posted
"It is better to speak and be thought a fool than to be silent and remove all doubt that you want to stay one." -suntranafs Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except under rare circumstances, it is wrong to tell others shut up
Substantiate this claim. Define your terms.
quote:"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?
So what do you think their reason was?
quote: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!
The only part of that which he (I do not believe Gabriel is a she) didn't say was the "they deserved it" bit.
quote: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.
That doesn't make one whit of difference. "They're stealing our jobs" is the rallying cry of bigots and xenophobes everywhere.
quote:An insensitive one perhaps, but pardonable, for after all, she was trying to write from the German perspective.
Oh really? I quote, once more:
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.
The bit in bold there indicates that Gabriel was not merely trying to portray the German perspective of the time. He was making a factual claim, one which he himself later admitted he pulled out of his arse!
quote:And no, I'm afraid writing from that, or any other perspective is rarely a crime
Well, I'm just trying to write from the perspective of someone who thinks Gabriel's an anti-Semitic idiot and you're just a common or garden-variety idiot. Nothing wrong with that, right, according to you?
quote: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.
I'm saying that because a fight is impossible, laws which apply to fights are irrelevant here. You know, just as laws which apply to governments are irrelevant to individuals.
Seriously, are you really unable to grasp this concept?
quote:That's like saying let's nuke Japan off the map cause they won't fight back.
posted
"Well, I'm just trying to write from the perspective of someone who thinks Gabriel's an anti-Semitic idiot and you're just a common or garden-variety idiot. Nothing wrong with that, right, according to you?"
Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying general perspective. Shouldn't have been neccessary, though- you're twisting my words. However, strictly speaking, I do not have a problem with your current perspective, I just disagree with your argument.
quote: The only part of that which he (I do not believe Gabriel is a she) didn't say was the "they deserved it" bit.
Again you twist words. You can't pick bits here and there out of someone's post and say that's what they meant, it doesn't work that way.
"quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Except under rare circumstances, it is wrong to tell others shut up --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantiate this claim. Define your terms."
That is not neccessary. I am not willing to give you the time of day on this one because civilized society agrees with me.
quote: "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? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what do you think their reason was?
Now look, I know there are no stupid questions and that there are only stupid answers, but that one is so close to being a stupid question... but here: It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted.
quote: 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bit in bold there indicates that Gabriel was not merely trying to portray the German perspective of the time. He was making a factual claim, one which he himself later admitted he pulled out of his arse!
Hoh Hum. For some stupid reason I seem to be thinking that that came from not just a different part of a post but an entirely different post than the passage about 'stealing jobs'.
"Seriously, are you really unable to grasp this concept?"
I have a concept for you to try and grasp, its called the simple truth. And your own self.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why doesn't it give me the right to insult you?-or tell you to shut up? You never explained that.
Gabriel was speaking from an idiotic anti-semitic perspective without telling us it wasn't her own. Thus. . .
Posts: 767 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted.
Sun, if I may ask, is that your own interpretation, or did you hear it somewhere or from someone else? I'd never heard it interpreted that way. Not even close, in fact. That isn't to say that you're wrong -- though that's not what I think it means -- but I don't think it's a stupid question, because it can certainly have different answers, none of which are necessarily proven accurate. Determining motivation is always uncertain.
quote:Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying general perspective. Shouldn't have been neccessary, though- you're twisting my words.
I am doing no such thing. If claiming—after the fact!—that one was merely trying to convey a perspective other than one's own is sufficient justification for spouting anti-Semitic crap, it's sufficient justification for anything. It's the logical consequence of your stand; no twisting is required.
quote:Again you twist words. You can't pick bits here and there out of someone's post and say that's what they meant, it doesn't work that way.
You want I should quote everything Gabriel's ever said? Nonsense. I and other people have pointed out specific occurrences of anti-Semitic sentiment and just plain crap; that is sufficient.
quote:That is not neccessary. I am not willing to give you the time of day on this one because civilized society agrees with me.
What an excellent justification! "Society agrees with me, so I don't need to explain my reasoning to anybody." I hardly need to point out the flaws in this line of reasoning; suffice it to say that it would involve Godwin's Rule.
quote:Now look, I know there are no stupid questions and that there are only stupid answers, but that one is so close to being a stupid question...
Practice what you preach, compadre. If I'm not allowed to insult people, you aren't, either.
quote:It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted.
Bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. Far from meaning that I'm not allowed to insult other people or tell them to shut up, that part of the Constitution would—if I were in fact an American citizen—actually guarantees me the right to insult them and tell them to shut up. On the other hand, they have the right to do the same thing to me, and also the right to decline to shut up when I tell them to. Perhaps you need a lawyer like Gabriel to explain this concept to you?
quote:Hoh Hum. For some stupid reason I seem to be thinking that that came from not just a different part of a post but an entirely different post than the passage about 'stealing jobs'.
