Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"Writing for the majority in Gooding, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. invalidated the Georgia statute, interpreting Chaplinsky to apply only to language that had “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.” The Court analyzed the history of Georgia’s application of the statute and concluded that it had been invoked repeatedly to punish the use of communications that were “not ‘fighting words’ as Chaplinsky defines them.” Thus, the Court concluded that the statute was overbroad because it was “susceptible of application to protected expression.”
The Court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Wilson’s words would likely have been punishable under a more narrowly drawn statute drafted in conformance to the requirements of Chaplinsky.
The Court’s decision in effect limited the application of the “fighting words” exception. When classifying expression as fighting words, courts would look at a communication’s tendency to produce an immediate and violent reaction rather than the offensiveness of the language used.
The Court’s decision also apparently induced, albeit unintentionally, a dramatic shift in interpretation of the overbreadth doctrine. Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger and Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote scathing dissents, chastising the Court for declaring unconstitutional a statute that “has little potential for application outside the realm of ‘fighting words.’"
One year later, in Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973), the Court substantially limited the scope of its authority to overturn statutes, requiring that in future cases “the overbreadth of the statute must not only be real but substantial as well” to justify invalidation. The relative infrequency of contemporary applications of the overbreadth doctrine is thus indirectly but clearly traceable to the majority opinion in Gooding." [LINK]
I'm not seeing the "100% of the time" stipulation you mentioned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"In assessing the fighting words doctrine at this point, it is important to note the speech involved in Gooding. While assaulting a police officer, Gooding shouted, “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you.” “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.” and “You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I’ll cut you all to pieces.” If this speech doesn’t constitute fighting words, one would be hard-pressed to think of speech that would qualify.
Gooding was the nail in the coffin—if the fighting words exception has any real vitality left at all (and many commentators, including Nadine Strossen, think it is essentially dead) the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction." [LINK]
"Facts. The Appellee was convicted of using abusive language towards another when he made statements such as “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death.”� “If you put your hands on me again I’ll cut you to pieces.”� At the time these comments were made the Appellee was being moved away from an army induction center where he was protesting the war." [LINK]
Created:
-->
@mustardness
I wasn't aware of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vfz2O0NXuE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
And trying to argue about any of them is the epistemological equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.I'm willing to do that if you want to supply the counter argument?
My "counter argument" is simply granting you "the text is historically accurate".
And even "the gospels" that you highlighted, if taken as historically authentic, they are, at most, accurate accounts of what the authors themselves believed to be true at the time. The Jesus said, "this and that and some other thing" and sure, maybe that person existed and maybe they even said that stuff, but that doesn't make any supernatural claims any more likely to be true than if someone said that same stuff today.And what do you have from the early historical record that counter them?
My "counter argument" is simply granting you "the text is historically accurate".
All of the "authentication" claims that supposedly fit the Jewish and Christian writings also apply equally well to the Epic of Gilgamesh.And the Epic of Gilgamesh is significantly older and better authenticated. The earliest tablets that record the Epic of Gilgamesh are estimated to be from about 3000 BCE. The oldest surviving record of the Jewish stories are from about 300 BCE.The question is which borrowed from the other since Moses states that the written genealogical records were handed down and he compiled them into the Torah.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter who borrowed from whom, if you agree that they are BOTH historically accurate.
Christians seem to understand that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than both Judaism and Christianity and that Gilgamesh himself was very likely a historical king. And it seems like it would be difficult for them to deny the accounts that "the first man was made of mud" and "the gods sent a great flood because the humans displeased them" and "one of the gods decided to warn one of their followers about the flood before it happened" without being incredulous about those same exact stories written in their own special books.But even then, a Christian has the impulse to believe that even if some of that stuff is true, that doesn't mean the ancient Sumerian gods were "real".Some Christians act on impulse, others have investigated the evidence and data. And the non-Christian has the impulse to believe that some of the biblical accounts are untrue.
Historical accuracy does not "prove" supernatural claims.
And so, any Jewish or Christian arguments attempting to claim "historical accuracy" of their ancient texts are absolutely and utterly moot.No, they are not. It is reasonable and logical evidence.
Historical accuracy does not "prove" supernatural claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
"...the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction." [LINK]
Harassing someone face to face by calling them by a title they already specifically asked you not to use would seem likely to provoke a violent reaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you even read your own link? Posters that read the 1st paragraph of a link, assume it supports their worldview, and then casually dismiss the rest of their link irk me with their cavalier intellectual laziness.
"...the Supreme Court has effectively limited the exception to only include abusive language, exchanged face to face, which would likely provoke a violent reaction."
