Ted Cruz to the Future - Comic Coloring Activity Book

[Sousuke 1,214]

That's just silly. What you're saying is that the bigger a gun one has, the stronger a right to slf defense one enjoys and thus the more liberty one has. I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous. smh

The more affective the tool for self defense, the more capable a person becomes at defending themselves which does equate to a stronger right.

A bigger gun has nothing to do with, nor did I say any such thing. A bigger gun may not be more affective than a smaller one. However, I can say that a firearm is more affective than a bat.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see. So since I was born with a strong voice, my freedom of speech is in better shape than that of people with lesser vocal cords. Excellent!

[Sousuke 1,214]

I see. So since I was born with a strong voice, my freedom of speech is in better shape than that of people with lesser vocal cords. Excellent!

Thats a bit of a red herring given we are discussing what the government grants us and not our individual abilities. However, putting your comment in the context of what the government allows does parallel my other argument.

People with access to new media (IE twitter, blogs etc) have a stronger right to free speech than in countries that do not allow it (IE Turkey).

[deleted-05292014 331]

Finland had a war of independence. Norway's constitution is a result of war with Sweden. Denmark's history is very complicated so I really don't know how to classify it.

The Swiss came out of a civil war with a constitution based on the federal system.

India had a revolt from which the end result was a parliamentary system through tighter government control from the UK as opposed to the East India Company. The end result was independence after the second world war.

Ah ok thanks for the correction. Like I said off the top of my head - usually wrong when I do that

[Sousuke 1,214]

Ah ok thanks for the correction. Like I said off the top of my head - usually wrong when I do that

You were right on some. I would say both Sweden and Denmark transitioned peacefully.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Thats a bit of a red herring given we are discussing what the government grants us and not our individual abilities. However, putting your comment in the context of what the government allows does parallel my other argument.

People with access to new media (IE twitter, blogs etc) have a stronger right to free speech than in countries that do not allow it (IE Turkey).

Yes, indeed. Glad you noticed. Same goes for your line of argument, of course.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Yes, indeed. Glad you noticed. Same goes for your line of argument, of course.

In what way? Do you disagree that banning social media weakens freedom of speech?

Edited March 26, 2014 by Brown Dwarf

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In what way? Do you disagree that banning social media weakens freedom of speech?

Yes, I would. Freedom of speech predates social media. Thus, social media is not required to have freedom of speech. Same as gun rights are not required to have liberty.

[Peikko 1,575]

Then answer this.

Who has the stronger right of self defense.

A person living in Surrey BC or someone in Surrey England? Which government allows the stronger tool?

That's funny. Irrelevant but funny.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Yes, I would. Freedom of speech predates social media. Thus, social media is not required to have freedom of speech. Same as gun rights are not required to have liberty.

You know what? I can see Brown's POV on this one. You're right, we still have freedom of speech, but with Social Media, it sometimes forces folks to watch how they act.

Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/tech/web/linked-in-cleveland-job-bank/

If not for SM, just email, this lady would continue to act like a troll. Because it was brought out to the light of day, her history of being rude was showcased. Now, she'll think twice before she lets loose on someone trying to come to her for advice.

I'd prefer picketing and using a megaphone because I'm old, but there is great power in SM, if used properly.

Edit. It doesn't strengthen the right to free speech, it just allows you to be a bit louder.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Su and Marvin

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know what? I can see Brown's POV on this one. You're right, we still have freedom of speech, but with Social Media, it sometimes forces folks to watch how they act.

Case in point: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/tech/web/linked-in-cleveland-job-bank/

If not for SM, just email, this lady would continue to act like a troll. Because it was brought out to the light of day, her history of being rude was showcased. Now, she'll think twice before she lets loose on someone trying to come to her for advice.

I'd prefer picketing and using a megaphone because I'm old, but there is great power in SM, if used properly.

Sure there can be power in the use of modern media but freedom of speech doesn't require social media.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Sure there can be power in the use of modern media but freedom of speech doesn't require social media.

That's my point, it's there whether or not you have access to it. If you don't hit the picket line and get your protest on!

[Sousuke 1,214]

I think I need to substitute "strength of a right" with the notion how much a right is limited to get my point across.

Do we all agree that the right to self defense is less limited in Canada than the UK?

Do we all agree that the right to free speech is less limited in the UK than Turkey?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think I need to substitute "strength of a right" with the notion how much a right is limited to get my point across.

Do we all agree that the right to self defense is less limited in Canada than the UK?

Do we all agree that the right to free speech is less limited in the UK than Turkey?

No and yes.

[Sousuke 1,214]

No and yes.

Limiting the tools used for self defense limits the right. Its pretty straight forward. I'm really trying to connect with you here.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Brown Dwarf