Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do You Think We Should Not have free speech?

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 7:34:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
By "we", I mean anyone 20 or under, because according to this yahoo I was talking to on another forum, I should not have 1st Amendment Rights, because of my age. What do you think? Do you guys agree that we should not. The user who said this was named Kali on JosefVStalin.com, yeah it does sound communist, but the actual point of the site is about gaming and let's plays, not politics. There just happens to be a forum to debate politics:

http://www.josefvstalin.com...
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 7:43:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Knowledge or education isn't a prerequisite to 1st amendment rights, so I don't really even understand the position. As far as the US government is concerned, equal protection applies to someone who is 18, the same as it applies to someone who is 100.

I believe frees speech applies to everyone regardless of any characteristic, applying an age limitation seems misguided.
Debate.org Moderator
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 7:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 7:43:07 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Knowledge or education isn't a prerequisite to 1st amendment rights, so I don't really even understand the position. As far as the US government is concerned, equal protection applies to someone who is 18, the same as it applies to someone who is 100.

I believe frees speech applies to everyone regardless of any characteristic, applying an age limitation seems misguided.

Why do you think it is misguided, because I am considering typing this for my blog tomorrow. You see the argument came when he saw my blog with an opinion he obviously does not agree with in which I was talking about how the liberal media has been hypocritical in this recall election. After seeing it he said that someone at my age should not been blogging about politics. So all of us of under 20 really are not allowed to have any opinion in politics in his own opinion.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 8:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do not support free speech, as in not absolute free speech. For a classic example, I don't support being allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, nor calling in a bomb threat to your school.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 9:04:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 8:55:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I do not support free speech, as in not absolute free speech. For a classic example, I don't support being allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, nor calling in a bomb threat to your school.

fascist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 9:23:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 8:55:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I do not support free speech, as in not absolute free speech. For a classic example, I don't support being allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, nor calling in a bomb threat to your school.

I believe in free speech; namely, the freedom to believe what I believe and proclaim it whenever you want.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 9:26:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 9:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2012 8:55:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I do not support free speech, as in not absolute free speech. For a classic example, I don't support being allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, nor calling in a bomb threat to your school.

fascist.

Meh, if supporting 99.73% free speech is "fascist," so be it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 9:28:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 9:26:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/8/2012 9:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2012 8:55:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I do not support free speech, as in not absolute free speech. For a classic example, I don't support being allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, nor calling in a bomb threat to your school.

fascist.

Meh, if supporting 99.73% free speech is "fascist," so be it.

that's an oddly specific percentage.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 9:33:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 9:28:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2012 9:26:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/8/2012 9:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/8/2012 8:55:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I do not support free speech, as in not absolute free speech. For a classic example, I don't support being allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, nor calling in a bomb threat to your school.

fascist.

Meh, if supporting 99.73% free speech is "fascist," so be it.

that's an oddly specific percentage.

82.87% of statistics are pulled out of my rear on the spot.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2012 10:44:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be stupid or ignorant.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:30:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/8/2012 7:34:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
By "we", I mean anyone 20 or under, because according to this yahoo I was talking to on another forum, I should not have 1st Amendment Rights, because of my age. What do you think? Do you guys agree that we should not. The user who said this was named Kali on JosefVStalin.com, yeah it does sound communist, but the actual point of the site is about gaming and let's plays, not politics. There just happens to be a forum to debate politics:

http://www.josefvstalin.com...

If you are under 18, than you don't vote, you don't serve the military, you are still learning basic education, and chances are you don't pay taxes.

In my opinion, the government does not represent you if you are under 18, and those under the ages of 18 should be considered partial citizens; full citizenship should not be granted until one is 18. Legalizing this partial citizenship concept would stop people from purposely having children in the US in order to keep from getting deported, as their children were not be natural born citizens unless they are born here and raised here until the age of 18.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:32:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:30:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2012 7:34:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
By "we", I mean anyone 20 or under, because according to this yahoo I was talking to on another forum, I should not have 1st Amendment Rights, because of my age. What do you think? Do you guys agree that we should not. The user who said this was named Kali on JosefVStalin.com, yeah it does sound communist, but the actual point of the site is about gaming and let's plays, not politics. There just happens to be a forum to debate politics:

http://www.josefvstalin.com...

If you are under 18, than you don't vote, you don't serve the military, you are still learning basic education, and chances are you don't pay taxes.