Harassing someone face to face by calling them by a title they already specifically asked you not to use would seem likely to provoke a violent reaction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Zoiks. Ok, so I agree with your "The Outer Limits" version.There was an Outer Limits episode - "The Sentence" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentence_(The_Outer_Limits)https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5cfyoc ) that dealt with something like this in a fashion that I'm more agreeable with. In the episode the mind actually experiences the sentence in a simulation - Something like the matrix. After the simulation is complete the prisoner returns to reality without much time lost from his actual life. Contrast that with the "Total Recall" idea of implanted a memory but where the prisoner's mind never actually goes through the experience.
Would you have any recommendations about exactly how unpleasant such an experience should be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
It was a question! Not a statement!Well then that's the first time I've seen anybody say that and not mean it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I've never heard anyone say it, ever! (Well, except for 3ru's post, obviously.)
It was just a question! Not a statement!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
I'm not talking about how or what theists believe or think, I'm talking about a tactic that religious people use in arguments.
Well stated.
You are an atheist, do you hate the baby Jesus?
Not particularly.
Do you know any other atheist that hate the baby Jesus?
Not that I know of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I've said repeatedly that Quantifiable (verifiably real and true) data is emotionally meaningless.If you are an epistemological nihilist, this is an admission that knowledge is meaningless.
Only Qualitative (imaginary and experiential) information is emotionally meaningful.
I'm not sure how you think this helps strengthen your case.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
It's not as though we have any reason to try, since it's not as though tens of thousands of Americans overdose and die each year on powerful narcotics smuggled into this country, several times greater than the annual number of gun homicides.
90% of illegal drugs are smuggled in by sea. - https://nypost.com/2014/02/24/drug-smugglers-take-to-the-high-seas-to-avoid-border-patrol/
Overall, where narcotics are concerned, far more contraband transport takes place on the ocean than by land. In fact, more than 90 percent of smuggled drugsare shipped by sea, according to the U.S. Coast Guard. For example, the Coast Guard reports seizing 200 metric tons of cocaine at sea in 2016, compared to just 82 metric tons intercepted on land in the continental U.S. - https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-will-billions-for-the-wall-get-us-boat-people-on-americas-coasts
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
A wall also can't stop anyone.Exactly
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I want the wall to protect innocent children from irresponsible parents throwing their children's lives away.
Only sensors and patrols can protect children.
Do you support the human trafficking of minors who can't refuse to cross a desert where there is no wall?
Building a wall will have absolutely no effect on the problem you describe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This fetish for explanations and understandings will only get in the way of what is really important.
If understanding is wrong, I don't wanna be right!!
Being that you seem to be hinting that you are an epistemological nihilist, it should even be plain to you that this approach is vanity.
Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
No, it's not.
This post is proof positive that your previous statement is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
right and misgendering someone is not "fighting words" and that I was posting a reply to that fact.
We seem to agree that it is harassment.
the way you described repeatedly etc is harassment and not speech,
That is how it is described in the statute.
even so, if someone gets in your face screaming at you, you still can't assault them with any kind of legal defense.
Nobody suggested that assault was legal. However, if you "fear for your life" apparently you can shoot them dead.
"the Court ruled that offensive language did not constitute fighting words."
Citation please.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
A wall can't detain anyone.sure they want more patrols and drones because once they are on U.S. soil they will be released to appear at a future court date, we all know how that works. this is the 'security' the democrats want and why they are so opposed to walls.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So you want a wall to protect you from dead people?All these dead illegal aliens are also nowhere near any wall.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why don't you ask a Coyote where he trafficks his young girls?
You can be certain that a wall isn't going to detain them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
people get assaulted all the time, so what?well, let's see do theyproduce a clear and present danger? I would say noincitement to riot which creates a clear and present danger? nopea direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs? nawso by that logic, whenever someone is called any name they consider derogatory, even repeatedly that [does not] justifies violence and is not protected speech. Repeatedly calling someone names or whatever is harassment, not because of the words they use but by their actions, that is what you are describing, again not fighting words.
Fighting words are not protected speech.
The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
You use solipsism in every argument you make.
This statement is provably false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Truth is either known or unknown. Knowable or unknowable. But you know that there is Truth. Love The Truth more than anything. You do this through abiding in The Truth, discarding that which tempts you from it. The Truth is God. Place no idol before God.
If truth is unknowable, then you can never even hope to explain it.
If unknowable truth is god, then how can you even talk about it?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Jim Acosta already debunked your urban myth that walls do not work.
You don't seem to understand what constitutes evidence.
There are many regions of the border with no wall at all and they are not overrun with traffic either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Truth has very little to do with knowledge. The Truth is not contingent on knowledge.
