should i be mad?

but, wouldnt this mean he has the freedom of speech to say that to you?

 

This???? coming from somebody that has "Fuck Authority" in their signature?

Who do you think gives you the freedom to have an opinion? That's right...government, who you apparently hate! Without laws and police to enforce those laws, this guy could have simply shoved the paper down her throat without any repercussions. I'd say her rights held up pretty well.

 

According to our government our rights are "god-given", not given by them. (Basically meaning every human has these rights, and the gov't can't take them away.)

Regardless, teachers should try to not antagonize students. It is just plain immature and not at all helpful in gaining the respect teachers need from the students in order to manage their classrooms.

That being said, substitute-teaching high school students is no easy task. I can see why he may be a bit of an ass.

 

lol.. that's funny

So the only thing keeping this guy from shoving the paper down her throat is God? Yeah..... RIGHT!

Respect from an Anarchist?.. LOL!! that's even more funny.

 

God-given, meaning basically inherent to humans. It isn't the governments job to give them, just to make sure those right's aren't infringed on. Ever take a civics class?

And obviously any anarchist can expect no respect from you. Is it the pot calling the kettle black, or just silly conservatism?

 

LMAO! This is so damn classic. Laws define what you can and cannot do and there isn't anyway to seperate that out, but keep trying all you want.

I don't respect hypocrites and that's what wrstlergrlx is because she apparently is willing to use and respect authority when it benefits her.

 

We aren't talking about laws here, we are talking about civil liberties.

civil liberties
civil lib·er·ties (lbr-tz)
pl.n.

Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil%20liberties


Civil liberties are protected by the law, but certianly not granted by it, or so our constitution claims.

 

By the very nature of deciding what somebody cannot do you inevitably decide what they can do. No way around it. If you have laws for everything over and above hitting somebody then that's basically saying you have the right to do anything below that level. You can twist the words around, talk in circles or whatever you want, but in the end... laws define what we can and cannot do.

This guy broke no laws with his words and therefore her rights were not violated. It really doesn't matter if he broke a law in your fantasy world now does it? If she truly believes her rights were violated then she is by far "NOT" an anarchist and should go talk with a lawyer.

 

Who's twisting words and talking in circles? Let's take a closer look:

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, which is laughable since you claim I am the one living in some "fanasy world." Do you not think anarchists believe in human rights? Where did anyone in this forum claim that this teacher broke a law? The most they claimed is that her right to her opinion was violated - and in a way it was; she was degraded by an authority figure for having opposing political ideals. You may think it is funny because she is an anarchist and doesn't like authority figures, but that doesnt mean that that authority doesnt have an effect on her life.

And then I simply disagreed with you that the gov't gives us our rights.

You said:

According to the constitution of the united states these rights are inherent to us as human beings, and our gov't protects them (well....is supposed to). They do not grant or give them to us.

 

A true Anarchist wouldn't have even considered seeking help from higher authority because they would be a typical poser like 99.9% of all so called Anarchist. Anarchism has no authority figures and relies on the threat of physical force to maintain order. Her rights weren't violated based on her Anarchist beliefs because you simply have no rights in an Anarchy unless you can defend them yourself.

You keep saying that government only protects our rights, but what you refuse to understand is you only have those rights because there is a higher authority around to say you do. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Let's take away all authority for a minute. Now, who says you have the right to speak about anything? Maybe Joe is stronger then you and tells you to keep quiet or he'll kill you. What are you going do? Cry that he's violating your rights? What rights? Who established your rights? Nothing but force can stop Joe now because there aren't any laws saying he can't kill you.

Think about it.

I believe you have her rights confused with her ego here. Yes, maybe her ego was violated, but not the right to her opinion.

 

Um...so you think humanity first begun with no rights whatsoever, and it was governments that first allowed people to do certian things? Sorry, don't think so.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that our constitution states that it believes certain freedoms and civil rights are inherent to every human being, meaning being a human means you have these rights, period, and that no law can be made affecting them in the united states.

So let me spell this out for you:

1.) Our founding fathers believed certian freedoms were the fundamental "god-given" (meaning not given by man) rights inherent to human beings....being a human being, no matter where you are in the world, means you are required the certian freedoms outlined in the bill of rights.

2.) The founding fathers wanted to protect those god-given (not given by man, and men make up governments) rights for the citizens of their country, henceforth created the Bill of Rights in order to protect those freedoms from interference.

3.) Deducing that a) those freedoms are "granted by god", not by man or gov't authority (since our gov'ts are made up of men) - they are the rights of every human, and b) our gov't cannot take away, and must protect those freedoms

And the original poster is not seeking help from a higher authority. She lives in the United States and is required to attend school, therefore is in a classroom which is being led by a teacher. Who cares if you think she is a poser. Surely no true patriot of the united states would want to discourage a young citizen of our country of taking an intrest in our politics...

Anyhow, I am not here to debate the semantics of anarchy. For one, you are way over-simplifying the idea (there are ways and ideas an anarchist could explain as to how one's rights would be protected - and how a person could untimately have more rights under an anarchy) for the sake of being a scarcastic jack-ass to passionate and naive teenager. And for another I personally think anarchy is a utopian system, and any utopian system is inherently flawed. I am not an anarchist. And lastly, it seems you are still confused on the whole civil rights thing, our constitution didn't establish, give, or allow our civil rights, they protect them. And of course they have to list them to protect them, but they did not list them with the attitude of them allowing or giving them to us, but with the idea that they were listing the fundamental rights of every human that they intend to protect for the citizens of this new country they were founding. It is very clear if you read our constitution and bill or rights, or if you attended any high school in the country...

