[Pongo]

Y'all, the Brits don't even know what freedom is.

Yeah. You just keep on standing on the side of the road waiting till a little man tells you that you can cross, lest you get fined, while congratulating yourselves on how free you are.

Tell me you’ve never been to America without telling me you’ve never been to America.

[AATW]

Y'all, the Brits don't even know what freedom is.

Yeah. You just keep on standing on the side of the road waiting till a little man tells you that you can cross, lest you get fined, while congratulating yourselves on how free you are.

Tell me you’ve never been to America without telling me you’ve never been to America.

Been there a bunch of times.
I was being a bit facetious. As I said, it was an example. There are better ones. If you want to keep pointing and laughing at the UK and all the silly laws we have which restrict our freedoms while following all your silly laws which restrict your freedoms and telling yourself how free you all are then you crack on, fellas.

[Roundy]

Y'all, the Brits don't even know what freedom is.

Yeah. You just keep on standing on the side of the road waiting till a little man tells you that you can cross, lest you get fined, while congratulating yourselves on how free you are.

Tell me you’ve never been to America without telling me you’ve never been to America.

Been there a bunch of times.
I was being a bit facetious. As I said, it was an example. There are better ones. If you want to keep pointing and laughing at the UK and all the silly laws we have which restrict our freedoms while following all your silly laws which restrict your freedoms and telling yourself how free you all are then you crack on, fellas.

When it was pointed out to you that the jaywalking argument was outdated and no longer applicable you brought up speeding as an alternative and went into a long ramble about that. Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?

[AATW]

When it was pointed out to you that the jaywalking argument was outdated and no longer applicable you brought up speeding as an alternative and went into a long ramble about that. Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?

I don’t think it’s a silly law.
But I do think it’s a law. Laws pretty much by definition restrict your freedom. They dictate what you must or must not do. There are laws in the UK which restrict what you can say and do, there are laws in the US which do the same. As there has to be in any functioning society. Freedom doesn’t mean you can literally do anything you like. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can literally say anything you like. The US is, by and large, a free society but so is the UK. If you want to keep pretending that you lot are free and we aren’t then go nuts. But it isn’t true. If your argument is “someone was jailed for some tweets” then I’ve provided an example where that happened in the US. An old boss of mine used to talk about “freedom within a framework” which I’d say sums up both the US and UK pretty well.

Anyway, I must go. It’s nearly past curfew. The patrols will start soon shooting anyone they see outside

[Pete Svarrior]

Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?

Speeding is actually a good example, I'll bite. For it to be analogous, we have to describe it as "fining people for driving their own cars", though. Driving cars is more socially acceptable than inciting murderous riots (just about), so fining people for driving cars seems, on the whole, much sillier than what OP is complaining about.

America is so un-free. It fines people for driving their own cars. What's next, requiring a license to make toast in your own DAMN toaster?! :(

[Rushy]

Speeding is actually a good example, I'll bite. For it to be analogous, we have to describe it as "fining people for driving their own cars", though. Driving cars is more socially acceptable than inciting murderous riots (just about), so fining people for driving cars seems, on the whole, much sillier than what OP is complaining about.

America is so un-free. It fines people for driving their own cars. What's next, requiring a license to make toast in your own DAMN toaster?! :(

Pete, I know it's hard to comprehend, because your mind has been poisoned by the serious lack of freedom of speech, but angrily yelling at a police officer and making rude gestures is actually not equivalent to murdering him.

There are laws in the UK which restrict what you can say and do, there are laws in the US which do the same.

The laws in the UK that restrict what you can say and what you can do are far more vague, far more oppressive, and far more, dare I say, silly than the ones in the US.

[Pete Svarrior]

Pete, I know it's hard to comprehend, because your mind has been poisoned by the serious lack of freedom of speech, but angrily yelling at a police officer and making rude gestures is actually not equivalent to murdering him.

Right, but we've already established that that premise of your argument is largely just your imagination, so repeating it for emphasis doesn't change much.

The laws in the UK that restrict what you can say and what you can do are far more vague, far more oppressive, and far more, dare I say, silly than the ones in the US.