The truth is either knowable or unknowable. Unknowable truth is indistinguishable from pure imagination.
Before electricity was discovered and known, it certainly existed.
Certainly lightning is well defined and historically identifiable. In other words, we have evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Something does not have to be verifiable to be reality.
Please give an example of one thing you believe is unverifiable and real.
Something has to be verifiable to be knowledge.
I agree.
There is a difference between knowledge and truth. Facts and reality.
Technically (linguistically) there is a difference, however, truth must be knowable and facts must accurately reflect reality.
If you are epistemological nihilist, by that standard, nothing is fact.
I'm pretty sure you just made that up out of thin air.
If you make truth contingent on knowledge with an attitude of epistemological nihilism, nothing is reality.
This is incorrect. I have already explained a Quantifiable definition of truth.
And sure enough, that is true atheism. Nihilism. The denial of reality itself.
Atheism simply means, "not a theist".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is easy to say atheists make up truth because if you are an epistemological nihilist who equates knowledge with truth..
This is incorrect. I've already explained that truth requires facts and facts require verifiability. For example, gravity is quantifiable and verifiable and therefore can be considered true.
If anything, the atheist skeptic is completely lacking imagination. The focus is on clearly distinguishing Quanta from Qualia.
it means you don't believe in truth.
This is incorrect. I already explained that truth requires facts and facts require verifiability. For example, gravity is quantifiable and verifiable and therefore can be considered true.
As that is the case, any assertion of truth is made up by the atheist.
This is incorrect. The definition of truth is rigorously defined and is therefore Quantifiable.
So an atheist really shouldn't be shocked at accusations like this, because technically they have adopted an indefensible and irrational worldview.
I'm not sure I'd say "shocked" but I still haven't seen any specific examples.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Increased patrols and drones and cameras will stop more immigrants than a wall.So what?If the wall stops 500 potential killers it's still worth it.You don't sound very convincing that you are serious about this problem, neither does Pelosi.
The wall stops zero people.
Breaching a super spectacular hyper magical awesome 200 foot tall concrete and steel wall is easy.
If people living in caves in the middle east can shoot down helicopters with RPG's I have no doubt that the big scary drug cartels can get ahold of some mortar shells. Or one of these - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_80gWlDQdHg
And if you don't want a loud ka-boom, try this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msV1xnW3Gbc
The Cracker is a non-explosive cracking agent. It comes in powder form and is mixed with water. It will break concrete in four hours when mixed and poured into predrilled holes in concrete. To buy, visit www.atcepoxy.com and click on the "Where to Buy" tab.
It looks like they ship to Matamoros.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
They are fighting words if you choose to be offended.
Well, there you go. By your own admission, if someone chooses to be offended then, "They are fighting words". Case closed.
If anyone says "please don't say that" and you then make a point out of saying it repeatedly, then you are de facto spoiling for a fight.
But the intent of refusing to go along with it is not to cause trouble, but to hold true to one's beliefs.
If the "intent" is not to cause trouble, then just avoid pronouns. Say, "hey you" and maybe, "sorry, I didn't mean to offend you".
You can't defend using obvious insults (the "n" word for example) simply because they reflect your "true beliefs".
What religion specifies specific pronoun usage?
And, how can you know for certain what gender a person is without a strip-search? Or a blood sample, or demanding to see their birth certificate?
It not meant to be insulting, threating, or abusive. It's refusing to compromise one's beliefs.
I see you seem to think you can speak authoritatively about the motives of all trans-phobics.
Created:
Posted in:
Atheists make up truth all the time. No reason theists can't. Do your thing.
Citation please.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ask any of the people who lost loved ones to illegal invaders or terrorists if 500 is okay and acceptable.
From the conservative CATO institute:
Our headline finding is that both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants have incarceration rates far below those of native-born Americans—at 0.85 percent, 0.47 percent, and 1.53 percent, respectively. Excluding illegal immigrants who are incarcerated or in detention for immigration offenses lowers their incarceration rate to 0.5 percent of their population—within a smidge of legal immigrants. As a result, native-born Americans are overrepresented in the incarcerated population while illegal and legal immigrants are underrepresented, relative to their respective shares of the population.
We had enough of this postmodernist crap with the "new normal" under Obama.
Please explain.
Enough. Build Wall. Maga.
Increased patrols and drones and cameras will stop more immigrants than a wall.
You want open borders like we had 100 years ago? Repeal welfare then like the country operated 100 years ago.
Literally nobody is suggesting "open borders". This is an obvious false choice straw-man.
The wall is the price of a welfare state. Deal with it.
