Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 3:09 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

There are no god given rights or rights in the natural world. Humans create morals and assign rights to individuals. Of course "morals' is a tricky topic because some people think they are morally superior to others so the rights given are not always to everyone.


You argue that humans give other humans rights. In the case of speech, who gave it to Americans? When and by what mechanism?

Those who believe that the right is "God-given" argue that if humans did nothing, everyone would have free speech. All that humans can do is to act to restrict or take away one's free speech rights. In the absence of such restrictions, in the absence of any overt actions by other humans, people have free speech. The right is pre-existing. You are invested with it at birth. You have it until someone takes it away. Adam and Eve had free speech...until one of them told the other to "shush."

 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 3:21 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Bob, make up your mind, amigo.
Do you want to discuss freedom of speech as it pertains to the law, or as it pertains to religion?

Both aspects are a fascinating proposal for the discussion, but neither direction will get this thread very far!

 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 3:21 PM   
 By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)

While we're here- why was the ' what's the point ' thread shut down?

Because I bumped it? Really if we’re having fun, even if it’s senseless fun what’s the harm in it? Maybe it’s a bandwidth issue.


Oh. Shall I start a new ' deleted' off? smile

Maybe they mistook amicability for nastiness, Grrr, grrr!


I started the "." thread originally as an R.I.P. notice thread to Michael Gambon, but then saw that there already was one. Since I couldn't delete the thread and didn't want to "interfere" with the already existing one, I intended to simply change the thread into something else, and I just put the "point" there as a placeholder until I decided what the thread should be. But it only took a minute and already you guys where chiming in, so it became the "point" thread. Why it was locked, I have no idea. It seemed to be harmless and indeed amicable fun of the absurdist type.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 3:23 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

Bob, make up your mind, amigo.
Do you want to discuss freedom of speech as it pertains to the law, or as it pertains to religion?

Both aspects are a fascinating proposal for the discussion, but neither direction will get this thread very far!


You are the one that brought up the dichotomy, not me. I believe they are inextricably intertwined, given the beliefs of our founding fathers. The framers of the Constitution were creating a legal document that embodied principles of God-given rights.

 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 3:34 PM   
 By:   ibelin   (Member)

That '.' thread is the most vile I've ever witnessed. I had to pour bleach into my eyes after reading through it. I now have PTSD, and it will remain with me for the rest of my life. I have no idea why the thread went on for as long as it did before getting shut down. Everyone who participated in it should be deeply, deeply ashamed of himself.

 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 3:40 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

There are no god given rights or rights in the natural world. Humans create morals and assign rights to individuals. Of course "morals' is a tricky topic because some people think they are morally superior to others so the rights given are not always to everyone.


You argue that humans give other humans rights. In the case of speech, who gave it to Americans? When and by what mechanism?

Those who believe that the right is "God-given" argue that if humans did nothing, everyone would have free speech. All that humans can do is to act to restrict or take away one's free speech rights. In the absence of such restrictions, in the absence of any overt actions by other humans, people have free speech. The right is pre-existing. You are invested with it at birth. You have it until someone takes it away. Adam and Eve had free speech...until one of them told the other to "shush."


If its pre-existing by God what other pre-existing rights did God give us?
Didn't he write his Bill of Rights like 2500 years after Adam and Eve?

 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 4:14 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Bob, make up your mind, amigo.
Do you want to discuss freedom of speech as it pertains to the law, or as it pertains to religion?

Both aspects are a fascinating proposal for the discussion, but neither direction will get this thread very far!


You are the one that brought up the dichotomy, not me. I believe they are inextricably intertwined, given the beliefs of our founding fathers. The framers of the Constitution were creating a legal document that embodied principles of God-given rights.



I'm not American, but I'm fairly sure that the framers of the constitution never wrote God into it.
That was added later.
And just because the founders of the USA did that, does not mean other countries followed suit.
So are you limiting the scope of the discussion to just the USA?
I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just looking for clarity on the where the goalposts are.

And the other point I made that I want to reiterate is that if we are going to bring legality into it, it will lead to politics and that's a big no-no..
If we bring religion into it, that's another no-no.

 
 
 Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 6:35 PM   
 By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

If its pre-existing by God what other pre-existing rights did God give us?
Didn't he write his Bill of Rights like 2500 years after Adam and Eve?



The Bill of Rights isn't an all-inclusive list, but it's a good start:

  • The right/freedom to worship a God as one chooses (First Amendment)
  • The right to speak freely (First Amendment)
  • The right of free association (First, Third)
  • The right of self-defense (Second)
  • The right of personal autonomy (Fourth)
  • The right not to be forced to bear witness against oneself (Fifth)
  • The right of free movement (First, Fifth)
  • The right to life and liberty (Fifth)
  • The right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth)

    The Framers believed that everyone is born with these rights out of the womb. It takes the malicious actions of other persons to deprive one of these rights. The point of drafting the Bill of Rights was to prevent the Federal Government from becoming that malicious actor.

    The fact that someone enumerated these rights in a specific document at a particular point in time doesn’t bear on their applicability to all peoples everywhere or the nature of their origin, i.e., “endowed by our Creator.”

