LogFAQs > #971843502

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, Database 11 ( 12.2022-11.2023 ), DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	its been years but i still cant get over Born in the USA being played at MAGA
adjl 02/27/23 3:50:47 PM #54:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... The view of the republicans is that the decision being made infringes on the rights of another individual. And, to prevent that, they're willing to infringe upon the rights of a different individual. Fascism often uses the pretense of protecting one group's rights to strip those of another. As such, invoking that pretense to claim it's not fascism makes very little sense. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... People should be free to do what they want and support the party they prefer if it's not infringing on the rights of others. The problem is that that's an idealistic fantasy that will never actually be relevant to the real world. Politics affects people's rights. So long as governments make any sort of laws, that will always be true. Therefore, you cannot support a political party without having some impact on people's rights. Now, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to vote or voice support as they choose. That freedom, however, does not mean they are above being judged for, held accountable for, or asked to defend those decisions, which is what a lot of "free speech advocates" seem to think it should. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and it's certainly not freedom from having to deal with people that don't like the things you say. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Where as the "lib"s I omitted from the quote believe people should not be free to support the other party. Where are you getting that? Did they suggest republican voters should be jailed? Assaulted? Killed? Or just that they shouldn't vote republican for reasons which they're generally happy to share (also known as "supporting the party they prefer," to use your wording)? More specifically, the actual issue at hand was not wanting their intellectual property used to promote a cause with which they vehemently disagree. That's 100% fair game, as dictated by intellectual property laws and basic respect for artists and their art. Free speech does not protect the use of copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:971843502] in its been y... [t:80354871]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite><quote>The view of the republicans is that the decision being made infringes on the rights of another individual.</quote>And, to prevent that, they're willing to infringe upon the rights of a different individual. Fascism often uses the pretense of protecting one group's rights to strip those of another. As such, invoking that pretense to claim it's not fascism makes very little sense.SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite><quote>People should be free to do what they want and support the party they prefer if it's not infringing on the rights of others.</quote>The problem is that that's an idealistic fantasy that will never actually be relevant to the real world. Politics affects people's rights. So long as governments make any sort of laws, that will always be true. Therefore, you cannot support a political party without having some impact on people's rights.Now, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to vote or voice support as they choose. That freedom, however, does not mean they are above being judged for, held accountable for, or asked to defend those decisions, which is what a lot of "free speech advocates" seem to think it should. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and it's certainly not freedom from having to deal with people that don't like the things you say.SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite><quote>Where as the "lib"s I omitted from the quote believe people should not be free to support the other party.</quote>Where are you getting that? Did they suggest republican voters should be jailed? Assaulted? Killed? Or just that they shouldn't vote republican for reasons which they're generally happy to share (also known as "supporting the party they prefer," to use your wording)? More specifically, the actual issue at hand was not wanting their intellectual property used to promote a cause with which they vehemently disagree. That's 100% fair game, as dictated by intellectual property laws and basic respect for artists and their art. Free speech does not protect the use of copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1