Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Should It Be Illegal To Speak About Other People?

Politics Society Humanity

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 01 October 2016 - 09:31 AM

Should it?



#2 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 02 October 2016 - 02:06 AM

It depends on the context of that speech.  Although freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right, slandering or defaming someone is punishable by law, either in criminal or civil courts.



#3 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 02 October 2016 - 04:49 AM

It depends on the context of that speech.  Although freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right, slandering or defaming someone is punishable by law, either in criminal or civil courts.

Can society exist without people speaking of one another?



#4 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 15 October 2016 - 03:07 AM

_ have no idea what ___are talking about. :nahnahbooboo:



#5 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 06 November 2016 - 01:55 PM

Language cannot exist without the use of nouns or pronouns.  You cannot identify the person or object without the use of those and all we have left are a string of incoherent verbs and adverbs.  As I said in post #2, the legality of speaking of other people depends on the context, and on a personal note I despise malicious gossip.



#6 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 06 November 2016 - 02:00 PM

To clarify my comment in post #2, committing slander or defamation of character are generally civil offenses, while perjury, as in lying in testimony before a court, or making false statements to the police are criminal offenses.



#7 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 06 November 2016 - 04:07 PM

To clarify my comment in post #2, committing slander or defamation of character are generally civil offenses, while perjury, as in lying in testimony before a court, or making false statements to the police are criminal offenses.

Can communication exist without violence? What I'm trying to discern is whether morality needs communication, and if it does how communication can be maintained without causing violence.

Morality is healthcare, and shelter and food for all people, but food and shelter and healthcare need communication.  



#8 fahrquad

fahrquad

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 378 posts

Posted 31 December 2016 - 10:22 PM

I am watching the news, which is a form of communication, and I haven't seen any acts of violence.



#9 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 01 January 2017 - 07:56 AM

I am watching the news, which is a form of communication, and I haven't seen any acts of violence.

News stories are about violence, therefore media can't exist without violence.



#10 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 702 posts

Posted 04 January 2017 - 04:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2...elay/index.html

 

Speak about other people? We've gone way beyond that.

 

It is in my humble opinion, and only in my humble opinion that the media has gone completely mad in the US.

 

With DT's mouth and tweets seemingly speaking out about anyone and anything along with the media's caustic nature, it's like putting gasoline on a fire.

 

I'd like to think we're all being played and Donald really does trust the generals and the men and women in the various government agency's. Even if he didn't trust the different agency's what possible good would it do him to let friend or foe of the US know that he doesn't believe in the information he gets from them? So I'm in the corner of, that's all a show, at least I hope he's not that stupid. 

 

With the current state of the media and politicians I cannot get the line from an old song out of my head whenever I think about the situation. Mostly due to everything seeming to be more like a reality TV show instead of a serious leader needed to address a country with serious issues.

 

"And the people bowed and prayed to the neon God they made"

 

 

 

 

 



#11 A-wal

A-wal

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 04 January 2017 - 07:36 PM

This might be bordering on conspiracy theory but I don't think elected officials are considered by the various agencies as anything more than distractions for the general population, especially in the US. They're outside the loop of the big decision makers and only have superficial control over what's really going on.

 

I have no doubt that what I've just said is true to some degree, to what degree is impossible to know but I think most people would be very surprised.



#12 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • 15120 posts

Posted 04 January 2017 - 09:48 PM

Should it [be illegal to speak about other people]?

What a ludicrous question. Humans are social creatures and language a means of socialization. This includes of course body language. Exactly how could a law be passed concerning people without talking about them. Good grief.
 

Can communication exist without violence? What I'm trying to discern is whether morality needs communication, and if it does how communication can be maintained without causing violence.
Morality is healthcare, and shelter and food for all people, but food and shelter and healthcare need communication.

Of course communications exist without violence, even if there are communications that do invoke violence. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
 

News stories are about violence, therefore media can't exist without violence.

This is a wholly unsubstantiated load of ballwash. Honestly, you propose the most ridiculous things in your threads. :rolleyes:

#13 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 702 posts

Posted 05 January 2017 - 06:24 PM

This might be bordering on conspiracy theory but I don't think elected officials are considered by the various agencies as anything more than distractions for the general population, especially in the US. They're outside the loop of the big decision makers and only have superficial control over what's really going on.