  •  
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 6:43 PM   
     By:   Solium   (Member)

    The US Constitution wasn't written by God nor was it copied from any religious text. Also when you say the First Amendment says you have a right to worship your God, it doesn't specify a particular God or religion. In fact, God is not stated the First Amendment at all.

     
     
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 7:07 PM   
     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

    when you say the First Amendment says you have a right to worship your God, it doesn't specify a particular God or religion. In fact, God is not stated the First Amendment at all.


    It seems to me that is the idea embodied in the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. When it comes to religion, the Constitution says "you do you." The Government has no say in the matter. I accept (as did the Framers) that your "religion" may or may not have a God, a deity, a guru, or whatever.

     
     
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 7:23 PM   
     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

    I'm not American, but I'm fairly sure that the framers of the constitution never wrote God into it.
    That was added later.
    And just because the founders of the USA did that, does not mean other countries followed suit.
    So are you limiting the scope of the discussion to just the USA?
    I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just looking for clarity on the where the goalposts are.

    And the other point I made that I want to reiterate is that if we are going to bring legality into it, it will lead to politics and that's a big no-no..
    If we bring religion into it, that's another no-no.



    If one is to discuss freedom of speech (or many other "rights"), and if one believes that such rights exist (or should exist, if they currently don't in some places), one needs to ascertain from whence the rights come. The two schools of thought are (1) that certain rights are granted from one person to another by mutual consent, or (2) certain rights are endowed upon all persons at birth, but some people are subsequently deprived of them by other people, without consent.

    You seem to fall into school #1. My main point is that the drafters of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution fell into school #2. The problem with school #1, as I see it, is that no one has any rights until they are awarded to them by the actions of others. The U.S. Framers had, in my opinion, a more egalitarian and expansive view of human rights--that everyone has them from the outset and should be able to enjoy the full panoply of human rights without having to negotiate for them or take them from others by force. The purpose of government, as they saw it, was not to award people rights but to protect the rights they naturally had.

     
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 10:07 PM   
     By:   Octoberman   (Member)

    If one is to discuss freedom of speech (or many other "rights"), and if one believes that such rights exist (or should exist, if they currently don't in some places), one needs to ascertain from whence the rights come. The two schools of thought are (1) that certain rights are granted from one person to another by mutual consent, or (2) certain rights are endowed upon all persons at birth, but some people are subsequently deprived of them by other people, without consent.

    You seem to fall into school #1. My main point is that the drafters of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution fell into school #2. The problem with school #1, as I see it, is that no one has any rights until they are awarded to them by the actions of others. The U.S. Framers had, in my opinion, a more egalitarian and expansive view of human rights--that everyone has them from the outset and should be able to enjoy the full panoply of human rights without having to negotiate for them or take them from others by force. The purpose of government, as they saw it, was not to award people rights but to protect the rights they naturally had.



    You can see me as falling into any school you want.
    I already made my position clear right in my very first post, Bob--that I find the moral implications of free speech to be more interesting as a discussion.
    But you appear to keep guiding the topic in a direction that I haven't the faintest interest in, merely because my position seems unsatisfactory to you.
    If you want to discuss the "governmental" aspects of the question of free speech, that's a fair and worthy pursuit.
    There are others here that may want to follow you down that road and they are probably far more qualified to do that than I am.
    So how about it, gentlemen, does Bob have any takers?

     
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 10:25 PM   
     By:   Octoberman   (Member)

    In getting back to Hurdy's original post, I took another good look at the article to which he linked.
    Even though the whole issue might seem like it's splitting hairs, my opinion is that Fox's comments stepped over the line.
    Whatever Evans may have meant to convey about male suicide, she was referring to the issue in general and unspecific terms--she was not singling out any one person (as far as I could tell)--whereas Fox made it personal.
    That's one of the ways you can tell when someone has lost the debate before it even starts--making it personal.

    Maybe the bigger problem here is the task of discerning the difference between free speech and hate speech.

     
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 11:42 PM   
     By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)


    There are others here that may want to follow you down that road and they are probably far more qualified to do that than I am.
    So how about it, gentlemen, does Bob have any takers?


    Sure, I agree largely with Bob on that matter.

     
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 11:43 PM   
     By:   Nicolai P. Zwar   (Member)

    That '.' thread is the most vile I've ever witnessed. I had to pour bleach into my eyes after reading through it. I now have PTSD, and it will remain with me for the rest of my life. I have no idea why the thread went on for as long as it did before getting shut down. Everyone who participated in it should be deeply, deeply ashamed of himself.

    A point of contention then? I sure didn't see that one coming.

     
     
     Posted:   Sep 30, 2023 - 11:55 PM   
     By:   Bob DiMucci   (Member)

    You can see me as falling into any school you want.
    I already made my position clear right in my very first post, Bob--that I find the moral implications of free speech to be more interesting as a discussion.



    Well, to get back to your very first post, you were the very first person to bring the idea of free speech as a "God-given right" into the discussion--and to declare that it is not, because it goes against the laws of nature. All of my posts have been in service of declaring that it is a God-given right because we "naturally" are blessed with it at birth. And that it is the laws of man, not nature, that deny it to some people.