In my opinion, the government does not represent you if you are under 18, and those under the ages of 18 should be considered partial citizens; full citizenship should not be granted until one is 18. Legalizing this partial citizenship concept would stop people from purposely having children in the US in order to keep from getting deported, as their children were not be natural born citizens unless they are born here and raised here until the age of 18.

To clarify I think you should be allowed to say what you want, but the government should not be required to protect your right to freedom of speech.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:33:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:32:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:30:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2012 7:34:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
By "we", I mean anyone 20 or under, because according to this yahoo I was talking to on another forum, I should not have 1st Amendment Rights, because of my age. What do you think? Do you guys agree that we should not. The user who said this was named Kali on JosefVStalin.com, yeah it does sound communist, but the actual point of the site is about gaming and let's plays, not politics. There just happens to be a forum to debate politics:

http://www.josefvstalin.com...

If you are under 18, than you don't vote, you don't serve the military, you are still learning basic education, and chances are you don't pay taxes.

In my opinion, the government does not represent you if you are under 18, and those under the ages of 18 should be considered partial citizens; full citizenship should not be granted until one is 18. Legalizing this partial citizenship concept would stop people from purposely having children in the US in order to keep from getting deported, as their children were not be natural born citizens unless they are born here and raised here until the age of 18.

To clarify I think you should be allowed to say what you want, but the government should not be required to protect your right to freedom of speech.

Well, it should protect your right from itself....
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:37:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe personally that all people should be allowed free speech. And so does the US, to an extent (which is oxymoronic to the very idea of free speech, but I digress.)

This is evident in the USSC's opinion in the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District:

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:38:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:33:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:32:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:30:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2012 7:34:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
By "we", I mean anyone 20 or under, because according to this yahoo I was talking to on another forum, I should not have 1st Amendment Rights, because of my age. What do you think? Do you guys agree that we should not. The user who said this was named Kali on JosefVStalin.com, yeah it does sound communist, but the actual point of the site is about gaming and let's plays, not politics. There just happens to be a forum to debate politics:

http://www.josefvstalin.com...

If you are under 18, than you don't vote, you don't serve the military, you are still learning basic education, and chances are you don't pay taxes.

In my opinion, the government does not represent you if you are under 18, and those under the ages of 18 should be considered partial citizens; full citizenship should not be granted until one is 18. Legalizing this partial citizenship concept would stop people from purposely having children in the US in order to keep from getting deported, as their children were not be natural born citizens unless they are born here and raised here until the age of 18.

To clarify I think you should be allowed to say what you want, but the government should not be required to protect your right to freedom of speech.

Well, it should protect your right from itself....

Ah, but the thing is they are not representatives of people under 18. If the government was to protect their right to speech, you are a step away from granting people under the age of 18 the right to vote. Personally, if you can't serve the military, you are still being taught basic education, and you don't have hair on your sack, than you should not be allowed to vote. If you can't vote he government does not represent you, and you should not have a say in how things are being run.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:42:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:33:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:32:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:30:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2012 7:34:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
By "we", I mean anyone 20 or under, because according to this yahoo I was talking to on another forum, I should not have 1st Amendment Rights, because of my age. What do you think? Do you guys agree that we should not. The user who said this was named Kali on JosefVStalin.com, yeah it does sound communist, but the actual point of the site is about gaming and let's plays, not politics. There just happens to be a forum to debate politics:

http://www.josefvstalin.com...

If you are under 18, than you don't vote, you don't serve the military, you are still learning basic education, and chances are you don't pay taxes.

In my opinion, the government does not represent you if you are under 18, and those under the ages of 18 should be considered partial citizens; full citizenship should not be granted until one is 18. Legalizing this partial citizenship concept would stop people from purposely having children in the US in order to keep from getting deported, as their children were not be natural born citizens unless they are born here and raised here until the age of 18.

To clarify I think you should be allowed to say what you want, but the government should not be required to protect your right to freedom of speech.

Well, it should protect your right from itself....

Ah, but the thing is they are not representatives of people under 18. If the government was to protect their right to speech, you are a step away from granting people under the age of 18 the right to vote. Personally, if you can't serve the military, you are still being taught basic education, and you don't have hair on your sack, than you should not be allowed to vote. If you can't vote he government does not represent you, and you should not have a say in how things are being run.

