[Revised] A Limit to Freedom

[Grave_n_idle]

Hell no. We don't need a police state. And I certainly don't need some pretentious god to know what is right and what is wrong.

What you want is to scrap the entire Constitution and establish a Christian dictatorship. I will have no part in that.

Strange the op specifically excluded religion.

I think you might want to re-read the OP.

[Stellonia]

Screw Chairman Mao. I want to limit freedom, not abolish it for a backwards ideology.

Like Christianity?

*nods*

Christianity is not an ideology.

[Wallenburg]

Hell no. We don't need a police state. And I certainly don't need some pretentious god to know what is right and what is wrong.

What you want is to scrap the entire Constitution and establish a Christian dictatorship. I will have no part in that.

Strange the op specifically excluded religion.
What a pretentious pointless comment of you to include, but I suppose its just your nature.

Look at his sig. Look at his references to God as a leader. I know what he wants. And what is "my nature" exactly?

[Republic of the Cristo]

Okay, this thread has just turned into an attempt to try and attack religion ( leftists ignorance boot party anyone?) If you are too ignorant to actually take this question seriously, then please leave.

I do concur that freedom should be limited. Things just as drugs ( not counting medical drugs), and prostitution should be banned. The right to form organizations that do not promote active violence against anyone ( for example, Hamas) or thing should be protected. The right to write or read any literature should be protected. The freedom to worship God or to not should be protected. Wrathful Violence between citizens should be prohibited. Certain industrial regulations should be enforced in order to protect the consumer. The right to own legally acquired property should be protected. The right to say what ever you want in public spaces that does not intentionally cause a panic or crisis should be protected. The detaining of citizens whom have proven to be a danger to the general populous is necessary.

Can we all agree to this?

[Grave_n_idle]

Like Christianity?

*nods*

Christianity is not an ideology.

"It's a relationship".

Heard it before.

[Grave_n_idle]

Okay, this thread has just turned into an attempt to try and attack religion...

No, it hasn't.

It got a monopost offering that suggested we should 'crack down' on things like attacks on religion - whatever that means.

Self-defence, brah.

[New Grestin]

Okay, this thread has just turned into an attempt to try and attack religion...

No, it hasn't.

It got a monopost offering that suggested we should 'crack down' on things like attacks on religion - whatever that means.

Self-defence, brah.

If anything, it's more about someone thinking we need to not regularly attack religion or something.

I'm not really sure. Even with the "Revised" OP, this still reeks of Theocratic Authoritarianism.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Okay, this thread has just turned into an attempt to try and attack religion...

No, it hasn't.

It got a monopost offering that suggested we should 'crack down' on things like attacks on religion - whatever that means.

Self-defence, brah.

He didn't really expand upon what he meant by that. I assumed like how Hindu nationalists bombed churches or what ever, but I geuss it is up for interperatation since he didn't really say.

Anyways, you need to stop with this tirade of ignorance and actually talk about how limited freedom should be as it is a very important question.

Do you agree with my points listed above?

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, it hasn't.

It got a monopost offering that suggested we should 'crack down' on things like attacks on religion - whatever that means.

Self-defence, brah.

He didn't really expand upon what he meant by that. I assumed like how Hindu nationalists bombed churches or what ever, but I geuss it is up for interperatation since he didn't really say.

Anyways, you need to stop with this tirade of ignorance and actually talk about how limited freedom should be as it is a very important question.

Do you agree with my points listed above?

Why should we ban drugs and prostitution?

[SuperKittyFinalBoss]

Theocratic dictatorships don't do very well these days. If you by any chance need evidence of this fact, OP, take a look at Iran, which has only recently started to overcome the latest bout of crippling sanctions, which if my recognition of a pattern is correct, will probably soon be replaced, likely due to it acting like a belligerent child of the international community once more. Or perhaps North Korea is more your style, where the vast majority of the population is in abject poverty and starving and a significant percentage are in death camps, and the state as a whole is at least 50 years behind technologically and infrastructurally.

I find it likely that you're a citizen of the USA, OP, and want to institute a Christian theocratic dictatorship in the USA. That's what seemed to be implied given the information I've gleaned from your post and profile, and at any rate it's the most common offender of these particular kinds of calls. Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Nearly 30% of the population rising up in open revolt is not exactly the best for a country's health. Nor is sudden flight of many of its scientists and general "good thinking" sorts, who are on the whole almost 50% nonreligious and about 2/3rds non-Christian

Not to mention that theocracy is in direct conflict with Jesus's apparent teachings, according to the bible. "Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give to God what is God's," and so on.

[Republic of the Cristo]

No, it hasn't.

It got a monopost offering that suggested we should 'crack down' on things like attacks on religion - whatever that means.

Self-defence, brah.

If anything, it's more about someone thinking we need to not regularly attack religion or something.

