So where are you getting your definition of implementation from?
-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Did you know the US First Amendment is evil?
- Thread starter Farmerbob1
- Start date
- Discussion
- Status
John Masaki
The Guy With the Lightsaber
- Location
- Atlantis
Isn't this site quartered in a server that resides outside the United States as well as being a private organization run by a foreign national and as such, the Constitution would pretty much have no power over @LordSquishy?
I mean, IANAL, but even I can see that this argument is full of holes and I'm as American as apple pie!
And for the record, considering the track record of the United States in its history and even in current affairs, I agree with him on the First Amendment's poor implementation.
Last edited:
If my house has a rule: "No birds allowed," but in practice the rule is used to usher the ducks and geese out of the door, while retaining bluejays and robins, then *in implementation* the rule is unjust. Not in wording, not in intent, but in how it's carried out, how it's executed, when the rule is called upon.
- Location
- Wörms, the half continent
I'm confused, who's the he meant to be in this case? Squishy or Bob?
Farmerbob1
Rest in Peace
- Location
- Atlanta-ish
I've already said that I have no issue with LordSquishy believing that the First Amendment is evil. I've also said that I believe it is important for the rest of the site to be aware of this fact.
When you say that something, [['in implementation' is <any descriptor>]] you are not referring to how something was made, you are referring to the inherent traits of the something itself.
Correct, and you are certainly not referring to how the rule was actually created. You are referring to the function of the rule.
And if there is another rule, that says that all birds have the right to speak, those birds that were discriminated against are able to openly work to gain support to make an unjust situation just.
Last edited:
- Location
- secret base
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I knew it! I always knew it in my heart, and it was true! Now that we established this fact, it's time to iron out the formalities. Is the US First Amendment chaotic evil? Or it is lawful evil? Maybe even neutral evil? The difference can be vital.
Hey, @foamy, @LordSquishy, I gave you guys five dollars... keep doing whatever you do.
Reveen
Castro-Trudeauist
Yes, I did know that fact.
"I don't have an issue with Lady Elizabeth being a witch, but Lady Elizabeth is a witch! She's a witch! May we burn her?"
"I don't have an issue with Lady Elizabeth being a witch, but Lady Elizabeth is a witch! She's a witch! May we burn her?"
The directors not being a fan of the First Amendment is nothing new. That doesn't mean they are against free speech in general.
all fictions
I hate you! (it's not against the rules!)
- Location
- Mons Regius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Ah, so it's your own estimation instead of being a factual statement and you don't actually know what the other examples I cited state? Gotcha, though you might want to stop treating your opinion as if it's objective fact.
It is also not a "gold standard" simply because its interpretation of freedom of speech and how to apply it differ from other nations. That would be the same as saying Athens' participatory democracy is the "golden standard" of democracy despite being untenable in the modern world and the political system of virtually no country today.
Last edited:
Farmerbob1
Rest in Peace
- Location
- Atlanta-ish
@LordSquishy is more than welcome to comment here and explain himself. He doesn't need you to defend him.
Explain what? That your reading comprehension isn't as good as you think it is?
- Location
- London, England
No, you are not.
Seriously though, that's not what the word means, even when it's used in conjunction with the word 'in'.
To say 'in implementation' is to refer to the qualities of something when it is being implemented or put into practice. Maybe you use it to refer to the inherent quality of the thing itself, but according to the dictionary and the experience of everyone in this thread bar you, you are wrong to do so.
John Masaki
The Guy With the Lightsaber
- Location
- Atlantis
And so you have made us aware of the Director's views. Not sure why you're airing his dirty laundry for all to see, but okay! I wouldn't say evil, though. I would personally say, poorly implemented and all too often made toothless even in spite of the fact that it's in the Constitution. I mean, strictly speaking, NDAs curtail the 1A, right?
Furthermore, I still dismiss your argument on jurisdictional grounds.
No, the implementation is not inherent to something. Because implementation is specific to how something was executed. The same rule can have mutiple implementation s over time as different groups are in charge or as new rulings regarding how to implement the rules are made.