 

I'm saying, without a government to protect your rights, you pretty much have no rights except for what you can defend. For example, without government you don't automatically have the right to own land because somebody else could just take it from you. Our goverment established the right to own the land and that nobody can just take it from you. Same with speach. They established that you can speak freely without having somebody smack you down for it.

I do understand, but apparently you still don't. You even say "our constitution states". The constitution is a "LAW"... DUH!!!!

Hello???? BILL OF RIGHTS!! More laws!

In order to protect our freedoms, you must define what they are first. It's my god given right to kill anything I want, however government says my rights don't extend that far. HMMM! Interesting. I'm sure you'll say "Well, killing is not a god-given right". However, free will extends to anything and everything which includes killing.

LOL.. yeah, we sure have all of our god-given freedoms don't we?

The principal is a higher authority in this situation. It's an established hierarchy put in place by the goverment she hates.

And, WOW...what do you know... she has the freedom to leave this country if she wants to pursue Anarchism someplace where it's welcomed.

Yeah, let's hope all young citizens take an interest in Anarchy. That way we can toss out all of our laws and have total chaos. Brilliant.

Once again, if you intend to protect our freedoms, you must first define them. Free will is our god given right which means we can do anything and everything, but we can't exactly do that now can we? You don't see "FREE WILL" written down in that constitution or bill of rights do you? That's right. Our rights were clearly defined and outlined for us by our government.

 

I have tried to spell this out to you as simplistically as possible. The laws on the books don't say "you can do this, you can do that," they tell us what we cant do. The laws in the bill of rights arent there to tell U.S. citizens what we can do, they are there to tell the U.S. gov't what they can't do (and "duh" in order to protect them they have to be defined, listed somewhere - still doesn't mean the gov't is somehow allowing us these freedoms - just that they aren't allowed to take away our inherent freedoms). They aren't allowing or giving us free speech, they are recognizing that as humans it is something that is our right, and they are protecting it. That's why it is called the "Bill of Rights" and not the "Bill of Privileges"

There is no point in carrying on with this. We'll have to agree to disagree. And on the anarchy subject and leaving the country subject you are just being an ass. You cant expect or encourage a teenager to leave the country because she doesn't like the gov't. Every citizen in the US has a right to push the country in the direction they see fit, regardless if other people disagree with their political ideals. In fact, it is a banable offense on these forums, because it is the favored conservative line to spout, well now that there is republican control in the gov't. You wont see me telling you that you can leave the country next time we have a liberal president.

 

That's the problem Sera, it's not as simple as you believe or want it to be.

Uhhhh.... OK? I'm confused by your statement here. Once again, by the very nature of laws defining what we cannot do, they inevitably define what we can do.

I'm being a realist here, not an ass. This country will never be an Anarchy and as the teacher told her, she will "live a long dreary life" here.

 

wrstlergrlx, I suspect you are someone who sees the world as it is and feels a certain pain because of it. Know that you are not alone. Those of us who want to change the way things are feel some pain and frustration much of the time.

People who don't care about the way things are tend to be happier. It's quite possible that what the sub said was true in the sense of "Kid, I admire your guts, but things aren't going to be as easy for you as you might want them to be."

 

Spouting the same line over and over doesn't make it any more logical or true. I can understand why you have come to this conclusion (I have known plenty a conservative that has forgotten this is a gov't of and for the people and not to control the people) but yet a line above you tell me this isn't simple - but then you break it down in these most simplistic of terms. Just more bad logic from you.

The basic idea for the founding of this country was "freedom". Many of the people who travelled here were coming from places of religious rule and minority oppression. The founding fathers of this country wanted to set up a government of the people, one that would protect freedoms. They throught there were certian things that were inherent to every human being ("god-given") and they wanted to protect those things. They wern't giving us or allowing us these things, they were protecting these rights that they believed we have just because we are human beings. God-given does not mean government-given. Our right to free speech was not given to us by the government - like you previously stated. It is protected for us by the government. Our government doesn't "allow" or tell us we can have it because it isn't something for them to allow or not. Our founding fathers, the makers of the constitution and the bill of rights, believed it is our absolute right as human beings, and should be protected for us from and by the United States government.

When they outlined our rights in the bill of rights they wern't telling us we could have these rights, they were promising us protection of these rights they believed were inherent to human beings. It makes that very clear in our constitution. And I have made that very clear like 500 times now.

Sorry if you don't like it because you have to defend your snide remarks that you made to a teenage girl, but you claimed you are a realist - so maybe you'd better accept the reality of the situation. The constitution is available for anyone to read if you doubt me.

 

Right back at ya!

Have a nice time, I'm done with this thread.

 

Ummm...True ancarcism is pacifist...your thinking about Statist*sp?* there bud.

 

LMAO! And that brilliant bit of info coming from a guy who can't even spell anarchism. Thanks bud, I'll keep your "True" definition handy for when I need a good laugh then refer back to reality when I want the correct definition.

 

You know, your sub, an ass though he might be, has a right to voice his political opinions too.

And please don't be one of those people who goes "I'm offended! I'm gonna get you in trouble!" Once again, that makes you an enemy of free speech, as bad as christians and republicans who want to censor tv and books and music into nice, tranquilizing fairy tales. All you have to do when you don't like something somebody says is. . . get this. . . ignore it! HOLY FUCKING SHIT!