b3ta.com talk
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Talk » Message 6232887 (Thread)

Cockends have as much right to be represented as everyone else.
If I'm allowed a vote and free speech, they have to be too.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:02, archived)
They don't have to be
but they are.

They could bring in a citizenship test to check that you have the first clue what democracy is and what you are voting for before allowing someone to have a say in the system, of course. You have to show basic care and competency to drive, to cook food for sale and so on, but not to decide who gets to lead the country.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:05, archived)
Start of a slippery slope, in my eyes.

(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:06, archived)
So was allowing commoners and women the vote
slippery slope arguments go in all directions.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:10, archived)
my dog should be allowed to vote

(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:12, archived)
My imaginary friends feel discriminated against
by government-imposed definitions of "existence".
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:18, archived)
slopey eyes?
GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:12, archived)
What, Ireland?
Like I'd be in Ireland.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:13, archived)
just get rid of parties and make everyone stand as independents,
I reckon a significant portion of BNP voters would vote otherwise if they knew they were voting for a racist, rather than a patriotic abstraction, or simply to register disapproval for all the other idealistic abstractions.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:11, archived)
I'm pretty sure the BNP want that.
Just sayin', like.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:20, archived)
well they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:22, archived)
I'm pretty sure that the last thing they want
is improved education.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:22, archived)
that's not how free speech works though
the right to free speech doesn't just give you the right to say what the fuck you like.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:20, archived)
What does it, then?
I'm not being facetious, I'm honestly asking.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:24, archived)
The right to free speech comes with an implicit resposibility to use it responsibly
as it is a human right. The same as the right to free action doesn't give you the right to kill another human, because it affects others.

You can't incite racial hatred then bang on about the right to free speech. Basically, you lost the "responsible human" right to free speech the second you stopped being a "responsible human"
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:33, archived)
The right to hold and express political and religious opinions
that don't cause material harm to or restrict the liberty of others.

It's complicated because you can of course argue for a change in the laws themselves to alter the definitions used above - you can argue for a change in the law to enforce mandatory deportation, but not tell your supporters to kidnap and deport people, for example.

You can't walk into a police station and confess to a murder and then claim at the trial you were just expressing free speech. You can't shout "fire" and cause a stampede in which people get injured and die.
(, Wed 17 Jun 2009, 12:34, archived)