I am not targeting any group, race or religion or whatever, just an observation why does it seem that freedom of speech appears to invoke an image of a defence to be an asshole?

I get it, free to speak your mind and all and sometimes hard truths need to be said that but is the concept so out of whack that people have less empathy for others that they don’t agree with that they antagonise another to the point of disrespecting the right to dignity?

It seems like humanity is hard wired for conflict and if it isn’t actively trying to kill itself it seems to find an outlet for violence some way somehow. Maybe it is social conditioning or just some primal urge that makes humans human.

I don’t even know where else I could ask it, and it seems kind of stupid to think about so… have at thee

  • JayEchoRay@lemmy.worldOP
    2·
    1 year ago

    Okay an example if I must provide one

    I feel according to brief look at American constitution in spirit if the Founding Fathers that governement should be neutral in religious matters and people have the freedom of religious choice without being discriminated against while still in the spirit of freedom and comradie not resort some sort of cannibal death cult.

    The people have the freedom of choice, however the government must not be swayed and run by one motivating group or factor in the spirit of the writing how the British wished to exert their power and influence to control the then original 13 states

    I also feel that again in spirit of what they wrote something like abortions shouldn’t be banned unless there was some catastrophic failure rate where government must intervene to prevent people from commiting suicide by doing so.

    I am going to get flak by writing it but I believe that abortion can be made a case when it is ill advised at a certain point or if the if the parents decide that a birth is too dangerous, to be able to abort at a late stage.

    By my limited understanding is that if doctors want to choose not to abort then are then in their right to do so if it is not life threatening. The government should not interfere but instead make it clear that individual practioners are under no obligation to help you if they strongly believe they don’t believe in it and within reasonable circumstance and that those that do wish to go with it should be given the option to instead of shutting them down.

    But ultimately it should be the individuals choice to choose even if it is a bad choice and the unfortunate burden of guilt should be shouldered on an individual. I feel that is the freedom that was intended