The concern here is the precedent that it is okay for the government to restrict speech. The precedent is one of the biggest concerns I have with my restriction. Once it is ever allowed for the government to restrict speech on law-abiding citizens, partial or full, there is an inherent risk of that restriction spreading.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:44:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

In other words; you should be allowed to say what you want, if you are under 18, but the government should not protect your right to do so; against the government, or against society, because you have yet to contribute to either.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:44:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

Regardless of whether the government represents you, the fact that it has an effect on, and rule over, you is absolutely enough.

I'm a bit surprised, DanT. It seems you're justifying restriction of a person's freedom with restriction of said person's freedom.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:45:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:44:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

In other words; you should be allowed to say what you want, if you are under 18, but the government should not protect your right to do so; against the government, or against society, because you have yet to contribute to either.

Ah, but who's fault is it that we cannot contribute?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:54:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:42:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:38:22 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:33:08 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:32:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:30:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/8/2012 7:34:08 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
By "we", I mean anyone 20 or under, because according to this yahoo I was talking to on another forum, I should not have 1st Amendment Rights, because of my age. What do you think? Do you guys agree that we should not. The user who said this was named Kali on JosefVStalin.com, yeah it does sound communist, but the actual point of the site is about gaming and let's plays, not politics. There just happens to be a forum to debate politics:

http://www.josefvstalin.com...

If you are under 18, than you don't vote, you don't serve the military, you are still learning basic education, and chances are you don't pay taxes.

In my opinion, the government does not represent you if you are under 18, and those under the ages of 18 should be considered partial citizens; full citizenship should not be granted until one is 18. Legalizing this partial citizenship concept would stop people from purposely having children in the US in order to keep from getting deported, as their children were not be natural born citizens unless they are born here and raised here until the age of 18.

To clarify I think you should be allowed to say what you want, but the government should not be required to protect your right to freedom of speech.

Well, it should protect your right from itself....

Ah, but the thing is they are not representatives of people under 18. If the government was to protect their right to speech, you are a step away from granting people under the age of 18 the right to vote. Personally, if you can't serve the military, you are still being taught basic education, and you don't have hair on your sack, than you should not be allowed to vote. If you can't vote he government does not represent you, and you should not have a say in how things are being run.

The concern here is the precedent that it is okay for the government to restrict speech.

OK to restrict speech for those who can't vote, because government does not represent them. Such as foreigners, and people under 18.

The precedent is one of the biggest concerns I have with my restriction. Once it is ever allowed for the government to restrict speech on law-abiding citizens, partial or full, there is an inherent risk of that restriction spreading.

"Congress shall make no law 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."

It makes clear the purpose of Free speech; Free speech is so that you can speak out against the government. It's so the those who voted for their government, can make their government aware that they are not representing them.

27.3% of the US is under 20 (couldn't find a statistic for 18 and under); imagine if everyone in school signed a petition, banning public school, and gave it to the governor. The governor does not know they are not ax payers; he may believe the tax payers no longer want to fund the schools.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:57:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:44:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

Regardless of whether the government represents you, the fact that it has an effect on, and rule over, you is absolutely enough.

I'm a bit surprised, DanT. It seems you're justifying restriction of a person's freedom with restriction of said person's freedom.

Would you be in favor of allowing illegal immigrants, or foreigners vising the US the right to petition our government? They are not US citizens, and can't vote, yet a right to freedom of speech would mean they would have a say in our government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:59:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:45:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:44:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

In other words; you should be allowed to say what you want, if you are under 18, but the government should not protect your right to do so; against the government, or against society, because you have yet to contribute to either.

Ah, but who's fault is it that we cannot contribute?

Father time. Wait until you are 18, than you can protest and vote all you want. Until than, let the adults handle things; I've read lord of the flies, I know where this leads.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:15:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:57:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:44:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

Regardless of whether the government represents you, the fact that it has an effect on, and rule over, you is absolutely enough.

I'm a bit surprised, DanT. It seems you're justifying restriction of a person's freedom with restriction of said person's freedom.

Would you be in favor of allowing illegal immigrants, or foreigners vising the US the right to petition our government? They are not US citizens, and can't vote, yet a right to freedom of speech would mean they would have a say in our government.

I would.

I would also bring down the voting age to 16, while we're at it--largely because by then we allow people to be a part of the automotive world, which the government enjoys meddling in, whether not it's right.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:18:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:59:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:45:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:44:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

In other words; you should be allowed to say what you want, if you are under 18, but the government should not protect your right to do so; against the government, or against society, because you have yet to contribute to either.