Right, but we already showed you why the inverse is the case, so you're gonna have to do a little more than just repeat your idea.

It's a good scam though - America keeps dipping lower and lower in Freedom House benchmarks while obsessively muttering "land of the free, home of the brave, land of the free, home of the brave" to itself. A nation whose very mythos is on life support. Wake up, y'all.

[AATW]

I’ll just leave this here

https://www.onelegal.com/blog/funny-us-laws-that-might-surprise-you/

#landofthefree

[Roundy]

Do you really think speeding is a "silly law"?

Speeding is actually a good example, I'll bite. For it to be analogous, we have to describe it as "fining people for driving their own cars", though. Driving cars is more socially acceptable than inciting murderous riots (just about), so fining people for driving cars seems, on the whole, much sillier than what OP is complaining about.

I mean...

40,990 people
The agency estimates that 40,990 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2023, a decrease of about 3.6% as compared to 42,514 fatalities reported to have occurred in 2022. The fourth quarter of 2023 represents the seventh consecutive quarterly decline in fatalities beginning with the second quarter of 2022.Apr 1, 2024
https://www.nhtsa.gov › press-releases
NHTSA Releases 2022 Traffic Deaths, 2023 Early Estimates

So 41,000 lost lives due mostly to people disobeying traffic laws. How many deaths were there in "murderous riots" in the US last year? Or if you prefer, almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured in the UK in traffic fatalities last year. What's the equivalent number that died or were seriously injured in "murderous riots" last year?

Lol, what a silly argument you tried to make to defend a silly law! Actually I'd say that given the numbers it's a tragedy that speeding is considered more socially acceptable than inciting "murderous riots"!

[Pongo]

Laws pretty much by definition restrict your freedom. They dictate what you must or must not do.

No, many laws grant freedoms. In the States there are multiple amendments that grant freedoms as well other Federal and State laws. The fact that you think laws "by definition restrict your freedom" speaks volumes about the views you've developed under an oppressive regime.

[Pete Svarrior]

So 41,000 lost lives due mostly to people disobeying traffic laws. How many deaths were there in "murderous riots" in the US last year? Or if you prefer, almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured in the UK in traffic fatalities last year. What's the equivalent number that died or were seriously injured in "murderous riots" last year?

Damn, so you're pointing out that your preferred law doesn't even effectively prevent deaths, while incidents where BLM and/or anti-immigration fascists set people on fire are largely handled preventatively. That sure is a take, if you wanted to make your argument a little weaker.

And, of course, that is before you remember that speeding is not the sole cause of all traffic accidents, or before you remember that more people drive cars than set immigrants on fire, so your metrics are a crime against data science. Yes, I mean crime. You're under arrest, and we're sending you to Rwanda.

Thank the Lord™ we don't take cues from the likes of you when deciding our laws - things would get real bad real quickly! It's so silly that you want to literally arrest poor, innocent sixty-somethings for just driving their cars. ;(

[Roundy]

So 41,000 lost lives due mostly to people disobeying traffic laws. How many deaths were there in "murderous riots" in the US last year? Or if you prefer, almost 30,000 people were killed or seriously injured in the UK in traffic fatalities last year. What's the equivalent number that died or were seriously injured in "murderous riots" last year?

Damn, so you're pointing out that your preferred law doesn't even effectively prevent deaths, while incidents where BLM and/or anti-immigration fascists set people on fire are largely handled preventatively. That sure is a take, if you wanted to make your argument a little weaker.

And, of course, that is before you remember that speeding is not the sole cause of all traffic accidents, or before you remember that more people drive cars than set immigrants on fire, so your metrics are a crime against data science. Yes, I mean crime. You're under arrest, and we're sending you to Rwanda.

Thank the Lord™ we don't take cues from the likes of you when deciding our laws - things would get real bad real quickly! It's so silly that you want to literally arrest poor, innocent sixty-somethings for just driving their cars. ;(

Interesting... You are literally saying that the circumstances are too different to even try to compare them, and somehow you think that helps YOUR argument that wholly depends on us comparing the two. Way to undermine your own argument!