The forceless mascot wall is pointless. Your comparison is a non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Refusing to go against your own beliefs and use someone's stupid pronoun is not fighting words nor is it disturbing any peace.
Do you believe it would be considered harassment if people refused to call you by your preferred pronoun?
I'm sure that, generally speaking, if you made a habit out of purposefully and repeatedly calling strangers by the "wrong" pronoun, and forcefully ignored their protests, it would not be surprising if at least a few of them physically attacked you.
That would seem to qualify as "fighting words".
For example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiIXNNfpgLY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Or reality.From the same dictionary.the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Correct. Actual verifiable existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Epistemological nihilism is the end of it all!And it certainly is if knowledge is taken as an idol before The Truth.Loving The Truth isn't about knowledge. It is about living The Truth. So how do you abide in The Truth?That is what the Orthodox discipline is and has always been about.
You can't just make up your own special unique personal definition of "truth".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I agree.I think that if everyone really broke down their beliefs, they would come to the same conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I don't believe I am the only one that exists.I just don't necessarily have any other beliefs.I am certain I exist.I am not certain of anything else.
This seems perfectly rational.
Created:
Posted in:
Not surprised you are hyper-sensitive.Not surprised you bring politics in here. I think it's time to block you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
All agnostics are atheists but not all atheists are agnostic.
Atheist = not a theist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
No, since I am not a God.
Eh, that seems to be an ontological choice.
(IFF) solipsism is true (THEN) you are the "ultimate reality" and or "the most powerful intelligence in existence".
This sounds a lot like the descriptions of Brahman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Commit.
Intolerance of ambiguity.
Clearly the hallmark of a political conservative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If you believe in yourself, does that make you a theist?I don't think there will ever be enough"proof". I might be a solipsist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Actually, there are no conditions where protected speech becomes a crime. That's what protected speech means. The person in that situation would not be charged with anything, the lunatic would be charged with assault and his lawyers would likely mount an insanity defense.
Fighting words are not protected speech.
The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
But once again, you assume it is the fault of the person refusing to go against their beliefs. While old people can be fragile, they can also tough and wise. If they are snowflakes, it is their fault.
Conservatives are not immune to personal outrage. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
There are circumstances when protected speech becomes crime and so forfeits protection.
Fighting words are not protected speech.
The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
That's what I say!!I would be a theist but I need more proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
A lot of people seem to get caught up in the claims that the Jesus was a really real, real actual flesh and blood human being, and "the flood" was a (pre)historical event and Daniel predicted some stuff.
I'm simply trying to point out that all of these are just a basket of red herrings.
And trying to argue about any of them is the epistemological equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
And even "the gospels" that you highlighted, if taken as historically authentic, they are, at most, accurate accounts of what the authors themselves believed to be true at the time. The Jesus said, "this and that and some other thing" and sure, maybe that person existed and maybe they even said that stuff, but that doesn't make any supernatural claims any more likely to be true than if someone said that same stuff today.
All of the "authentication" claims that supposedly fit the Jewish and Christian writings also apply equally well to the Epic of Gilgamesh.
And the Epic of Gilgamesh is significantly older and better authenticated. The earliest tablets that record the Epic of Gilgamesh are estimated to be from about 3000 BCE. The oldest surviving record of the Jewish stories are from about 300 BCE.
Christians seem to understand that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than both Judaism and Christianity and that Gilgamesh himself was very likely a historical king. And it seems like it would be difficult for them to deny the accounts that "the first man was made of mud" and "the gods sent a great flood because the humans displeased them" and "one of the gods decided to warn one of their followers about the flood before it happened" without being incredulous about those same exact stories written in their own special books.
But even then, a Christian has the impulse to believe that even if some of that stuff is true, that doesn't mean the ancient Sumerian gods were "real".
And so, any Jewish or Christian arguments attempting to claim "historical accuracy" of their ancient texts are absolutely and utterly moot.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you want to be a douche and bring up crap from before the nation was a nation with rules and laws to make your point you can but what my grandma though of immigration matters not since she is dead. If you can't understand modern laws and rules you have a serious problem but you seem ok with crime.
We basically agree that people should follow proper procedure.
That's why we need a smart border instead of a forceless mascot wall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
A lot of people tell me i'm not truly enlightened bc i still have doubt that any of this is true. But i disagree with them. I think it is fair to say "i see it" but i also see that i can be wrong. I would say a person that can't say that isn't truly enlightened. But of course, people are throwing this phrase around carelessly recently so just like anything humans touch... it's starting to become corrupted.
A man searching for enlightenment is like a man riding an ox in search of an ox.
Created: