posted
Please note: this topic is titled "comparison of Hitler to Ender", Not "Ender to Hitler". Therefore, anyone taking offense to any objective statement made here on behalf of Ender or the Cards I will ask not to post here.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I did not post this in defence of the horrid women who wrote the article, but I would like to say that I could see how Ender would be mistaken for Hitler in some ways not all.
That, by itself should completely disqualify all derogatory and remarks with regard to this persons argument. Instead there were not only impolite replies, but far worse, a whole bunch of people decided to take this moment to be gang bangers! This Sickens Me. Really Bothers Me. IT IS NOT RIGHT. There is no justification for this. It's all the worse because this person probably would have made a worthy addition to the forum, had he/she been given time to get to know us. The fact that his/her history may not(Hitler did hate and fear the Jews, whether or not there was any reason for him to do so) have been entirely accurate is not grounds for public flogging; we are all going to do that now and again, and though some more than others, nobody's always right. (I do recognize that not everybody that was arguing against Gabriel is a guilty party)
As for a comparison and contrasting of Hitler to Ender:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hitler sought power. Ender did not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a great point.
Horsepuckey. That is so completely and totally not the point I don't think it's even worth discussing save to say this: Peter was by no means Hitler either. Ender Believed he had no choice, and he had a sane reason(I will specify a second time if you wish). Hitler had no sane reason.
That may not have been the only difference in their backgrounds, or their beings, but it was pretty much the only difference between their acts(or, if you want to think about this way, between Hitler's acts and Graff's or whoever's).
Hitler was being insane. Ender was being a man. Hitler was a tyrant. Ender was a hero. The line between tyrant and hero can be so infintesimally small... but it is still there, very definitely there. Correct me if I'm wrong, Uncle Orson, *looks up at sky * but didn't you sort of mean to portray that in Ender's game? Maybe not, but that's one thing I got partly out that great book.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reading the thread all the way through, I saw that while very few people were bashing Gabriel, the ones who discussed his posts directly were very polite. What rivka did to great effect was show that Gabe's arguments were weak and had no basis in fact whatsoever. When someone tried to congratulate her for 'bashing' Gabe, she prompty said that she meant to do no such thing, only correct Gabe's mistakes. And Gabe hasn't posted in that thread since, or anywhere else that I can really see, without so much as an angry "I hate hatrack" post. Maybe we chased him off. Maybe he just lost interest. I have no clue, seeing as how I'm not him.
I fail to see your point that the actions of a few people contributed to any such "inadvertant suppression of free speech."
posted
I'm fairly certain Gabriel hasn't disappeared -- merely took a new screen name.
If I'm wrong, and he has left Hatrack, it makes me a little sad. He seemed nice enough, just not well informed about certain historical facts.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen us go over this time and again. Free speech is not protected on this forum. The forum is owned by Orson Scott Card, who continues to offer it as a public service despite the frequent attacks directed at him from it. (Hey, come on everyone, I've got sun's hands pinned, you go for the armpits!) Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Horsepucky yourself, suntranafs. I did not jump on Gabe in defense of the Cards or of a fictional character, so his disclaimer that you quoted is irrelevant to me. I criticized him for posting antisemitic ignorance without bothering to get the facts. If he thinks his reaction was harsh here, he should try posting that load of garbage on the other side.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, regardless of whether or not free speech is promised here, nobody suppressed his. Frankly, this is a testimony to the tolerance of the Cards.
The constitution protects your rights to say what you want, but it doesn't force people to listen, to take you seriously, or to treat you with respect if you say something idiotic. Those of us who jumped on Gabe were exercising our own rights to free speech.
Too many people have a completely mistaken impression of what free speech entails. Not being a moderator here, I am incapable of suppressing anybody's speech.
As a matter of fact, I believe I quite nicely thanked the Cards for the tolerance to what was obviously painful, so that folks could discuss it in a reasonable fashion.
And granted, Achilles would be a much more likely candidate for comparison to Hitler-wanna-be's, but I think it's interesting to think about what the reasons are that kept Peter from emulating Hitler or any of the other notorious/evil/makers of-really-poor-choices-conquerers that the adults around him worried about. So, horsepuckey yourself, as Icky said. The seeking if power is a valid comparison point. Ender had it shoved down is throat, repeatedly, because he knew what to do with it, even if only subconsciously. Peter sought power - he was very intentional and planned about.