 

I have no doubt that what I've just said is true to some degree, to what degree is impossible to know but I think most people would be very surprised.

I don't think it borders on conspiracy, in fact I would tend to agree with you on that point. I'm often left in disbelief at what friends and co-workers give "credit to" if they like the politician, or "blame for" if they don't like the politician. I only brought that up about Trump because unlike most politicians, who even though they may think a certain way, they don't usually verbalize it. That's not the case with Mr. Trump, maybe that's what appeals to the people that voted for him.



#14 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 06:49 AM

For some reason, the left is conditioning people to be overly sensitive. Hypersensitivity creates more virtual chips on your shoulder. Trump is trying to desensitize people, so free speech can return. 

 

I used to wear contact lenses. Every now and then protein deposits or a speck of dirt got behind a lens. Although the contaminant was tiny, it could really irritate the eye to where one can become very sensitive to light. Even a dim light, that would not normally bother you, became very painful. The left has placed dirt behind the contact lenses of the young minds, so even low light; basic truth, hurts. 

 

The fact that some college age students, need safe zones, to avoid conflicting ideas, shows how much dirt is behind the lenses of their minds. Trump will be like an enzyme soak and rinse to help remove the dirt, so the youth can handle bright light; free speech.

 

Sensitivity can be good if used to help you differentiate reality. That require a positive or neutral feeling. If you are always angry or afraid, the same level of sensitivity also allows you to see tiny things,but these can set you off.



#15 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 702 posts

Posted 07 January 2017 - 03:44 PM

I'm a little confused, in the first part of your post you say, Trump is trying to desensitize the people. Then further on you say sensitivity is a good thing to differentiate reality. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but exactly how will Trump desensitize them? Exactly how did the left make people more sensitive?  



#16 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 07:34 AM

I'm a little confused, in the first part of your post you say, Trump is trying to desensitize the people. Then further on you say sensitivity is a good thing to differentiate reality. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but exactly how will Trump desensitize them? Exactly how did the left make people more sensitive?  

 

Trump is saying all the things that are taboo to say, based on the PC positions of the left. When Trump says illegal immigrants, the left will say he is a hater who hates all immigrants. The left is merging two data sets; lawful and lawless, which are distinct, treating them as one thing. Trump treats legal and illegal aliens as two separate things, because those who break the law, are not the same as those who are law abiding. The left, on the other hand, is basing everything on race, since they are racists. Lawless and law abiding is not a racist position, since both exist in every race. The old KKK, the Black and Hispanic gang bangers are all lawless. Lawless transcends race, as does good. The hard working whites, blacks and hispanics who work for their families are good. Lawful transcends race. 

 

Trump by saying that which is taboo to the left, forces the rank and file to hear what they have been trained to fear. They are not allowed to think too deep. Once they can be desensitized to words, and can listen and not have to hide in the corner, crying, they will have a platform of sensitivity, to make a distinction. 

 

The leaders of the Democratic party are among the lawless; the woman who cheated with Hillary on the debates gets a promotion a leader of the DNC. What does that tell you in terms of lawful and lawless leadership? This is why they don't want the distinction of lawful venus lawless being made. Hillary was not held responsible, for doing shady doings, by her base. The democrats are racist and sexists, so their distinctions she would be have been the first female president, placing that ahead of lawful and lawless, in terms of priory. 

 

Criminals benefit by division along lines of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, so good and evil become merged. The unification of all the races begins with the good people in all races, since they all tend to be law abiding, and will follow the rules which unite. Trumps wants the good people to separate from the lawless and not stay merged based on sex and race. The taboo words of PC attempt to inhibit this separation. If blacks fear white, and white fear blacks, more than the good in each race fear the lawless of their race, the lawless are placed above the good of the other races. This benefits the scam artists. 



#17 billvon

billvon

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 11 January 2017 - 01:04 PM

I'm a little confused, in the first part of your post you say, Trump is trying to desensitize the people. Then further on you say sensitivity is a good thing to differentiate reality. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but exactly how will Trump desensitize them? Exactly how did the left make people more sensitive?  

To give you a little background, the poster is a right wing extremist who posts on other boards as well.  He hates Obama and all things liberal, and regularly posts long political screeds on how evil liberals, gays, blacks etc are and how good conservatives are.