in the mind. The mind is infinitely more powerful than any physical weapon or feat of physical strength.

The Matrix was on last night...much better than I remember it to be, probably because I was comparing it to Reloaded. The Matrix was a movie. Reloaded wasn't.

What's the point of bringing in The Matrix, you ask?

"Free your mind."

"Don't think you are, know you are."

Meaning, stop limiting yourself, dammnit (lol). Think outside the box. Stop thinking about something and know it for once.

There's a phrase..."being and becoming."

You're still in the process of "becoming." No offence.

EDIT:

?And I also suggest that you seek the help of a psychologist. You're too happy. You're a zealot whereas I'm a pragmatist.?

I look on the bright side of things, and have achieved Computational Capacity. That?s your definition of ?too happy??

You?re tossing around ?pragmatist? there. You?re not based in reality. You believe you know more about life and the world than those who have experienced it? You curse your writing instructors off because you?re offended when they give you some important and sensible editing advice?

Forgive me if I fail to see how you?re grounded in reality.

EDIT2: Baron, I'll talk to you over AIM. This has gotten Off-Topic and if I further reply, it will just go more Off-Topic.

[Baron Samedi]

Re: Mitch and PoisonTongue

Unless you believe in religion, in which case you go to heaven, Blah-de-blah-blah, then you need to eat. Physical compulsions will drive you for necessity. If there is no form of higher plane, then the death of your physical body would mean the death of your mental self as well. Yes?

Achieving "total mental potential" still requires the use of your body to sustain the object that is powering this consciousness. yes? You only have a conscious form because of your brain. Without a working brain, [i]you don't have a consciousness[/i]. Yes? Or no?

[island gurl]

Freedom of speech is a good thing as long as it is not publicised. Everyone should be entitled to their own opinions. Just because someone says or thinks something it doesn't mean you have to necessarily agree.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]Re: Mitch and PoisonTongue

Unless you believe in religion, in which case you go to heaven, Blah-de-blah-blah, then you need to eat. Physical compulsions will drive you for necessity. If there is no form of higher plane, then the death of your physical body would mean the death of your mental self as well. Yes?

Achieving "total mental potential" still requires the use of your body to sustain the object that is powering this consciousness. yes? You only have a conscious form because of your brain. Without a working brain, [i]you don't have a consciousness[/i]. Yes? Or no? [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] Exactly.

I also think it's hypocritical that you're sitting here telling me I think things should be a certain way...when you're doing the same thing. You're also being hypocritical by saying I'm not thinking outside the box. Neither are you. You'd at least give me what is my opinion.

And it'd also be nice if you could actually be respectable and not bring up issues, such as those with my teacher--they have no ******* bearing here. It's just making me angry at you. You're doing it more as a low blow than anything.

My opinion on this topic stands.[/size]

[outlawstar69]

Wow... I don't come here for a few days, and I miss out on an interesting thread. Bleh. In response to all reading this (to PoisenTounge and Mitch especially), do you mean by "ultimate freedom" of the mind? Are you refering to what some call nirvana? Or do you mean evolving into a higher form of pure mental being? (I watched the matrix on Sunday as well. I can't believe I've been missing out on all this. Sweetness.)
Unless we eventually develop mind reading devices (which if you consider thought to be nothing but electronic impulses and chemical reactions then that may come to be sooner or later :( ) then we all have freedom of the mind. Well, at least the potential for it anyway; if you remove the idiots of our world who are close minded. Think of all the communistic or totalitarian governments that were over thrown by their people: they weren't allowed to bash the government, they weren't allowed to say anything that the government didn't allow them to. But in their minds, they had ideas and visions and dreams that enabled them to eventually start their revolutions. True; if their governments were able to watch over them akin to the setting of 1984, then they couldn't hold secret meetings or whatever to plan "events", but that's besides the point. The point is that they were free to [I]think[/I] without any constraints or laws saying what was or wasn't allowed. ( I shudder to think of a day when that may be possible)
A racist can be a racist without saying a word; if he doesn't act on his views then they are his own. You can think to yourself about how much you may want to asassinate somebody but if you don't say or do anything then no one would be the wiser. And in response to :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Baron Samedi
Re: Mitch and PoisonTongue

Unless you believe in religion, in which case you go to heaven, Blah-de-blah-blah, then you need to eat. Physical compulsions will drive you for necessity. If there is no form of higher plane, then the death of your physical body would mean the death of your mental self as well. Yes?