Ah, but who's fault is it that we cannot contribute?

Father time. Wait until you are 18, than you can protest and vote all you want. Until than, let the adults handle things; I've read lord of the flies, I know where this leads.

That's not the answer I was looking for.

The correct answer is an arbitrary age set by the government when it says that people are "mature" enough to handle the responsibility of civil engagement.

The term "adult" is only concrete in legal terms. There are some 12 year olds that are, in my opinion, more qualified to vote than some 40 year olds. The point being that to say "let the adults handle it" only shows a certain...trust in random notions of what is adult.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:18:23 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:59:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:45:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:44:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

In other words; you should be allowed to say what you want, if you are under 18, but the government should not protect your right to do so; against the government, or against society, because you have yet to contribute to either.

Ah, but who's fault is it that we cannot contribute?

Father time. Wait until you are 18, than you can protest and vote all you want. Until than, let the adults handle things; I've read lord of the flies, I know where this leads.

That's not the answer I was looking for.

The correct answer is an arbitrary age set by the government when it says that people are "mature" enough to handle the responsibility of civil engagement.

Actually the age was 18 in most states, and 21 in other states. A amendment was added to make it 18 the age required to vote, because that was the age of military service. As you may or may not know, the Vietnam war was being fought at the time, and many people were drafted who could not vote in their state.

The term "adult" is only concrete in legal terms. There are some 12 year olds that are, in my opinion, more qualified to vote than some 40 year olds. The point being that to say "let the adults handle it" only shows a certain...trust in random notions of what is adult.

I agree that some 12 year olds are brighter and more intelligent than some 40 year olds, but they are not mature enough to vote; they have not gained the knowledge and life experience required to vote.

Originally many states had property requirements to vote, or to hold office. Kids should not be allowed to vote; I'm speaking from experience. Teenagers are too easily influenced, by emotions, teachers, the media, and their parents.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:23:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:15:02 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:57:15 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:44:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

Regardless of whether the government represents you, the fact that it has an effect on, and rule over, you is absolutely enough.

I'm a bit surprised, DanT. It seems you're justifying restriction of a person's freedom with restriction of said person's freedom.

Would you be in favor of allowing illegal immigrants, or foreigners vising the US the right to petition our government? They are not US citizens, and can't vote, yet a right to freedom of speech would mean they would have a say in our government.

I would.

I would also bring down the voting age to 16, while we're at it--largely because by then we allow people to be a part of the automotive world, which the government enjoys meddling in, whether not it's right.

figures a 16 year old would argue a voting age of 16. This is why those under 18 should not have freedom of speech; eventually they would protest their way to prepubescent voting rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 1:58:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Whenever you start to say "There oughta be a law"-- stop. Ask yourself if this is something you would kill someone for, knowing the incentive that gives them to kill you back, their lost ability to trade with you, the cost of the bullet, and your general queasiness.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 1:59:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:59:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:45:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:44:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

In other words; you should be allowed to say what you want, if you are under 18, but the government should not protect your right to do so; against the government, or against society, because you have yet to contribute to either.

Ah, but who's fault is it that we cannot contribute?

Father time. Wait until you are 18, than you can protest and vote all you want. Until than, let the adults handle things; I've read lord of the flies, I know where this leads.

I've seen lots of cartoons where adults are morons, what's your point?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 2:10:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 1:59:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:59:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:45:28 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:44:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:41:45 PM, DanT wrote:
Giving people under 18 the right to freedom of speech is like giving them the right to vote. Freedom of speech is not so that you can protest a company, it's so you can protest the government. If you can't vote, you should not be allowed to protest the government, and if you can protest the government you should be allowed to vote; the 2 go hand in hand.

In other words; you should be allowed to say what you want, if you are under 18, but the government should not protect your right to do so; against the government, or against society, because you have yet to contribute to either.

Ah, but who's fault is it that we cannot contribute?

Father time. Wait until you are 18, than you can protest and vote all you want. Until than, let the adults handle things; I've read lord of the flies, I know where this leads.

I've seen lots of cartoons where adults are morons, what's your point?

I'd also state that freedom of speech isn't necessarily about "political speech" or "intelligent speech" but for freedom for the sake of freedom.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...