I also think getting some historical truths regarding WWII pointed out (such as rivka did) is critical in a thread like that which is what many folks tried to do. Bully for them!
posted
I did not leave the forum nor did I get a new name. I simply like to argue and I haven't found anything else that I would like to argue on. Rivka got me...I simply couldn't think of anything else to say...So I stopped until now...I have a gift for arguing (well most of the time). I come up with a bunch of crap off the top of my head sometimes I win sometimes I loose this time I lost. I like to play the Devil's Advocate...Defend the defenseless hence why I chose Hitler in the argument. Please take nothing I said to heart, but if you do I don't blame you. I tend to be very convincing at times on my personality if I want you to think something most of the time I can make you and none of you know me personally so you can't really say who I am as an individual. Thats the beauty of it. I would like you all to know though that I was not offended by anything you said I merely lost an arguement. I did not feel as though my freedom of speech was taken away. I just could not think of anything to say in response to Rivka's post. Shes a very good writer. She also did her homework which I did not do before I posted, however I should have, I will not make the same mistake twice. P.S. Thanks Suntranafs for the concern, however, it was not needed.
[ November 07, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Gabriel ]
Posts: 12 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Others here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that people post here at Hatrack just to learn how to manipulate people.
If your purpose for entering into debates is only to hone your manipulative skills, I don't think that the people here are going to keep the "Welcome Mat" out for you for too long.
If you want to present ideas for discussion and debate, then this is a wonderful place to be.
But something you said:
quote:I tend to be very convincing at times on my personality if I want you to think something most of the time I can make you
and
quote:I come up with a bunch of crap off the top of my head sometimes I win sometimes I loose this time I lost
makes me think that you're tending more towards the "likes to manipulate others" side of the scale, as opposed to "likes to present, discuss and debate ideas" side.
posted
I'm sorry if I came off that way but thats not what I meant at all. I did not mean to make you think I came here just to argue and minipulate. I want to post topics I want to debate different things. I just tend to be minipulative at times and when I enter an argument I try to make everyone see things my way. I'm stubborn I can't help it. However I do know how to stop myself after being kicked in the nuts, in reference to Rivka's post, the worst thing that can happen to a person is getting kicked while there down. If I were to respond to her post she would have come back on me maybe worst then she did before. That probably wouldn't have been too pretty. I was in no way trying to make everyone think that I came here to be a pest. To try to argue every point I thought I could win. I'm not trying to sharpen my "munipulative skills". I just tend to be like that in an argument. I think thats why I chose to be a lawyer. That may make me seem like everything I just said I wasn't, but its your call.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or you might be comparing rivka to my little sister.
Anyway, Gabe, I too am a debate monger. I find the best way to start a debate is not to make something up, but to pick a principle that some people accept (but not the majority), and argue that point. And, of course, you'll come off more convincingly if you argue something you believe in.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gabe, I completely know what you mean. Around here, generally, if there's a negative way to take someone's words, that's the way they're going to be taken.
When I'm in arguments with people in real life I'll sometimes make things up that I'm pretty sure are right, here' you'll be callled on it everytime. People here will look things up if they're not sure, and since this is an online discussion, that's much easier than in a real argument. It's really a completely different kind of communication.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: (I do recognize that not everybody that was arguing against Gabriel is a guilty party)
I was refering to you. Apologies if I you thought I implied otherwise. Whether or not Gabe realizes it, I think it's pretty fair to say that you meant nothing harmful in your posts(on the contrary), as opposed to some other obvious folks, notably the people who applauded you for "smashing Gabriel" and the -insert foul insult here-(that'd be megachirops) who called Gabe an anti-semite because he disagreed with something he said.
posted
"I've seen us go over this time and again. Free speech is not protected on this forum."
Yeah it is.
"The forum is owned by Orson Scott Card..."
And I guarantee you, Pooka, that Orson Scott Card will attempt to protect free speech on this forum to a great extent. I that were not the case, I would not post here.
Megachirops said: " Not being a moderator here, I am incapable of suppressing anybody's speech."