That is immaterial. Barring multiple-personality disorder, statements like "They were an influence despite popular beleif" are sufficient evidence that Gabriel was not merely role-playing the German perspective of the time, but actually making factual claims. They do not all need to occur in the same post for this to be clear.
And by the way, I'm still not going to let you get away with this—I'm going to put it in bold so you can't claim to have missed it—Gabriel himself has admitted to making up evidence ("a bunch of crap off the top of my head") in order to quote-unquote manipulate people into "see[ing] things [his] way! LYING! Why on EARTH do you feel that we owe him politeness or even, of all things, an apology? Please, explain this to me.Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't followed this whole thread, so maybe this has been said already, but ...
How does telling someone to shut up actually prevent them from speaking their mind? If someone wants to be heard, particularly on a forum like this, no amount of "Shut up! Shut up! I'm not listening! La la la!" can actually shut them up.
Personally, I think it's a good thing when one person is being a giant jerk, and the horrified reactions he gets from other people actually encourage him to rethink his behavior. Now, this can be a fine line to walk, because Political Correctness operates on the same principle, and that can be pretty counterproductive. Still, though, disapproval of someone's opinion is certainly a valid response, and worthy of protection as the original idea. How far would we get if every time anyone expressed an idiotic, counterproductive opinion, the only allowable response was, "Ooh, good point!" At some point, we need to be able to call a spade a spade and say, "Shut up, you're doing more harm than good."
And I think you could probably find a much better test case than this to saddle your hobby-horse with. I mean, come on. Look at the quotes you're defending. There's got to be something else you can use.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Um, Geoff; you really aren't allowed to call spades spades anymore, anyhow. They are trowel-like garden implements. To call them anything else is completely morally reprehensible.
posted
"if I were in fact an American citizen—actually guarantees me the right to insult them and tell them to shut up."
Actually, the only country that you have a definite inalienable right to do either of those things is Asshole country- that's fact, not fiction. Just as your right to free expression does not give you the right to punch someone, your right to free speech does not give you the right to insult someone.
"Gabriel himself has admitted to making up evidence ("a bunch of crap off the top of my head") in order to quote-unquote manipulate people into "see[ing] things [his] way! LYING! Why on EARTH do you feel that we owe him politeness or even, of all things, an apology? Please, explain this to me."
Perhaps I will when Gabriel him/her self posts that confession, in exactly so many words. But until then, it is you I will consider, not Gabriel, to be misrepresenting the facts. I will grant, however, that it is quite annoying, and, yes, perhaps even dishonest, to post or say something that you know you cannot verify and that you know is at best speculation. Again, though, this does not mean those people cussing out Gabriel are justified in any sense, because they had no way of knowing that he/she was not giving an honest (non anti-semetic, I might add) opinion.
It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, if I may ask, is that your own interpretation, or did you hear it somewhere or from someone else? I'd never heard it interpreted that way. Not even close, in fact. That isn't to say that you're wrong -- though that's not what I think it means -- but I don't think it's a stupid question, because it can certainly have different answers, none of which are necessarily proven accurate. Determining motivation is always uncertain
Yep, its my own interpretation- which I happen to believe is close enough to the truth to post as fact. You are correct, it was -clearly- not a stupid question, because there are no stupid questions among honest questions. I am well aware that there is more than one answer, and that there are people who devote their entire lives to the study of the constitution. So the fact that you haven't heard that interpretation before doesn't really surprise me, but that is one of the definite, very important reasons why it is there.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The other main obvious side to this is that there are other rights in addition to the ones in the constitution because those rights haven't been stuck in there yet, thus the term "deny"[through ommision].(Such as my right to want to beat the crap out of someone for insulting me but to sue them for $5+ of emotional damage instead) I am fairly certain that this ammendment (9th, I think?), is at least one of the reasons they call the constitution a "living document." What I was talking about might be best fitted to "disparage" [through override].
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tru-speak right? That wouldn't be the first ammendment, anyway, it'd be the 9th, if you weren't wrong. *shakes head* What can yah do. What can yah do. Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alrighty, after reading this I simply couldn't resist registering if for no other reason than to put in my 2 cents worth. But since I have a healthy amount of self-knowledge I will undoubtedly compose a response verbose enough to carry a little more postage than that.
First Point: There is a commonly held opinion among those capable of properly using the English language that those who do not (either by choice or inability) are not as intelligent as those who do. I have no interest in arguing whether or not this opinion is valid. The point is that if you compose replies that are poor examples of English, are poorly organized, or otherwise not competant, many people are likely to dismiss them out of hand. While I'm sure there are many intelligent people out there who can aquit themselves admirably in intellectual conversation but lack a basic command of the native language of that conversation, general opinion of those arguments will not be as good. I'll leave it at that - no targets, no names. Just a little tidbit for everyone to think about.