I'm not really sure. Even with the "Revised" OP, this still reeks of Theocratic Authoritarianism.

He just said that we should crack down on attacks against religion. From that you have come up with the idea that he is the Christian version of Iran. You seriously need top be rational about this and think of what he really means. Its probably not " EVERY ATHEIST MUST DIE!" so calm down.

[New Grestin]

If anything, it's more about someone thinking we need to not regularly attack religion or something.

I'm not really sure. Even with the "Revised" OP, this still reeks of Theocratic Authoritarianism.

He just said that we should crack down on attacks against religion. From that you have come up with the idea that he is the Christian version of Iran. You seriously need top be rational about this and think of what he really means. Its probably not " EVERY ATHEIST MUST DIE!" so calm down.

You know, you say that, but reading his sig indicates otherwise.

I mean, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out where he's going with this.

[Republic of the Cristo]

He didn't really expand upon what he meant by that. I assumed like how Hindu nationalists bombed churches or what ever, but I geuss it is up for interperatation since he didn't really say.

Anyways, you need to stop with this tirade of ignorance and actually talk about how limited freedom should be as it is a very important question.

Do you agree with my points listed above?

Why should we ban drugs and prostitution?

Because drugs ( Coke, Crack, Meth, etc.) are incredibly dangerous both to the user, the users family, and the people that the user may interact with.

Prostitution is very dangerous in regards that a finite number of women are having sex with dozens of men every day. Just remember that 1 in 4 people have an STD, and these prostitutes are having sex on a daily basis with dozens of men.

[Wallenburg]

Okay, this thread has just turned into an attempt to try and attack religion ( leftists ignorance boot party anyone?) If you are too ignorant to actually take this question seriously, then please leave.

I do concur that freedom should be limited. Things just as drugs ( not counting medical drugs), and prostitution should be banned. The right to form organizations that do not promote active violence against anyone ( for example, Hamas) or thing should be protected. The right to write or read any literature should be protected. The freedom to worship God or to not should be protected. Wrathful Violence between citizens should be prohibited. Certain industrial regulations should be enforced in order to protect the consumer. The right to own legally acquired property should be protected. The right to say what ever you want in public spaces that does not intentionally cause a panic or crisis should be protected. The detaining of citizens whom have proven to be a danger to the general populous is necessary.

Can we all agree to this?

Remove the first paragraph and this post makes a better OP than the actual OP.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why should we ban drugs and prostitution?

Because drugs ( Coke, Crack, Meth, etc.) are incredibly dangerous both to the user, the users family, and the people that the user may interact with.

Prostitution is very dangerous in regards that a finite number of women are having sex with dozens of men every day. Just remember that 1 in 4 people have an STD, and these prostitutes are having sex on a daily basis with dozens of men.

Yeah, and if these things were legalized they could be regulated and made safer. Plus the government could make money.

[Republic of the Cristo]

He just said that we should crack down on attacks against religion. From that you have come up with the idea that he is the Christian version of Iran. You seriously need top be rational about this and think of what he really means. Its probably not " EVERY ATHEIST MUST DIE!" so calm down.

You know, you say that, but reading his sig indicates otherwise.

I mean, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out where he's going with this.

It literally says

" Christianity is good. Atheism is bad. Deal with it."

How does this sound like " ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT WORSHIP THE CHRIST WILL BURN AS A HERETIC, MUAHAHAHA!"

This is a sentiment that I agree with ( the first line not the second ) My nation is actually a Christian theocracy and I have modeled it to be rather libertarian.

[Wisconsin9]

If everyone involved consents, then they should be free to do it.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, it hasn't.

It got a monopost offering that suggested we should 'crack down' on things like attacks on religion - whatever that means.

Self-defence, brah.

He didn't really expand upon what he meant by that. I assumed like how Hindu nationalists bombed churches or what ever, but I geuss it is up for interperatation since he didn't really say.

Anyways, you need to stop with this tirade of ignorance and actually talk about how limited freedom should be as it is a very important question.

Do you agree with my points listed above?

Why would you assume that he meant Hindus bombing churches? Surely that's ALREADY illegal, and therefore not something we need to 'crack down on'?

No - I think the OP was intended to say just what it seems to say - it's not just a more authoritarian paradigm, but an authoritarian paradigm that doesn't allow religious dissent or tolerate unbelievers.

And I object to that.

[New Grestin]

You know, you say that, but reading his sig indicates otherwise.

I mean, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out where he's going with this.

It literally says

" Christianity is good. Atheism is bad. Deal with it."

How does this sound like " ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT WORSHIP THE CHRIST WILL BURN AS A HERETIC, MUAHAHAHA!"

This is a sentiment that I agree with ( the first line not the second :lol: ) My nation is actually a Christian theocracy and I have modeled it to be rather libertarian.

