Wednesday, May 13, 2015

"Maintaining Personal Integrity on the Internet." (And moral and intellectual consistency as well.)

If a person calls for violence against the evil flag-stompers, yet cheers the brave Mohammed cartoonists, there is a cognitive dissonance that needs to be sorted out. The same holds true for those who advocate harming the evil Mohammed cartoonists, while praising the brave flag-stompers. That is NOT to say that people should be prohibited from voicing their opinions; that would be counter to my constitutional oath. What I AM saying is that these statements conflict each other, and that publicly holding those conflicting positions undermines personal integrity. Both examples are expressions of free speech, and saying “you can’t” to either expression, while supporting the other, is hypocrisy.


jon said...

this was my first retort when i saw leftists refusing to defend or at least ignore geller's art exhibit: their casual answer to incidents of flag-burning is "well it's free speech," and then only when they're actually paying attention. you can bet if a republican is president, or a republican congress is "hampering" a president, they'll notice. otherwise i'm not so sure.

instead they launched into long diatribes about how provocative and incindiary it is and how that's a problem. you'd have thought you were reading your priest or pastor commenting on those disgusting museums of the human body, sliced thin for all to see.

but at the same time one might thank them for revealing their inability to hold even one simple coherent principle. after all, that's mainly what they've been accused of all this time.

Chiu ChunLing said...

Just for the record, there is absolutely no cognitive dissonance for those who advocate harming the evil Mohammed cartoonists, while praising the brave flag-stompers. The cognitive dissonance only comes in if you are trying to defend the value of freedom of speech by recommending restriction on speech.

And, just to be clear, freedom of speech doesn't apply to EITHER case, because neither stomping on things (including flags) nor drawing other things (including Qutham) are speech. They may be expression, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit infringement of the "freedom of expression", for the very simple and logical reason that ALL personal actions are expressions, and if you're going to have 'freedom of expression' then NO personal actions can be legally prohibited.

To put a real fine point on it, people who make death threats against the Mo-toonists or actually carry out armed attacks resulting in deaths are clearly "expressing themselves". If you take a broad interpretation of "freedom of expression" to include overt acts, then MURDER CANNOT BE ILLEGAL as long as it expresses the murderer's perspective.

See, here's my problem with the Mo-toons...some of them involve graphic depictions of pederasty and other forms of rape. I think that a society needs to be able to restrict the publication of such images to some degree. We should be able to SPEAK without resorting to graphic images when there is real harm associated with the publication of such images.

On the other hand, I think that the death threats and actual attempts to murder people over the Mo-toons are a much more serious issue. Before we curb the freedom of people to express themselves by drawing cartoons which graphically depict pederasty and other forms of rape, we should curb the freedom of people to express themselves by actually engaging in pederasty, rape, and murder.

We shouldn't outlaw absolutely everything that is not a protected freedom, that would be silly. Nor should we attempt to construe the Constitution so as to make all bad laws unconstitutional...we need to accept that a law can be within the Constitutional authority of the legislature to pass and still be a bad idea.

P.S. I am also in favor of enforcing restrictions on public desecration of the flag. This is necessary due to the history of military training regarding treatment of the flag, such that desecrating a flag in the presence of members of the military is materially equivalent to invoking legal orders for the use of military force in a civilian setting. If it would be a crime for someone to invoke such orders, then it is obviously also illegal to desecrate a flag in a public setting.

Anonymous said...

No, it's not hypocrisy, it's using your 1st amendment right to state your opinion. What ever it may be.

Sean said...

Or, in other words, don't hold opinions and positions that I don't approve of, because, well, I'm the arbiter of all things moral. Have I got that about right? This guy needs to get off his soapbox, and go look in a mirror. If you advocate that others opinions are hypocrisy, because they don't fit your narrative of free speech, you just became both an opponent of free speech AND a hypocrite. There are all kinds of people in the Freedom Movement that I don't necessarily agree with, in all respects of their plate. It is up to me, to accept or reject them, and not up to someone with a website and a claim to dogma. Calling people names does not persuade, and does not convince. There are many who have fought and bled under our flag, and that take offense at its degradation. And that also don't dig the Moslems. So take it or leave it, but getting on your high horse of indignation because some do not care for your version of events or conditions will leave you one day with an Army of one. Remember, that the mind control of the leftists is something we're trying to escape, not duplicate.

Anonymous said...

I would never say "you can't" because clearly you can. And yes, as a matter of free speech, flag stompers and Mohammad cartoonists have their First Amendment right to free expression. That doesn't mean that their behavior doesn't identify them as the enemy. I support Mohammad cartoonists because Islam is my enemy. I do not support flag stompers because they are my enemy. So long as the thin veneer of civilization remains, I will tolerate flag stompers and I expect Muslims to tolerate cartoonists. But as soon as the SHTF, all bets are off. Your behavior is not without consequence. If you think you can stomp on flags and not make enemies, you're stupid. By the same token, I would not expect the muzzles to ignore what they see as offensive. The difference is, it is rarely the flag waivers or the cartoonists that dogmatically believe that the other viewpoints should be met with violence and death.

Cogito ergo victor said...

Oh poppeycock!

It means ... That I want my side to win and the other side to lose or die trying.

Why is that so hard to believe? It's the triumph of the Marxist call to moral relevancy, that's why.

Anonymous said...

NO PERSONAL actions that don't bring harm to another flesh and blood human or owned property SHOULD BE criminalized ! That's the thing called LIBERTY! You know, the CHOICE to do as you see fit - no matter who doesn't like it- so long as arent harming another or their rights.

Here's the difference you buttnugget.

I stomp on a flag that belongs to me - none of your business.
I stomp on a flag that belongs to you - of course it's your business.

One example is me doing my thing that you have ZERO control over and the other is me violating your property. See the difference? It's not about the flag itself OR your emotional knee jerking. My rights - your rights. Try respecting that line.

You can feel free to despise those who flag stomp. I do plus I think it's stupid in the first place -childish. You can speak out and express your displeasure with that action all you like - but your rights stop short of FORCING another to do what you desire. See that?

Expression is living bro. It's what you wear. It's the color of your house - sided or bricked. It's how tall you cut your grass or what trees you plant. It's the kind of car or truck you choose heck even the mate you choose. It's what TV you watch or what internet sites you view. It's what you say what you write what you draw and even what career path you take.

Guess what - it's even what firearms you buy and especially what you EXPRESS when you CARRY.

EXPRESSION is liberty itself.

Anonymous said...

Quote from Anonymous @ 8:56PM:
"Here's the difference you buttnugget.

I stomp on a flag that belongs to me - none of your business.
I stomp on a flag that belongs to you - of course it's your business. "

Close and probably good enough for practical purposes, but I believe there is a little more nuance that could be added to the first example.

To wit: I stomp on a flag that belongs to me - none of your business. You can make it your business if you are prepared for my response, as long as you refrain from fists, weapons, or a credible threat of same.

Any flag burner probably would be wise to be ready to hear insults and not react violently, but so too should anyone who would hurl those insults be ready for a response in kind. In civilization this is as far as the matter will go.