That's where you're wrong. If Gabe had been affected, than though that was not your exact intent, you would have been guilty as charged. Believe it or not, but in my State at least, there are laws against saying things with signifigant probability to incite an attack. Calling someone an antisemite could most certainly start a fight. Since there is no equivalent response to an insult except to leave, since another insult says nothing, an insult can effectively oppress free speech. Fortunately, since Gabe is neither sensitive nor weak spirited, no serious harm has been done- but there is a ideal here that should be well observed and cannot be ignored.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not call Gabe an anti-semite. I said his post contained anti-semitic statements. I'm perfectly willing to grant that those statements stemmed not from a predisposition against Jews, but from simple ignorance instead (a condition acknowledged by Gabe and denmonstrated by rivka). If you can stop spewing horsepucky long enough to read the thread in question, you will also notice that I did not ever post any sort of applause or celebration of "smashing" Gabriel. These aren't boxing matches. I don't get all excited to see somebody taken down a notch.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and the statements in that post were wrong, and being presented as truths that we were simply not well-read enough to know. Gabe has admitted that he was pulling them out of his rectum; I wonder what's wrong with you that you take such extreme exception to my criticism of somebody who makes such statements with no basis in fact on such a sensitive issue. And you are out of line when you suggest that I insult people when I disagree with them. I sometimes insult people when they are obnoxious, as you frequently are, but over the course of two years and over 5000 posts here, I have earned a reputation as somebody who engages in polite discussion, not as a sport, but in order to understand other people and positions better. On the other side, I am currently engaged in several debates where I have not resorted to name calling or responded with vitriol against individual posters--unlike you, I might add. When I have something to say, I give it a lot of thought if I want to be taken seriously (hence my statement last night which you saw fit to parody). I present evidence or at least justifications for my beliefs. When I present evidence, I get my facts right. I don't make things up for the sake of scoring points in debates. I'm not in high school and this is not Forensics League. People who don't want to take the effort to do likewise insult the rest of us by wasting our time with lies. I welcome them to the fluff threads, but I wish they would stay out of serious threads until they have something to add, whether it agrees with me or not.
There is a real issue on this side with people who want to spew forth in discussions without bothering to read through the rest of the thread or get their facts straight. For instance, in the thread in question, one person "responded" to me without any sort of understanding of what it was I had said to S. Watson--which, you may notice, was respectful and polite and gentle despite my objection his or her intentions. Another person responded to a post made by somebody else--by Gabriel, in fact--calling me out on it!!
And this is to say nothing of your asinine claims that I and people like me have "suppressed" free speech, when in fact both threads are evidence that Hatrack will bend over backward to suffer fools.
Actually, the only person on this thread who has shown any tendency to insult people in you--or is your cowardly "insult foul insult here" not to be scored as an insult?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Free speech is not protected on this forum. Put in a nice juicy insult to me--instead of a cowardly pretend insult--and maybe you'll get to see. I certainly have seen enough threads locked, deleted, and edited, to know this is true. Actually, you don't have to look too hard on this side to find one.
And I am not being critical. I support the right of the Cards--and their appointed agents--to decide that enough is enough when their guests are rude.
As far as the rest of the natterings in your post . . . frankly, I find it about as incoherent as the article you quoted in the racism thread. Inciting a what? I don't know what country you live in, but in the US it is not illegal anywhere for me to tell somebody that I consider something they have said to be antisemitic, racist, or just plain stupid. (Or for me to tell people to look up the words "effect," "affect," "than," and "then.")
And once again, I did not call Gabe an antisemite, nor did I insult him. I stand by my description of his post, though. You, however, have insulted me.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I haven't been here long, but that was the most I have ever seen Mega write. To me he comes off as one of those guys who can make his case with one or two sentences. Oviously he needed more then that this time. For the record I was not insulted by anything he said he was completely right about me. I appologize to everyone for my rude behavior. Also I want to appologize to Rivka I did not mean for everyone to think you attacked me or for me to sound like I thought you attacked me. I am sorry forgive me. Ssywak I beleive I have a similar shirt only it states the best lawyers are women. I don't know where this I am a male came up at. I am a 26 year old female lawyer unmarried, no children...Just alot of animals and a computer. Posts: 12 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think blacwolve made some good points. This is an entirely different mode of communication. Facial expressions, body language, inflections in your voice, none of that comes through on a message board. So a concious effort needs to be made to communicate that information in your posts, to show that no feelings are hurt, or you're just saying things in the spirit of debate, or whatever the situation is.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to avoid any of your fellow graduates in the case that I'm ever in trouble.
I was worried that they wouldn't let me graduate High School if I didn't have a remedial grasp of the English language.
Actually, I don't think anyone believes that you're a "26 year old female lawyer unmarried, no children", so you might start your Hatrack experience by coming clean with us.
We're honest people, I believe, and we expect the same of new members.
Sorry to be gruff, but you didn't exactly impress anyone with your trolling.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid I have to back Frisco on this, Gabriel. You have made numerous spelling, grammar, and logic errors in only a handful of posts. I would be surprised if you have graduated law school or passed the bar. My apologies if this is not the case.
For that matter, S. Watson's original Hitler=Ender thread was suspicious. Who would open up a such contraversial thread, challenging an author on his own forum on their first and only post, and then never post again?? Smells fishy to me.
Don't take my suspicious nature personally--my right hand doesn't trust my left. In fact, my right thumb has it in for my right pinkie. But I was proven right (provisionally) the last time I suspected someone of being a BS artist.
We have plenty of other BS artists here, that's for sure, including me. But I try (sometimes not sucessfully) to confine my BS, pranks, and just making crap up to the fluff threads and try to be as honest as possible on the serious threads.
posted
"And you are out of line when you suggest that I insult people when I disagree with them."
I'll allow that it's possible you did not intend to insult, but to say "I criticized him for posting antisemitic ignorance"
is to insult, because ignorance is not antisemitic, people are. If you didn't want a statement like that, and whatever was on the other thread, taken as an insult, then you should said so.
"Free speech is not protected on this forum. Put in a nice juicy insult to me--instead of a cowardly pretend insult--and maybe you'll get to see. I certainly have seen enough threads locked, deleted, and edited, to know this is true"
That's because one person's rights stop where another's begins. Which is more or less what I started out trying to say- if you don't have something nice to say, try keepin' it halfway polite.
"...over the course of two years and over 5000 posts here, I have earned a reputation as somebody who engages in polite discussion, not as a sport, but in order to understand other people and positions better. On the other side, I am currently engaged in several debates where I have not resorted to name calling or responded with vitriol against individual posters...--"
Bully for you, but reputation means nothing.
"I don't know what country you live in, but in the US it is not illegal anywhere for me to tell somebody that I consider something they have said to be antisemitic, racist, or just plain stupid."
I live the USA. If you say that you consider something someone says to be one of those things, and state it without proper qualification in the right way, and they attack you, then you are partly to blame in the eyes of the law. Neither the fact that there is no juridiction of that law here, nor the fact that Gabriel did not take offense should have any affect on your moral outlook.
"Actually, the only person on this thread who has shown any tendency to insult people in you--or is your cowardly "insult foul insult here" not to be scored as an insult?"
hmm, well the emotional response to that, since it's not currently possible to attack you would be to say you're a ------- ------- (if you want to know the insult just send me an e-mail) But since I rather pride myself to not go only on my emotions- though I really don't like being called a coward- I'll just say this: I thought about givng you a real insult, but I realized that 1. it would be Ad Hominum, and therefore not logical and 2. considering the ingrained lack of communication on an internet forum, I realized that therewas no 'juicy' insult that I could say for certain was true, and therefore it was not worth being illogical over. I really think this is getting out of hand between us, and therefore I'm going to request that you send me an e-mail(since I can't get your address) telling me what all you're pissed at me for. I posted this on the forum instead of sending e-mails because I wanted to fight a case for an ideal, and we are apparently now in a personal argument, one that I would prefer not to be in, specially considering the fact that I don't really have a good idea of whether I am arguing with an _________<insert real bad insult, or whether you're a great guy and we just have a mis-communication problem. Either way, I'd prefer not to burden the forum with this. If you don't want to give me your address because you think I'll do something evil and cowardly with it, which I won't, then just make a new one, it's not hard to do.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gabriel (interesting sn for a woman to choose, btw) said:
quote: I am a 26 year old female lawyer unmarried, no children...Just alot of animals and a computer.
and yet his -- oops, sorry, her -- profile says:
quote: Occupation: Student
Gabriel has also admitted to making "facts" up off the top of his/her head. At least this time, the falsehoods aren't a defense of one of the vilest people in recent history.
posted
Whether or not Icarus was being insulting, sun, Gabriel has already admitted that he was spewing BS with the intent of riling people up.
He deserves whatever he got. What I don't understand is what you're all worked up about. I've read both threads, and can see no reason why your panties should be in such a wad.
Keep trying to turn this molehill into a mountain, but if I know Icarus, this is probably water under the bridge to him already.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you say that you consider something someone says to be one of those things, and state it without proper qualification in the right way, and they attack you, then you are partly to blame in the eyes of the law. Neither the fact that there is no juridiction of that law here, nor the fact that Gabriel did not take offense should have any affect on your moral outlook.
This does not make sense. The fact that the law does not apply here does not make a difference? Am I missing something here, or are you?
Look, Gabriel has admitted that he was essentially making stuff up, yet you continue to attack Icarus for calling him on his BS. Why? It isn't as if these were innocuous little details that he was making up. Look:
quote:Most of them were in office or what not...They were an influence despite popular beleif that is why they were so hated. They were taking from the Germans and Hitlers only way to gain there power was to have the Germans turn against them once and for all.
That is an anti-Semitic viewpoint, and it would make Gabriel an anti-Semite if not for the fact that he supposedly doesn't actually believe it. Icarus was merely calling a shitheap a shitheap.
posted
I'm mostly curious how long sun will continue insulting other people for criticizing Gabriel for his utterly made-up BS and anti-Semitic statements.
Gabriel isn't a lawyer. That's another lie.
Free speech cannot be "suppressed" by people who never even see each other and have no way at all of exacting punishment. If someone stopped spewing obvious BS, they CHOSE to do so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's where you're wrong. If Gabe had been affected, than though that was not your exact intent, you would have been guilty as charged. Believe it or not, but in my State at least, there are laws against saying things with signifigant probability to incite an attack. Calling someone an antisemite could most certainly start a fight. Since there is no equivalent response to an insult except to leave, since another insult says nothing, an insult can effectively oppress (suppress)free speech. Fortunately, since Gabe is neither sensitive nor weak spirited, no serious harm has been done- but there is a ideal here that should be well observed and cannot be ignored.
You're referring to what's known as "fighting words". For instance, I could not, in some states, get in your face, insult the dignity of your mother, swear at you, and otherwise profanely insult you and be blameless if a fight ensued. I'm not sure what the law is where you are, but sometimes that even lays the blame for a fight at the insulter's feet.
As to the rest of this quote, you're way out there. "Guilty as charged"? Charged with what? By whom? You?
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Point out to me where in there is anything pertaining to privately owned and operated Internet forums, much less comments without threats from one private citizen to another?
There are certainly more responses than simply leaving. You could rebutt their criticism, you could simply ignore it and continue as if they hadn't said anything, you could email them privately, you could get into a loud fight, you could reach an agreement, etc.
Frankly Gabriel wouldn't make a worthy addition to the forum as s/he exists now because, as s/he's said, it was all completely made-up BS designed to get a reaction. You might consider that worthwhile, but fortunately most Jatraqueros disagree.
What's the moral of the story? Quit your whining and read the Bill of Rights sometime, you lackwit. All of our freedoms are worthless if they're so poorly understood as you understand the First Amendmant. You understand the law about as much as the "lawyer" Gabriel.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Quit your whining and read the Bill of Rights sometime, you lackwit. All of our freedoms are worthless if they're so poorly understood as you understand the First Amendmant."
Temper, temper Mon Capitan.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point out to me where in there is anything pertaining to privately owned and operated Internet forums,"
There seems to be a misunderstanding. I was never refering to the constitutional law, but rather to the moral on which it is based. I also pointed out that to a great extent, the moderators of this forum would support that moral. Clear now?
"You're referring to what's known as "fighting words". For instance, I could not, in some states, get in your face, insult the dignity of your mother, swear at you, and otherwise profanely insult you and be blameless if a fight ensued. I'm not sure what the law is where you are, but sometimes that even lays the blame for a fight at the insulter's feet."