I'm not saying that he thinks Atheists should be burned at the stake, though given his track record it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

The point is that his nebulous idea of "attacking religion" is far too vague and leaves a nice little void for suppression of ideas under the veil of protecting religion, which frankly doesn't deserve the nigh-untouchable status it maintains in the first place.

[Dastardly Dark Empire of Evil Bastards]

My freedom to swing my fists ends only when my fist hits your face. Freedom is pretty fucking simple, as soon as people get over the idea that they can't run around telling others what to do.

But fuck freedom, right? This is Socialist States after all, where everybody thinks that the government breathing down your neck couldn't possibly have any unintended consequences whatsoever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizGkM6gbvQ

[Republic of the Cristo]

Because drugs ( Coke, Crack, Meth, etc.) are incredibly dangerous both to the user, the users family, and the people that the user may interact with.

Prostitution is very dangerous in regards that a finite number of women are having sex with dozens of men every day. Just remember that 1 in 4 people have an STD, and these prostitutes are having sex on a daily basis with dozens of men.

Yeah, and if these things were legalized they could be regulated and made safer. Plus the government could make money.

You are going to make Meth safe? You are going to make prostitution safe? I know it sounds simple but its not.

Lets take prostitution for example. Even with protection, and government screenings, the fact that protection is notorious for failing and the fact that they are still having sex with dozens of men on a daily basis ( that 1 in 4 thing again) makes this inherently very dangerous. If it is banned, it will still be dangerous, but not widespread.

As for drugs, some drugs can be safely used. For example, pot ( natural without additives. Think pot back before 1900) can be safe and can in certain forms benefit people. But things such as cocaine, meth, and heroin were made simply for nothing more than to make people feel good with no regards to their health. I mean, there really is no way to make a drug like crack healthy, or any less dangerous as is intrinsic to its design. As the same above goes, it will still be dangerous, but at least it will be diminished.

I believe that I saw a statistic somewhere stating that since the war on drugs, 40% of crack and heroin users have dropped out of the equation. If you would give me a minute I could probably find it for you.

[Socialist Tera]

There should be limits to freedom of speech, read On contradiction.

Screw Chairman Mao. I want to limit freedom, not abolish it for a backwards ideology.

What? Socialism still promoted scientific inventions. Use insulin?

[Republic of the Cristo]

It literally says

" Christianity is good. Atheism is bad. Deal with it."

How does this sound like " ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT WORSHIP THE CHRIST WILL BURN AS A HERETIC, MUAHAHAHA!"

This is a sentiment that I agree with ( the first line not the second ) My nation is actually a Christian theocracy and I have modeled it to be rather libertarian.

I'm not saying that he thinks Atheists should be burned at the stake, though given his track record it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

The point is that his nebulous idea of "attacking religion" is far too vague and leaves a nice little void for suppression of ideas under the veil of protecting religion, which frankly doesn't deserve the nigh-untouchable status it maintains in the first place.

I do not know his track record so I cannot say. I do agree that he should expand upon what he means by " attacks on religion" Although I am a theocrat, I do believe that free speech should be protected in all public places.

[New Grestin]

I'm not saying that he thinks Atheists should be burned at the stake, though given his track record it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

The point is that his nebulous idea of "attacking religion" is far too vague and leaves a nice little void for suppression of ideas under the veil of protecting religion, which frankly doesn't deserve the nigh-untouchable status it maintains in the first place.

I do not know his track record so I cannot say. I do agree that he should expand upon what he means by " attacks on religion" Although I am a theocrat, I do believe that free speech should be protected in all public places.

He has a history of being generally shitty to anyone that goes against his narrow view of the world, essentially.

Well, as narrow a view as one can have at the ripe old age of fourteen.

I'm glad we can at least agree on something.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, and if these things were legalized they could be regulated and made safer. Plus the government could make money.

You are going to make Meth safe? You are going to make prostitution safe? I know it sounds simple but its not.

Lets take prostitution for example. Even with protection, and government screenings, the fact that protection is notorious for failing and the fact that they are still having sex with dozens of men on a daily basis ( that 1 in 4 thing again) makes this inherently very dangerous. If it is banned, it will still be dangerous, but not widespread.

As for drugs, some drugs can be safely used. For example, pot ( natural without additives. Think pot back before 1900) can be safe and can in certain forms benefit people. But things such as cocaine, meth, and heroin were made simply for nothing more than to make people feel good with no regards to their health. I mean, there really is no way to make a drug like crack healthy, or any less dangerous as is intrinsic to its design. As the same above goes, it will still be dangerous, but at least it will be diminished.

I believe that I saw a statistic somewhere stating that since the war on drugs, 40% of crack and heroin users have dropped out of the equation. If you would give me a minute I could probably find it for you.

Hey, if someone wants to slam their face into an 8-ball they should be able to.

As for prostitution? It could easily be made much safer with government oversight, health checks etc.