Second Point: Gabriel is almost certainly not a lawyer. Yes, this has been said before, but I'll expand on it a little anyway. First, the poor use of English. I have a good personal friend who is a lawyer. He's young and certainly a bright guy, but he is not what you'd call a brilliant mind. Don't get me wrong - the guy is smart. It's just that I'd place him in the "average lawyer" category. He has an impressive command of the English language. Lawyers have to, or they can't draw up contracts and other legal documents with the requisite skill of the profession. They may not get all the literary aspects of the language that say, a writer would, but they do know how to write. (For instance, things like using "it's" instead of "its". A writer should most definitely not make that mistake, but it doesn't hurt a lawyer who undoubtedly has a paralegal or someone to proofread for him or her.) Second, Gabriel's complete lack of formatting is a definite indication of "non-lawyerness". (Yes, I know that isn't a word.) I've seen more than a few contracts and other legal documents in my days and they are arguably one of the most organized compositions you're likely to come across outside the realm of professional writers. Gabriel has a habit of smashing all his post into a single cumbersome paragraph. This is common among people have only the most basic English skills and have never composed documents for public consumption. I am not trying to make any kind of value judgements here - there's nothing wrong with not being able to write at a professional level, just as there's nothing wrong with not being able to calculate the force required to put a specific payload into Earth orbit. Certain jobs require certain knowledge. Unfortunately for Gabriel, he is not displaying knowledge that is known to be required of a lawyer. I suspect however, that he wants to be a lawyer and is not one because he is not yet old enough to have completed highschool. (This is just my personal assessment and is not necessarily true.)
Third Point: The constitutional right of freedom of speech does protect the rights of citizens to be rude or even downright insulting to one another. You do have the right to tell someone to shut up or even call them a retard or whatever. They then have the right to believe you or not. The only times that this freedom is limited are situations where it would infringe on the rights of others, which you so like to point out Sun. Which exact rights are it that calling someone a bad name infringes on? Their right to say something back? No, sorry that doesn't work. They still have the right. Even saying something so nasty that they lose the will to speak back is not in and of itself illegal. They have the right, but not the desire to exercise it. Frankly, someone so timid and easily controlled is a little pathetic in my view, but I also understand that such a value judgement is inappropriate and wrong. Read a little bit of Card's work: we often have opinions or jump to judgements that we ourselves intellectually disagree with. Heart and mind - two separate motivations that sometimes, but not always, are reconciled easily. The kinds of things that I suspect you have stuck in your mind Sun are situations where the freedom of speech is limited but you're personal moral code is over-extending them. For instance: shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Doing that can cause a panic that puts another person's right to life at risk. Shouting "Shut up!" to someone's face may provoke them, and a court of law may decide that your actions were a contributing factor if a fight were to break out but the reason behind that is that in those cases you were displaying sufficient aggression that the other party felt threatened. Making direct threats is similarly illegal because if they are taken seriously (which they must for safety's sake) again infringe on a person's right to life, liberty, and so on. The final situation where making statements is illegal is in the case of slander/libel. (Which incidentally doesn't always mean the statements themselves are false, but can also apply to true statements made in a particularly vicious way.)
Now to apply this to the issues at hand here, it is not illegal for someone to say that someone's statements are anti-semitic ignorance. You're just as free to call someone a moron as they are to say something moronic.
I can tell you to shut up, but that doesn't mean you have to. I can say you are impersonating a human being without a license and are guilty of criminal stupidity, but it doesn't mean that you are.
All it means is that I'm choosing to voice my opinions in inflammatory and (in my opinion) inapproprate ways. But there's no law against being inappropriate. It's just not polite.
If there was a law against saying things that hurt people's feelings or were impolite, we might as well just call Earth a penal colony.
As for the forum, there is no constitutional protection here for your freedom to speak. To be completely frank the administrators have every right to ban people because they were born on a Thursday. They don't, but they could. The only way that might not be true is if the server owners themselves have some sort of non-discrimination rule that the website owners had to agree to. But again, that has nothing to do with the US constitution and everything to do with the server owners.
Yeah, I knew this was going to get wordy. My writer's blood I suppose.
posted
"To be completely frank the administrators have every right to ban people because they were born on a Thursday. They don't, but they could. The only way that might not be true is if the server owners themselves have some sort of non-discrimination rule that the website owners had to agree to. But again, that has nothing to do with the US constitution and everything to do with the server owners."
Whether they have every right to do so is debateable, whether they are acting within the law is not, and I'm well aware that you're right with regard to this, and have stated as much.
