i think over 75 pages of this thread it's probably pretty clear that my opinion of trump could be distilled into those three words yes...
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
i think over 75 pages of this thread it's probably pretty clear that my opinion of trump could be distilled into those three words yes...
K-Dog
MVP
I think that is a shame.
I’ve always been a fan of the flat tax. Sad thing is it will never happen.
Willbacker
Ravens Ring of Honor
Yep. Talk about simple and this would have just one bracket not a tiered system like the GOP plan. Just to me how can you say what dollar amount you're earning should be taxed higher.
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
"Hate speech laws" are the most orwellian backwards anti-american rules I can think of. If any piece of that every tried to make it's way into the U.S I would do everything in my power to stop it.
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
No. What he was defending we're the people who might've been a part of the society complicit in that, but not leaving any change.
We call that a "product of the time" and can't reasonably blame those involved
i dont get how they are orwellian or backwards at all - they just mean expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is illegal...
essentially its a more specific type of crime than assaulting someone verbally
i dont get why they should be legal
K-Dog
MVP
Because eventually it could be come subjective.
While it starts all well and good it opens the door for greater government control than the founding fathers ever intended.
This nation was founded on LESS government control, not greater.
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
Because everyone should have the right to say what they like without the fear of the government punishing them.
That is why the first amendment is the most important out of all the rights we Americans have.
Who decides what is "hate speech" anyways? Is there a legal definition? Does it change over time?
What is to stop the government from making criticism of them illegal if it's okay to make other things being said illegal?
Now you and I can agree that there are things that are impolite to say, and people are free to ban others from their establishments if they find them disagreeable but the government should have NO ROLE in what others can say or think.
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
It's insane how the left tries to demonize "the 1%" as if they're all millionaires and billionaires, when in reality it's most successful business owners who risked everything to start their own company
yes but people should also have the right not to have themselves be subject to hatred for which they have no control - in the uk people have a right to say anything anywhere - but in some places that can come with the possibility of consequences...
there is a legal definition of hate speech and its not just vaguery dressed up as censorship
i mean i dont really understand what a minority is supposed to do if they are being racially/religiously/xenophically/homophobically etc. victimised by the majority without hate speech rules - what if these establishments are run by those sympathetic to the abusers? people should have the right to feel safe in their own country and in public
why should people get away scot free for essentially bullying someone?
it mostly stops overt racism and homophobia (the most prevalent issues)
but a crucial part of the law comes down to intention... and that is down to the police not the government
it's not about control though - it's a law that protects minorities from undue abuse
there's a legal definition so its not vague and controlled by the government but its enacted by the police who have to take into account intention in all the cases
but are you really telling me that people who are victims of hate speech should have no vehicle to escape abuse without removing themselves from a situation that they had no control over?
K-Dog
MVP
If it is not control than what is it?
What gives someone the right to not be offended? Where do you draw the line ? Your right to not be offended does not supersede my right to free speech.
Like I said it is a slippery slope.
Ultimately they are just words. Words that only have the power given to them.
its not about not being offended - its about not being victimised and abused for something that is intrinsic to you and/or out of your control
someone who is subject to racial hatred etc. should have a legal means to protect themselves
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
Protect themselves from mean words?
yes... but there's a difference between being sworn at/abused because someone doesnt like you and being sworn at/abused with specific words designed to belittle you because of your background/nationality/ethnicity
but its not just about the mean words its about the intention to cause harassment/harm with them or being threatening/causing distress
Well, let me put it this way.
Let's say African Americans began to regularly loot and riot again under the premise of BLM and white supremecists cropped up to go out and actively stop them under the guise that blacks do not deserve equal rights. Trump, I think, would turn a blind eye to this message of blacks not deserving equal rights and say that the white supremecist are doing the right thing to oppose them, even if it got violent.
K-Dog
MVP
This is the slippery slope I am talking about.
Yes there most certainly is a difference between mean names and threats to do bodily harm.
Where is the line drawn?
by the police, in the courts by a judiciary
K-Dog
MVP
you are fine with strangers deciding what you can and can not say ?
What if calling someone in authority "A horrible human being" was considered hate speech ?
- Status