[AATW]

Laws pretty much by definition restrict your freedom. They dictate what you must or must not do.

No, many laws grant freedoms

So many that you couldn’t name one.
Even if you are right, many laws say what you must or must not do. They restrict your freedom. But if you’re so free then sure, you just drive how you like and see how that goes.

[Pongo]

So many that you couldn’t name one.

Did you think that was a checkmate? There are so many laws that grant freedoms that it felt silly listing a few. If you had taken even the smallest bit of time to look you could have saved yourself this embarrassment:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=laws+that+grant+freedoms

[Pete Svarrior]

Interesting... You are literally saying that the circumstances are too different to even try to compare them, and somehow you think that helps YOUR argument that wholly depends on us comparing the two. Way to undermine your own argument!

Congratulations - you are beginning to understand the OP!  You're not quite there yet with mine, though - mine doesn't rely on comparing the two as if they were equal or comparable, but rather on inverting the inequality for rhetorical effect. You'll get there, eventually.

[Roundy]

I can't think of a proper response that would validate my inflated sense of superiority so I'm just gonna insult your intelligence.

Oh, ok. Please let me know if you do think of something.

[Pete Svarrior]

Well, no - I told you exactly what your error is, and me using your own tone shouldn't be a surprising to you after all these years. But I do undersand why you'd like to play the fallacy fallacy card at this stage. You really did stuff it up.

[AATW]

There are so many laws that grant freedoms that it felt silly listing a few.

Your continued inability to list one is noted.
But you are trying to avoid the point - even if it's not true of all laws, you have many laws which restrict your freedoms. So do we. So does any functioning society. Overall I would say the US is a fairly free country but so is the UK. According this attempt to quantify things we actually do a bit better than you in that regard:

https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-states/freedom-world/2024
https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-world/2024

Your mistake is that while you're waving your little flags, chanting "U-S-A" and celebrating your freedom you believe yourself to be somehow exceptional in this regard. You are not. You're not the most free country in the world, you're not even in the top 10

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country

[Rushy]

Right, but we've already established that that premise of your argument is largely just your imagination, so repeating it for emphasis doesn't change much.

Alright, so since I'm the one imagining things and you are the harbinger of truth, do you have anything to back up your claims? And since I'm generous, let's focus just on this one man. Did you read something in the news to indicate that he went around doing something violent (and no, a police report doesn't count!)? I haven't seen any and you obviously have, but you keep not linking it, so I think that's a bit curious.

I have a sneaking suspicion that your claim is based only on the output of your corrupt justice system and, coincidentally, contains further claims only put forward by people who are incentivized to make them. That would also be quite a bit curious, wouldn't it? Authoritarianism always has a funny way of self-justifying with that sort of circular logic. "Well the police said he's a big meaniehead and the police wouldn't lie about that!"

So many that you couldn’t name one.
Even if you are right, many laws say what you must or must not do. They restrict your freedom. But if you’re so free then sure, you just drive how you like and see how that goes.

So, am I to assume you've given up on debating about freedom of speech and you've moved on to... whatever this is?...

[AATW]

So, am I to assume you've given up on debating about freedom of speech and you've moved on to... whatever this is?...

Freedom of speech is just one aspect of living in a free society. Your argument seems to be that we don’t have freedom of speech in the UK because people can be jailed for things they say online. Which is both true and rare. And when I provided an example of that exact same thing in the US your response was along the lines of “well that doesn’t count”. So…

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can literally say anything you like. Both the US and the UK have protections for free speech and limits to that too. Your claim is:

The laws in the UK that restrict what you can say and what you can do are far more vague, far more oppressive, and far more, dare I say, silly than the ones in the US.

Far more vague is incorrect - Pete has gone in to some detail about how they are defined.
Far more oppressive is incorrect too according to the freedom indexes I have linked to.
Far more silly - I disagree. There have been occasional silly cases (look up the heil Hitler dog thing). But those are very much the exception not the rule.
In general we do have a pretty high level of freedom of speech over here. The trouble with you lot thinking you are “THE land of the free” is it implies you’re the only one. You aren’t.