    The rest of your first post had to do with being respectful of each other. I find little to discuss there, as I can't imagine anyone who would disagree with that point. Can you be more specific as to the "moral implications of free speech" to which you are referring?

     
     Posted:   Oct 1, 2023 - 4:41 AM   
     By:   Solium   (Member)

    If its pre-existing by God what other pre-existing rights did God give us?
    Didn't he write his Bill of Rights like 2500 years after Adam and Eve?



    The Bill of Rights isn't an all-inclusive list, but it's a good start:

  • The right/freedom to worship a God as one chooses (First Amendment)
  • The right to speak freely (First Amendment)
  • The right of free association (First, Third)
  • The right of self-defense (Second)
  • The right of personal autonomy (Fourth)
  • The right not to be forced to bear witness against oneself (Fifth)
  • The right of free movement (First, Fifth)
  • The right to life and liberty (Fifth)
  • The right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishments (Eighth)

    The Framers believed that everyone is born with these rights out of the womb. It takes the malicious actions of other persons to deprive one of these rights. The point of drafting the Bill of Rights was to prevent the Federal Government from becoming that malicious actor.

    The fact that someone enumerated these rights in a specific document at a particular point in time doesn’t bear on their applicability to all peoples everywhere or the nature of their origin, i.e., “endowed by our Creator.”


    The very people who wrote those “rights” clearly didn’t follow their own rules or they existed only to serve their own needs. (Edit: we agree man’s grants or takes away rights.)

    Second you keep assuming “Creator” is referring to a “Christian” God.

    I won’t get into the other amendments since they’re clearly not based on biblical standings.

  •  
     
     Posted:   Oct 1, 2023 - 7:06 AM   
     By:   Ado   (Member)

    Robert P Jones, head of the Public Religion Research Institute has written several interesting books on culture and religion, this latest one is quite something, where he goes into the deep history of the christian church and the Doctrine of Discovery, which essentially said that white euro 'christians' were superior, and had special rights to indoctrinate or repress people that are not like them. It is quite a bombshell, and you can see this same philosophy in a very large swath of white 'christians' in the USA, who assert that they are superior, to the point of driving out and enacting violence against unlike people and faiths, and, if needed, enact violence to impose a theocratic white christian dictatorship. It is pretty darn ugly. As I guy who grew up as a white christian, i know it is all true. Here is a quite a statement on the Doctrine of Discovery below. January 6th, well, this is what that was all about.


    https://time.com/6309657/us-christian-nationalism-columbus-essay/

    "The return of Columbus in 1493 also precipitated one of the most fateful but unacknowledged theological developments in the history of the western Christian Church: the creation of what has come to be known as the Doctrine of Discovery. Established in a series of 15th-century papal bulls (official edicts that carry the full weight of church and papal authority), the Doctrine claims that European civilization and western Christianity are superior to all other cultures, races, and religions. From this premise, it follows that domination and colonial conquest were merely the means of improving, if not the temporal, then the eternal lot of Indigenous peoples. So conceived, no earthly atrocities could possibly tilt the scales of justice against these immeasurable goods"

    Doctrine of Discovery
    https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/doctrine-discovery-1493

    Here is the book by Robert P Jones, and lots of people should read it, especially Christians. You can stick your head in the mud and not understand this stuff, but, um, it is all true.

    https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Roots-White-Supremacy-American-ebook/dp/B0BTZ8P88P

     
     Posted:   Oct 1, 2023 - 7:24 AM   
     By:   Octoberman   (Member)

    Well, to get back to your very first post, you were the very first person to bring the idea of free speech as a "God-given right" into the discussion--and to declare that it is not, because it goes against the laws of nature. All of my posts have been in service of declaring that it is a God-given right because we "naturally" are blessed with it at birth. And that it is the laws of man, not nature, that deny it to some people.
    The rest of your first post had to do with being respectful of each other. I find little to discuss there, as I can't imagine anyone who would disagree with that point. Can you be more specific as to the "moral implications of free speech" to which you are referring?



    At this point you appear to be hoping for some sort of weird "gotcha" moment.
    Sorry to disappoint you, but you won't achieve it.
    I mentioned the "God-given right" phrase as a simple acknowledgement that many people fervently believe that concept.
    I was not attempting to dissect its relevance and I think that just mentioning it is how your confusion started--my bad.

    And, again, I've made my meaning clear about my references to the moral implications by floating the aspects of how free speech and hate speech differ.
    There is also the aspect of free speech in which one uses flat-out lies in furtherance of one's agenda and disguises it as free speech--I think that is an important issue too.

    You want to debate the religious aspects?
    You can try, I guess, but it won't be with me because I'm not inclined to try and change your mind.

     
     Posted:   Oct 1, 2023 - 7:37 AM   
     By:   Solium   (Member)

    Good point Oct. the question was should freedom of speech be unlimited? Not who granted us freedom of speech. I fell into the rabbit hole myself but I was just trying to clarify the non secular origins of the constitution as it’s founding was brought into question.

     
    You must log in or register to post.
      Go to page:    
    © 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
    Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.