ZOT!!! Speaking Freely in a Time of War

Barry Mauer's "Fair and Balanced" Page for Education, Entertainment, and the Arts ^ | 9/30/03 | Barry Mauer

[hellinahandcart]

He was sure typing freely, ya gotta give him that. ;P

[M1Tanker]

I address this to the author of the article, not the poster, if they are different people (some of the responses indicate they may be the same, but I'm new):


"Argument 1: Soldiers Defend Free Speech
Major premise (hidden): Only soldiers can defend the rights of all to free speech.
Minor premise: You are not a soldier.
Conclusion: You cannot defend the rights of all to free speech."

With this point, what are your views on the 2nd Ammendment and the right of individual civilians to keep and bear arms?

Rights entail Responsibilities. They are not entitlements. Those who speak must be willing to accept criticism. If you yell "fire" in a theater, and the resulting panic causes deaths, you are reponsible for thoses deaths, but you are still free to shout "fire". In the same vein, when you accuse the President of executing his Constitutional duties for the sole purpose of gaining power, and this applies to most claims by the "anti-war" crowd, you must be prepared to answer such claims with facts, logic, reason, and without emotion. You can say whatever you want, you have that right. You have the responsibility to back up those claims and, especially considering accusing someone of acts entailing treason.

I fully support the war with Iraq on firm, logically based arguements. I would support it even if Al Gore or Hillary Clinton was President. When I speak on those arguements, I am called many names and threatened with bodily harm. Since I am a soldier, fully capable of defending myself and others, I find this quite outlandish.

When, in the 1990s, as I attended college, I was also threatened and shouted down for simply believing in the US Constitution, being a member of the ROTC and the Army, and speaking out against the abuse of power in the Clinton Adim. I defended those positions and tried to debate my opponents, who also called me "anti-American" for daring to question Clinton. That was my responibility for my right to free speech. Consequently, I learned those on the Left care not for debate, only obediance to thier views, however misguided.

The short of it is, you have full rights to your views and full rights to express them. When you make accusations as such, you have the responsibility to defend those views and the responsibility to debate them while listening to other's views in a rational manor.

[dirtboy]

I mean "Major premise (hidden): Only soldiers can defend the rights of all to free speech" - nice one, try leaving the "only" off the front and maybe you'll get within a mile of a real persons opinion.

Just like the time that Clinton said something along the lines that "you won't find evidence that I changed policy solely due to campaign contributions."

Different weasels, same methods...

[dirtboy]

I address this to the author of the article, not the poster, if they are different people

They are, or, more accurately, were...

[dighton]

Dear Nutty Professor ... Don't be a jerk.

Don't ask the impossible.

;-)

[AppyPappy]

no proven links to al-Qaeda

How do you explain that we found Al-Qaeda operatives living in Baghdad?

((crickets))

[DrNo]

It is my understanding that in a democracy the people lead and the government must be responsive to them. To prevent tyranny from developing in a democracy, people must be free to criticize their government.

Hey! I thought we were talking about the U.S.?

The U.S. ain't a democracy; wasn't designed to be.

You almost get it right though, when you note that there is a whole lot of representin' goin' on, it is a constitutional republic.

Or, at least it was designed to be.

Buy a pocket constitution; check it out!

[AppyPappy]

This is as nutty as the posters who thought Clinton would use Y2K to invoke "marshall" law to stay in office.

[MEGoody]

"This email is typical of several anti-speech responses I received."

So what the author says is called 'speech,' but what someone who disagrees with him says is 'anti-speech'.

::::sigh::::

The sad thing is, the lefties will eat up that kind of silly 'logic' like it's candy.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Where are the Viking Kitties???

[RightWhale]

Drop the Aristotelian syllogisms and go with dialectic of negatives. It won't help, but at least the failure won't be so obvious.

[m1911]

"Major premise (unstated): All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights . . .
Minor premise: I am a man.
Conclusion (unstated): Therefore I deserve equal treatment and recognition of my rights. "



And yet you spend a whole article undermining your minor premise. Come out from under the bed, I don't think the JBTs are after you.

[VRWCmember]

For example, Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States because the Iraqi regime was acquiring enriched uranium, a key component in the development of nuclear weapons. The "evidence" for this claim was a forged document. It appears that the Bush administration knew their claims were phony.

1. President Bush did not state Iraq was an imminent threat. He stated that we could not afford to wait until Iraw became an imminent threat because to do so would put us in unnecessary and unacceptable peril. Your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this fact destroys your credibility.

2. President Bush did not state Iraq "was acquiring enriched uranium" but rather stated that British intelligence had learned that Iraq had attempted to acquire weapons-grade uranium. (Do you comprehend the difference between those two statements or not?) Is this additional inaccuracy a case of misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation?

3. The evidence for the claim was much more than just the document that turned out to be a forgery. British officials stand by the previous intelligence data in spite of the one forgery that you cited as the basis of the claim. Are you ignorant of the continued insistance of the British government that the intelligence was valid, or are you again deliberately misrepresenting the facts?

Thank you for your dubious contribution to the forum.

I detect ozone.

[cibco]

You rang? http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/

[dighton]

He never knew what hit him.

[Billthedrill]

Labeling those who disagree with your point of view "anti-free-speech advocates" is a childish and unworthy attempt to - yes, a logical term - beg the question. And it doesn't work.

[muleskinner]

...solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own....

This sounds very similar to someone who lacks empathy. Which is a big problem with alcoholics.

[glock rocks]

American citizens who now face greater risk of terrorist reprisals as a result of the war.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I find intimidation and the atmosphere it produces to be incompatible with free speech values.

All liberals have to offer is intimidation! This guy should apply his logical analysis to his own speech for cyring out loud.

[TheBigB]

Well, that's too bad. We had what I thought was a good debate on this thread, starting at post #53:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/983229/posts