Surprisingly I'm against the death penalty. I thought about it and found a couple of things.
1. It costs more money to kill a man than it does to put him in jail.
2. The government killing an innocent man is not acceptable. No matter how small of a chance it might happen.
3. Jail might be worse than death. I don't know but since the criminal will die sooner or later we might as keep him in case he is innocent or in case jail is worse than death.
4. I don't care what happens to the criminal as long as he can't harm anyone anymore. I do care about the innocent man in on death row.

If I were President, I would try and help abolish hate speech (consisting of illogical hateful slurs against peoples or groups, based on gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, race, etc).

1. For example, I think it should be illegal for a priest to start calling out "homosexuals are slow, homosexuals are the devil, homosexuals are f*$kd". I think this type of speech should be illegal.

2. BUT this is different from someone expressing why a particular religion or ideology or sexual preference is wrong, in the light of a sound and logical argument they present. I think, for example, if a priest were to talk about the “logical reasoning” behind why it is wrong to be gay, is preferable than for him to start spreading hate speech.

* * *

What I have outlined in number 2, is the way the Canadians do it. I think we should adopt this. I would "suggest" this as President.

You see, people who try to spurt hate, are the people who do not believe in the power of what they say. They don't have enough logic or reasoning behind their position, so they need to depend on something else. And when you depend heavily on intimidation, prejudice and illogical slur, that is called depending on propaganda.

I don't believe we need propaganda in our sites of societal discussion; the media.

In theory I agree there is no reason we need to have hate speech in this country. Most of europe has outlawed hate speech as well. I've always thought though, that the measure of how free a country is not how much they allow things they like but how much they allow things they don't like and I have never heard of a countries down fall being too much freedom. So while I may not like it I have to protect it because the next speech to be outlawed maybe mine.

You don't have much freedom of speech in the country.
You can't really talk about politics, money, sex, religions openly.
U can't ask too much about others' personal life either. If you do, you are not acting like an american.

It may not be polite speech and people may not listen but you are free to talk about those things as much as you want in US. There is a big difference between being told that your impolite and the police breaking down your door because you put out some anti-government literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

In theory I agree there is no reason we need to have hate speech in this country. Most of europe has outlawed hate speech as well. I've always thought though, that the measure of how free a country is not how much they allow things they like but how much they allow things they don't like and I have never heard of a countries down fall being too much freedom. So while I may not like it I have to protect it because the next speech to be outlawed maybe mine.

---

Yes, but what I encouraged is still, of course, allowing to hear arguments that we do not like. I actually think we need tons more of this.


This is where we diverge:

Let's look at the example of how most people do not enjoy hearing a Catholic priest tell them to not wear a condom when they have sex. Most people, even Catholic, are wearing condoms anyway.

In Canada, just as in the United States, it is all right for the priest to put out the "reasoning" behind his religion not allowing condoms.

But, in Canada, it is not allowed for the priest to start spreading that "people who use condoms are fk*d, are the devil, are slow and
worthless, are etc". Although, in the United States, this second type of hatful speech is allowed (as in, hate speech that just throws
Illogical hateful slurs against race, religion, sexuality, women, etc, is allowed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

It may not be polite speech and people may not listen but you are free to talk about those things as much as you want in US. There is a big difference between being told that your impolite and the police breaking down your door because you put out some anti-government literature.

---

People have sex in their homes, right? But do people come to a children's park and start having sex in the middle of the public? No, that's illegal. You see my point then? So, your response is illogical and does not follow my stance (although, it "appears" to).

Please try and look at the two contexts that I had outlined. I believe the Canadian way that I provided is healthier than the hate speech laws we have in America.

It's funny that Americans would make out in front others when they are drunk but they still keep their mouth shut about religion, money,politcs no matter where they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicespringgirl

It's funny that Americans would make out in front others when they are drunk but they still keep their mouth shut about religion, money,politcs no matter where they are.

---

I would tend to disagree with you here, because what you wrote does not make sense.

Americans do discuss politics, money, and religion, but in the correct context.

Now, you mentioned that Americans would make out in front of others when they are drunk. Yes, so you just named the context (being in a bar or letting loose at a party).