10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
If you're getting on your soapbox to unleash an ill-thought out tirade against people, don't be suprised if people start poking holes in it.
Defending the tirade by saying that only the person being attacked may criticize it, is a bit dishonest, and shows very little faith in your own argument.
- Location
- Los Angles
If I can interject here, the constitution was meant to be a living document, which means it could change over time.
- Location
- Denmark
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Incidentally, the constitutional right to free speech was secured in Denmark by §77 of the Danish Constitution, which looks like this and is perfectly fine for free speech, in fact Denmark is generally held (by RSF) to have higher freedom of the press than the United States:
Hate speech legislation is secured by §266 (hate speech) of the Danish Penal Code, as well as by §267 (libel) and a set including §222, §224, §225, 230 and §235 (child pornography).
Since this has not only worked out perfectly fine, but Denmark is far higher in freedom of the press than the United States is, one might consider if the First Amendment is not the perfect gold standard that it is touted as here.
Farmerbob1
Rest in Peace
- Location
- Atlanta-ish
Thank you for agreeing with me after you thought about it, even though you do not wish to admit it.
You said: "To say 'in implementation' is to refer to the qualities of something when it is being implemented or put into practice."
What you are referring to the qualities of something, are you referring to something, or are you referring to how that something was created? What you said is what I have been saying. Lordsquishy stated that the First Amendment, in implementation, is evil. That means, according to your on words, that evil is a quality of the First Amendment.
So, now that we agree, can you please quit trying to derail the thread with arguments about grammar and structure of English phrases?
Vyslanté
The self is a prison
- Location
- European Union
It means that evil is a quality of the implementation of the First Amendment. See, you understood it yourself:
10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
If you're going to quote something out of context, at least remember to cut the context out of your quote.
- Location
- Wörms, the half continent
I dunno, I think Sockpuppeting is more pathetic.
Farmerbob1
Rest in Peace
- Location
- Atlanta-ish
Yes I did. Apparently you did not understand what they wrote. If you refer to the qualities of something, it doesn't matter when you refer to the qualities of something - you are still referring to the qualities of something, not the process by which it was implemented.
Last edited:
- Location
- London, England
What the actual fuck.
No. You can't just ignore the latter half of my definition and then claim some kind of rhetorical victory. That's not how this works. That's not how words in general work.
Florida Man
Florida - The Smoothbrain State
- Location
- Orlando
- Pronouns
- He/Him They/Them
Do you need this broken down Barney-style or is there a bit of bad faith on your part?
I'll assume good faith.
Take a screwdriver; a screwdriver has no designs for itself. It has no moral capacity or ability to make the decision for itself. It is a tool.
I can use it to tighten screws where I need to and loosen them as well. In my car, I have to loosen the screws to replace my air filter.
Another person can also maul someone with it. If they use it to attack people, then their implementation of it is evil.
The statement by the police officer who arrests them after they assault someone with it: "What he did with that screwdriver was pure evil."
...is not the police officer saying the screwdriver is evil. He is saying it was used to do the wrong thing, and thus 'evil' resulted.
Unless I'm missing some context, it appears to me the person you're railing against is condemning the use of free speech as a cheap cloak to attack other people as 'evil.'
The unspoken assumption being that they do not view the First Amendment as inherently evil or good.
Was that clear enough?
I'll assume good faith.
Take a screwdriver; a screwdriver has no designs for itself. It has no moral capacity or ability to make the decision for itself. It is a tool.
I can use it to tighten screws where I need to and loosen them as well. In my car, I have to loosen the screws to replace my air filter.
Another person can also maul someone with it. If they use it to attack people, then their implementation of it is evil.
The statement by the police officer who arrests them after they assault someone with it: "What he did with that screwdriver was pure evil."
...is not the police officer saying the screwdriver is evil. He is saying it was used to do the wrong thing, and thus 'evil' resulted.
Unless I'm missing some context, it appears to me the person you're railing against is condemning the use of free speech as a cheap cloak to attack other people as 'evil.'
The unspoken assumption being that they do not view the First Amendment as inherently evil or good.
Was that clear enough?
- Status