With all of the laws effecting our ability of free speech now adays, do you think that the United States is really staying free? what are your thoughts armor games?
Yes, I believe that the United States is still a place of free speech and expression. The government is a body to help govern the people, and no one can demand to be allowed to do or say whatever they want. Besides, no one is really entitled to anything. The United States government is still a republic, and I appreciate the fact that there has been no tyrannical dictatorship which controls the USA.
but it could easily become something like that. Keep an eye on the laws trying to stop freedom of the internet, it could easily switch to the people.
Do not engage and indulge in slippery slope arguments....The USA still has quite a grounded and solid principle of freedom of speech.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the slippery slope. The US legal system works on precedent. If one restriction is reasonable, why not another, and another after that?
Did you hear about the Halloween ruckus in Mechanicsburg, PA? I believe it was 2010. An atheist was in a halloween parade dressed in a costume, like all the other marchers. His costume was a zombified Muhammad (he was beside a zombified pope). A Muslim in the crowd took offense at this and physically assaulted the parader. The judge overseeing the case dismissed the charges and actually rebuked the atheist on the grounds that he was effectively asking for it. So much for freedom of expression.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the slippery slope. The US legal system works on precedent. If one restriction is reasonable, why not another, and another after that?
I can't phrase it any better than Wiki.
The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not doneâ"an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
So in a nutshell, if you can't support the process from one premise to another, or a premise factually, it isn't a valid argument.
So in a nutshell, if you can't support the process from one premise to another, or a premise factually, it isn't a valid argument.
I don't think that I really need any deatails to support this statement... All governments want control over the citizens. Everyone wants power over something or someone. I know this from life experience
I don't think that I really need any deatails to support this statement... All governments want control over the citizens. Everyone wants power over something or someone. I know this from life experience
So, if you're not even going to list examples, how are you going to expect us to remotely believe you? Don't be ridiculous. Show examples then assert, don't make flippant non-backed ones.
So, if you're not even going to list examples, how are you going to expect us to remotely believe you? Don't be ridiculous. Show examples then assert, don't make flippant non-backed ones.
my examples is common knowledge. Would you much rather have power over one human, or a country? All you have to do too see this power hungry behavior is look at any corrupt political official.
my examples is common knowledge. Would you much rather have power over one human, or a country? All you have to do too see this power hungry behavior is look at any corrupt political official.
It is not common knowledge that the government is ''ower hungry''. Asserting control over a nation is not being ''ower hungry'', but a natural duty and action taken by the government. Without asserting control, a government can't do anything. As far as I know, the USA ranks pretty high up the transparent index, at a respectable rank of 24.
There's a line between being power hungry and just carrying out the duties of a government that people just don't seem to understand.
There's a line between being power hungry and just carrying out the duties of a government that people just don't seem to understand.
I understand laws meant to protect the people, not ones to protect corporations. Look at ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, those bills are used to control the people, not protect them.
I understand laws meant to protect the people, not ones to protect corporations. Look at ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA, those bills are used to control the people, not protect them.
It was aimed to protect the intellectual property of Americans who produce such products. Would you have liked to see people download your hard work for free via file sharing sites? Also, one must not forget the opposition the bills faced in Congress itself, so don't generalise on the government.
It was aimed to protect the intellectual property of Americans who produce such products. Would you have liked to see people download your hard work for free via file sharing sites? Also, one must not forget the opposition the bills faced in Congress itself, so don't generalise on the government.
I would be happy that people were giving something i worked the honor of being spread on some site like that mainly because it means people like it. Also its just that people tried to pass the bills is what upsets me.
I dont think you're getting my point here. Good politicians can pretty easily go corrupt with the looming presence of power. a great man can be changed into bottom feeding scum by it.
I dont think you're getting my point here. Good politicians can pretty easily go corrupt with the looming presence of power. a great man can be changed into bottom feeding scum by it.
Not going to dispute that power is tempting to many; however there are many checks and balances in the American system to prevent that. You're also missing the data shown above that shows the relatively low corruption levels in America.