That is correct. Also, I'm sure that calling someone a liar and anti-semite could easily fall under that law. So I'm not sure where you disagree unless you somehow think that the absence of the enforcement of the law, and therefore the absence of the law itself, means the absence of the moral behind it.
This discussion is becoming more and more interesting. Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, i have watched a couple of trials deplicting the rights of the first ammendment. As it is that each person that reads a book will take something from it that the next person will not. Similar, the ammendments COULD be understood differently, and they have. Oh, gee... ive forgotten my point... help, someone... pick up...!! Posts: 100 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what the heck it has to do with the topic, but I'm fairly sure your point is that the ammendments are subjective? Or Not.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So getting back to the thread title, what about "inadvertent suppression"? You seem to be complaining that my expression of my opinions is impinging on someone else's freedom?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm not sure you're a guilty party, pook, but if you express your opinion in an insulting manner you can shout people down.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But your statement that I will be suppressing someone’s free speech based on what I say has made me reticent to say what I really want to say for fear that it will stop someone else from saying what they really want to say and therefore, as you say, suppress their free speech.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There seems to be a misunderstanding. I was never refering to the constitutional law, but rather to the moral on which it is based. I also pointed out that to a great extent, the moderators of this forum would support that moral. Clear now?
The "moral" behind that part of the consitution isn't that it's wrong for individuals to tell other individuals to shut up, but that it's wrong for the government to force them to shut up.
quote:That is correct. Also, I'm sure that calling someone a liar and anti-semite could easily fall under that law.
So could saying anti-semitic things, no? For example, telling a Jew that Hitler only killed the Jews because they were stealing from the Germans, so they deserved it anyway.
And if there's no possibility of a fight occurring in the first place, the law is irrelevant. It has as much bearing on what is said on this forum as seatbelt laws have on bicyclists.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The "moral" behind that part of the consitution isn't that it's wrong for individuals to tell other individuals to shut up
Oh, dear ae, how do I think you're full of crap, let me count the ways... Except under rare circumstances, it is wrong to tell others shut up, and it is neither respected by any I respect, nor will it neccessarily be tolerated by the moderators on this forum. *diggity diggity diggity dig la-de-dum-de-doo-de-day*
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I wonder why they put that in there... they couldn't have had a reason, could they have?
"For example, telling a Jew that Hitler only killed the Jews because they were stealing from the Germans, so they deserved it anyway."
Yeah, I'd agree that that's a bit on the antisemitic side, to put it very mildly. One minor detail comes to mind though- GABRIEL DID NOT SAY THAT! Go back and re-read, she did not say that or any logical equivalent. The only offense- use of the word stealing. She used the word to refer to jobs and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a metaphor. An insensitive one perhaps, but pardonable, for after all, she was trying to write from the German perspective. And no, I'm afraid writing from that, or any other perspective is rarely a crime, and even if it was, the German people circa 1932-1945 were no better or worse or less or more than any other people, just their leadership was horrible, and they made the mistake of supporting it.
"And if there's no possibility of a fight occurring in the first place, the law is irrelevant. It has as much bearing on what is said on this forum as seatbelt laws have on bicyclists."
Will you look at what you're writing? You're saying that because you can't be attacked, its not immoral to make someone want to attack you. That's like saying let's nuke Japan off the map cause they won't fight back.
posted
"But your statement that I will be suppressing someone’s free speech based on what I say has made me reticent to say what I really want to say for fear that it will stop someone else from saying what they really want to say and therefore, as you say, suppress their free speech."
Took me a minute to figure out what you were saying there, Dagonee, and when I did... Oooooo, he turning it around on me. And you do have a good point, but I still have to maintain that you should remain reticent unless you have something to say other than an insult. I realize that I may have been coming on a little strong. Although insulting a group is markedly different from insulting an individual, I apologize if I did not try hard enough to refrain from insulting.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
* but didn't you sort of mean to portray that in Ender's game? Maybe not, but that's one thing I got partly out that great book.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Trog
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't know what to say.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm not sure what the heck it has to do with the topic, but I'm fairly sure your point is that the ammendments are subjective?![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