I think you agree that most Americans don't make out in classrooms, or while giving a public speech, and so forth.

So do you want to outlaw hate speech in public forums but still allow in private? In some parts of europe hate speech is outlawed completely even in private places. I'm not familiar with the canada law on how it's treated. What concerns me about outlawing hate speech is who gets to decide what hate speech is? I might think it is perfectly acceptable to say there is no god for example but maybe the religious right thinks that it is hateful to say that they have the majority so they win. I might... might be okay with local governments passing an anti-hate speech law in public places but I don't think it is the federal governments place to totally ban it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

So do you want to outlaw hate speech in public forums but still allow in private? In some parts of europe hate speech is outlawed completely even in private places. I'm not familiar with the canada law on how it's treated.

---

I clearly used the example of Canada. I also made my examples clear, just in case anyone tries to put a spin on them. I made it clear that I'm not talking about the example of some european countries not allowing hate in private places. You know what my take on this is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

What concerns me about outlawing hate speech is who gets to decide what hate speech is? I might think it is perfectly acceptable to say there is no god for example but maybe the religious right thinks that it is hateful to say that they have the majority so they win.

---

Who gets to decide? Through rational and logical arguments and free speech, the best constitutions are decided. And this can take place without having people spread, "women are fk*d or gays are slow" on a micraphone. This only produces hate, corruption, and ignorance in soceity.

What's there to fear in using sound logical arguments? If you need brutal-hateful slur in the place of diplomatic and sound arguments, then you don't believe in the power of what you're saying. And like I said before, that's called relying on propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I might...might be okay with local governments passing an anti-hate speech law in public places but I don't think it is the federal governments place to totally ban it

---

I never said that a government should have any sort of right to ban hate speech in a person's diary or something. In fact, I provided an example to make this clear: "people are clearly legally able to have sex at home. But people are not to have sex in the middle of a classroom or restaurant table".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duckling

If I were President, I would try and help abolish hate speech (consisting of illogical hateful slurs against peoples or groups, based on gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, race, etc).

1. For example, I think it should be illegal for a priest to start calling out "homosexuals are slow, homosexuals are the devil, homosexuals are f*$kd". I think this type of speech should be illegal.

2. BUT this is different from someone expressing why a particular religion or ideology or sexual preference is wrong, in the light of a sound and logical argument they present. I think, for example, if a priest were to talk about the “logical reasoning” behind why it is wrong to be gay, is preferable than for him to start spreading hate speech.

* * *

What I have outlined in number 2, is the way the Canadians do it. I think we should adopt this. I would "suggest" this as President.

You see, people who try to spurt hate, are the people who do not believe in the power of what they say. They don't have enough logic or reasoning behind their position, so they need to depend on something else. And when you depend heavily on intimidation, prejudice and illogical slur, that is called depending on propaganda.

I don’t believe we need propaganda in our sites of societal discussion; the media.

---

Personally I believe we have had enough of the “Political Correctness” you advocate. Pointing out a crime and attaching the term ‘Hate’ to modify it is just another element that serves the purpose of one group or another and not everyone.

Jerry Odom for President in 2008 - independence we can do this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skell

Id also like to change many Americans opinion that they are the only people who inhabit this world. There are a helluva lot of other people and cultures out there that can be learned from but a lot of americans I know don't know anything outside they state they live in.

---

LOL, and I'd open a re-education camp for foreigners that make silly claims like that. :D

Quote:

---

Present company here at AMHD being the exception. Well some of them anyway! And that's not their fault. Its just the environment they have grown up in and the media they are subject to!

---

Well at least some of us are OK. :)

Quote:

---

But I wasn't born in America so I can never become pres. I think with my policies above most people would be glad of that! :)

---

Truer words have never been spoken ;)

Wow. After reading these posts, I'm glad most of you aren't President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by odom2008dotcom

Jerry Odom for President in 2008 - independence we can do this

---

I thought I've seen this song in a video before:

YouTube - Evanescence meets Ron Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuRa

Wow. After reading these posts, I'm glad most of you aren't President.

---

So what would you do?