individuals going around genocide people or inciting mass violence against random populations.
The State giveth, and the State taketh away.Given that rights are a wholly social construct granted to us by our governments, there's nothing inherently wrong about a government suspending those rights for individuals going around genocide people or inciting mass violence against random populations.
Quote from: Verbatim on March 14, 2019, 10:57:12 PMhow am i supposed to rally for 2A repeal nowThe US Constitution does not have an abuse of rights clause so go right ahead. The country is also the sole outlier in considering gun ownership a human right as opposed to the universally accepted ones of privacy, speech, fair trial, equal treatment, assembly and such, so all the more reason to go for it.
how am i supposed to rally for 2A repeal now
Quote from: Aether on March 14, 2019, 11:06:09 PMYeah I'm pretty much of the belief that anyone should be allowed to exercise their rights as long as they aren't infringing upon another person's rights.Do you think that extends to speech as well?
Yeah I'm pretty much of the belief that anyone should be allowed to exercise their rights as long as they aren't infringing upon another person's rights.
Quote from: Aether on March 15, 2019, 11:05:29 AMThe line for me is drawn where expressing their opinion turns into actually encouraging people to go and infringe upon other's rights.Out of curiosity, how would you apply this to:- a politician campaigning for Muslims to not be allowed to pray or have mosques?- an author releasing a book arguing that black people are subhumans who shouldn't be allowed to vote, that the holocaust never happened and that jews are a danger to freedom who should be treated as such?- an influencer or media personality organizing marches for the preservation of the supremacy of the white race and against the muddying of the ethnicities of our representatives in the government?- a vlogger or content creator calling on his thousands of followers to not respect minorities (say transgenders) and work against them wherever they can (by not hiring them, deliberately misgendering, making up complaints about coworkers...)
The line for me is drawn where expressing their opinion turns into actually encouraging people to go and infringe upon other's rights.
- a vlogger or content creator calling on his thousands of followers to not respect minorities (say transgenders) and work against them wherever they can (by not hiring them, deliberately misgendering, making up complaints about coworkers...)
Quote from: Killua on March 15, 2019, 07:31:03 AMIt's more or less required, right? It's going to be slightly contradictory either way. Say there's universal freedom of movement, but also right to privacy on your own property - trespassing is a violation of the latter right, but if you forbid it then you don't have the first right. You have to find the balance that has the best outcome overall. Sort of like the Paradox of tolerance.Very true, but this is more about deliberately (mis)using rights to indirectly undermine those of others and betray some of the core values of our society. That's why it's usually referring to the right of free speech and situations in which people are exercising their rights for the sole purpose of destroying those of others. What you say is indeed common sense ("your rights end where mine begin") as my freedom to walk down the street and swing my fists around doesn't give me the ability to punch you in the face and violate your right to autonomy and integrity, but what about situations where someone uses their rights to free speech, assembly, vote and such to actively seek out the destruction of others? Is or should my free speech still be protected if I use it to call for minorities to lose their right to vote, speak, have a private life, assemble, have their own religion and so on?
It's more or less required, right? It's going to be slightly contradictory either way. Say there's universal freedom of movement, but also right to privacy on your own property - trespassing is a violation of the latter right, but if you forbid it then you don't have the first right. You have to find the balance that has the best outcome overall. Sort of like the Paradox of tolerance.
Out of curiosity, how would you apply this to:- a politician campaigning for Muslims to not be allowed to pray or have mosques?- an author releasing a book arguing that black people are subhumans who shouldn't be allowed to vote, that the holocaust never happened and that jews are a danger to freedom who should be treated as such?- an influencer or media personality organizing marches for the preservation of the supremacy of the white race and against the muddying of the ethnicities of our representatives in the government?- a vlogger or content creator calling on his thousands of followers to not respect minorities (say transgenders) and work against them wherever they can (by not hiring them, deliberately misgendering, making up complaints about coworkers...)