Jump to content

SUPREME COURT SUPERTHREAD 2010


mackfatsoe

Recommended Posts

Well it isn't so important for people in our line of work we are too low and unimportant, it is very rare for people like us to get involved in these sort of cases. But say a pro sports player gets accused of being a paedophiles and his team drops his contract because of the negative press on the team that is where it comes into play.

 

Libel and slander is only really applicable for high profile or people in the public spot light.

 

The only time it would be applicable for us is if these comments made our work unbearable and we had to leave our jobs.

 

the laws i favor, laws against property rights violations... like murder, rape, theft, etc... have no exceptions. if you rape someone, you go to jail. it doesnt matter if the person is well known, old, not famous at all, young, doesnt matter. if you murder someone you go to jail, doesnt matter if the person is old, famous, etc.

 

its always the laws of the more statist types that require all sorts of different exceptions, rules, variables, etc.

 

it just makes no logical sense to punish someone for saying something that is 'false' and malicious and you have to quit your job because of comments, than if someone said something that is true but equally malicious and you had to quit your job.

as i said previously if you want to protect a reputation you would have to eliminate parodies, satire, critical book reviews, literary criticism, comedic 'roasts'.... etc all of these are damaging to a reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

wow.

this is just.... wow.

 

Really, it's Wow? Is that why you say:

 

i dont know why this surprises me... its typical behavior of those who cannot argue the topic at hand, refute valid points of argument and they usually reside somewhere in the neocon wings of the left and right.

 

For the record, I reside solidly in the camp of the sceptics but not on the neophyte idiot's side of the camp. Are you suggesting I didn't argue the topic when I said:

 

...corporations have been granted ALL THE RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON. ANYTHING a single person can do is now legal for a corporation to do, things like running for office, gaining property tax exemptions for their office building by claiming it as their primary residence, giving corporations the right to vote in an election (provided their at least 18 years old, of course. The door is wide open.

 

Then you say:

 

as usual, anyone someone like smart disagrees with is denounced as a member of the aryan nation

 

Because it's so cliche around here that the unspoken subtext when somebody mentions my name is 'that guy who calls everybody a Nazi'.

 

I'm such a hypocrite that I won't 'argue the point' but immediately point out obfuscation like:

 

...illegal wars, infringements on civil liberties, rendition, the patriot act and military commissions act, that obama is simply carrying on the same things bush has done for years, that gun control exists in america and guns were confiscated during hurricane katrina, the government putting its nose in areas it was never given authorization to do so, and on down the list.

 

Or the fact that, at least around here, when people are faced with actual facts, or feel their arguments slipping into the idiot zone they almost always take a shot at my screen name, thusly:

 

this is good for a laugh though smart.... especially coming from someone with the screen name 'smart.'

 

On the topic of screen names, I've been clinically dead twice in my life, never for more than a minute or so but, I know the Angel of Death and, you, sir, are no Angel of Death

 

Moving Forward

 

Again you allege:

 

...you refused to answer my question why you think some large mega corps should have rights (media outlets) but other large mega corps shoudnt (everyone else) )

 

I think I clearly stated my position and breaking it down to Coke v. Pepsi is pretty much redundant, espescially since Decy so deftly argued the point after me.

 

will you just mock those who take a stance for civil liberties if say.... the police knock down your door one night, without a warrant, they find what they say is a pot seed you left laying around...

 

Well, apart from the fact that I'm actually the person arguing FOR civil liberties, as opposed to corporate entitlements, that has actually happened to me, up until I quit your quote. I have been raided by the ATF. Ninja ass paramilitary with some very small and vicious looking HK's and the ski masks. Fed shit. It was such an obvious set up that when the Sherriff of the county showed up to remand me into his custody the fed's stepped in and said, 'Nah, this one's ours'. Then I was taken to the city jail, booked and released within an hour and they were waiting outside to give me a ride home, AND apologize and explain how I was not going to be able to avoid some misdemeanor gun and drug charges and that they were actually sorry they'd been fed such shitty info.

 

You don't even seem to be able to argue American law with a British citizen. He refutes almost every point you have, WTF? You have a slipperier grasp on the American legal system that a foreigner? Shouldn't that disqualify you from political arguments with your own countrymen? Shit, if you had tits you'd be Sarah Palin!

 

I'm gonna start calling you 'Midnight Snack' because everynight someone eats you up.

 

You might as well tell us all about your picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur.

 

Or obfuscate some more, if you can't win the argument, change the subject right?

 

the topic of corporations vs individual rights has been thrown around enough. no one agrees on that..

 

Yeah, nobody agrees so we should drop it, that's the way our founding fathers would have done it.

 

ok, so lets leave aside the legitimacy of slander laws for a second

 

because, yeah, this whole thing really boils down to 'slander laws'

 

so how is it proven in a court of law if something is slanderous?

 

What am I; You're fucking fact checker monkey? Figure that shit out for yourself homie, then arrive with a truly informed opinion.

 

You go on to say:

 

the constitution created the court system. it is the ultimate authority of law.

 

...and, yeah, no. The Magna Carta is universally recognized as the first document to establish what we now refer to as 'human rights'... Perhaps even the 'modern birth of courts'. You seem to suggest there were no such thing as tribunals and full on court systems before the U.S. war of independence. Being a fairly vocal proponent of the IRA in the 80's and still vehement concerning a united Ireland, I can still actually give props to the English for this one. I encourage everyone to bone up on the historical facts surrounding the signing but still... supported. Plus the fact that the Bill of Rights was just a parroting of ideals forged by the French revolution. Of course, we're also sidestepping the traditional view that God, Himself, is the ultimate arbiter.

 

There is one small fact I'd like to point out to Decy, a thread I started last year, found HERE. It's mostly just a reminder of how we flogged AoD before with the whip of his own ignorance but it's also a continuing lesson about his WILFULL IGNORANCE and inability to comprehend reasonable arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...