Achieving "total mental potential" still requires the use of your body to sustain the object that is powering this consciousness. yes? You only have a conscious form because of your brain. Without a working brain, you don't have a consciousness. Yes? Or no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are those who dispute that the mind or conciousness has anything to do with the brain, to a certain extent. People who are in comas have no brain activity, yet they remember when people visted them and talked with them. Some patients who have been put under for surgery (having alomst all body functions put on standby via drugs, ice, etc) have been able to recount experiences that happened during their surgeries that should not have been possible, because they weren't having ANY brain activity. Which is what is supposed to be the whole process of thinking and memory.
I truley believe that there is no such thing as "true" free speech; we will probably always be monitered or censored in some way. Yet, I don't mind what we have now. It's not that bad, considering what our country could be like. It's better than Big Brother watching over us in our homes and lives to the extent of that infamous book. ( I wonder how many people who reference it have actually read it....)

[Mitch]

[size=1] For there to be consciousness, there need be a mind. For there to be a developed mind, there need be physical impressions. For there to be a mind functioning there need be a body, which shall and will be subjected to physicalities.

To think that the mind is the ultimate freedom is to go too far. It most certainly is the highest freedom that can be obtained [i]humanly[/i]. But it isn't freedom.

Let me ask, just because a man has some estrogen in his body, does this make him female? No. If something isn't the complete and explicit definition and epitome of something--then it isn't that something. And the definition of freedom by the dictionary does not agree that freedom is what it is in the mind.

In your mind you still have to have physicalities. The very memories we have, the information we have gained, the actual keys and understanding of freedom are found from the physical learnings. Mental is as much physical as it is mental.

To say otherwise is to be obtuse. To say that one can completely escape to their mental insides is to be obtuse. And to say that it is explicitly freedom is to be obtuse.

To actually see something, one must look at it logically. Abstraction has [i]logic[/i] in it. Logically, one has to live physically [i]as well as[/i] mentally. Logically one cannot just exist as a mentally incarnated being. It's not what it is to be human. To say that one can completely escape into their mind is to be a zealot and a dreamer. It isn't the reality of the situation, and therefore it isn't the actual truth. [i]Logically[/i], to be human is not to live in one's mind. Logically, to be human is to be enslaved by the vessel that is your body and its interactions on the outside as well as the inside.

I can understand how freedom inside one's mind [i]to an extent[/i] is freedom. But I wouldn't label it as such. It's being obtuse. It's being illogical. It's not taking all the factors that are given and taking them for what they are. It's not being a realist--it's not seeing the reality of the situation.

The mind is powerful. But physicalities are what foster it. And physicalities are what keep it alive--things that are needed, such as eating.[/size]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

Yes, it's impolite to say you'll kill the president, but I'll bet you my car, my DVD player and my cat that there were quite a few military spouses and family members saying they wanted to kill Bush since March 2003, myself included.
I'm all for the 1st amentment which guarantees my right to freedom of speech, but look where it got the Dixie Chicks after Natalie Maine's comment at their concert in England about the president. Yes, that was freedom of speech, but it was ill addvised. Actually, so was Kenny CHesney's whole speel about the Chicks being anti-American, but some southeners are real freaky, Texans especially. (No offense to either BTW!:toothy: ) There was this store over around the corner from me that had a sign which read: Dixie Chicks run with the Buzzards. But Hey, that's freedom of speech, the store owner has a right to say that about the DC.
As mentioned prior to this post, there are limits to people's freedom of speech. FOr example: you can't exactly go into a Christian church and yell Hail Satan over and over and then expect no repercutionsYet, you can say in the privacy of your own home: I really hate the president and I wish someone would shoot him, and not worry about the FBI barging into your front room to arrest you and take you off to Ft. Levenworth.
Other forms of regulating freedom of speech are certain organizations. IE the Boy Scouts, which is quite infamous among non-christian groups since they don't allow non christians in and School
Okay, if any of this sounded stupid, let me know.

[scrmngfangrl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KnightOfTheRose [/i]
[B] the constitutiona pplies to MEN, not pubescant boys. [/B][/QUOTE]

im neither, does it still apply to me?

[Baron Samedi]

[quote][i]Originally posted by scrmngfangrl[/i]

im neither, does it still apply to me?[/quote]

No, females or other have and deserve no rights.

:p

Edit: Just a joke ladies. my mum raised me better than that. heh