Other than that, I'd have to agree with Rivka; that was a hell of a first post. While I may not agree with you assumptions and consequently your conclusions, I applaud your logic. As to our disagreements, perhaps I am actually in the minority(not that that neccessarily matters) in my interpretaion of the constitution, but I have a different view. I am glad that you at least are willing to accept my premise that one person's legal rights stop where another's begin. From this base we should be able to have a logical discussion. Before I start any such thing, I need to admit clearly a couple things:
1. First and foremost, I am building a castle on air, cause Gabriel simply doesn't give a rat's arse. Thus I am arguing the case, not the person, and so there is no case, because the person in question was not affronted, which is an initial assumption in the case.
2. Because of #1, my argument is theoretical rather than objective, and this rules out the possibility of a logical discussion with people, who in my humble opinion, are unable to use their imagination to see what might have been. This opinion is based on the fact that if people are not given one little thing, then government will end, anarchy will reign, civilization will crumble, and the human race may not survive, and that one little thing is the benefit of the doubt.
If either of these things are not clear, ask and I will try to explain. Otherwise I will continue.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and another one 3. With some selection, I often insult people I know in daily life, and sometimes even tell them to shut-up, and I would be plenty pissed off if the cops showed up one day and arrested or fined me for it! I would, in fact, think that my constitutional right to privacy and free speech had been violated. If, however, I went up to a complete stranger whom I had had little or no contact with (and btw, I tend not to treat strangers formally as such) and dealt such an insult to them, then I know damned well that I had better be ready to fight, because they are very nearly within their rights to physically attack me, because a verbal attack can be a physical attack, and is nearly treated that way legally. On forums, therefore, I refrain from insulting this way when I can contain myself, because doing so is cowardly and unjust, irregardless of the fact that we are outside the jurisdiction of the law.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent. It wasn't readily obvious that you were aware of all these things. It seemed likely that someone with the brains to formulate an argument as well as you did would also be intelligent to recognize the, shall we say "less than rock-solid" basis for it. Unfortunately there are a lot of half-educated morons running about, and most of them seem to have figure out how to post on forums.
Intellectual debate, whether simply for the purpose of exercising the mental muscles or for trying to expand one's understanding is a dying sport it seems. Too much "I'm right, you're wrong na-na-na-na-na-I'm-not-listening"... it's enough to make even the most reserved individuals want to start revoking breathing licenses.
Obviously no rights given by the Bill of Rights can be overwritten by another's individual rights - the only way an individual can be denied these rights is through due process. Otherwise you end up with certain people having "more important" rights than others, and it's an overt class system like Feudal England was many years ago. (Some would say we have that now with capitalism's "haves" and "have nots", but that's a different argument.)
The line between one person's rights and another person's rights is really where most of the laws in this nation come from. What is the reasonable boundary between your right to drive a car however you like, and everyone else's right to not get run over by you? We have demonstrated time and time again that as a people, "let your conscious be your guide" does not seem to work for Americans. Thus we've got a billion laws and lawyers.
We've got laws to interpret the Bill of Rights, we've got laws to define the boundaries, we've got laws to define other laws... it's a nightmarish system but it is - at least for the most part - stable.
The biggest problem I have is when people start interpreting "happiness" as an inalienable right. It's not. The pursuit of happiness is. You can't just whip out your certificate of citizenship, march into the capitol, and say "Where's my happiness?"
Other people are allowed to do things you disagree with, don't like, or even actively hate until the law is changed to say differently. That's the coolest part. If you don't like the way things are, you can at least try to change them. Pursuit anyone?
So with everyone pursuing their own happiness, which sometimes butts heads with other people's pursuit the net effect (hopefully) is that most everyone is moderately happy most of the time and everyone is at least a little unhappy some of the time.
Oh, one other thing I wanted to say: I personally view the term "fighting words" as a crutch for people that can't control their temper. Losing your temper is no one's fault but your own, regardless of what is said.
In all my years I've only responded to words with violence one time, and that was when a man (and I use the term loosely) confessed that the only reason he'd taken liberties with my girlfriend was that he thought she was asleep. Thankfully my roommate was present to restrain me and advise this pile of dung in human skin to begin running lest I become unrestrainable.
The difference, as I see it, was that my rage was born of action - the slime's action taken against someone I loved - not his words directly.
To answer words with physical violence is to give control of yourself to your enemy. Yes, they do bear a responsibility for their words, but never so much as you bear for your actions.
Besides, why should you care even in the smallest degree what such a person would say? By taking an action based on their words you give merit to those words that would not otherwise exist.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Besides, why should you care even in the smallest degree what such a person would say?"
You must admit that words do in fact have power, at least in an "arena" like this one in which an audience is present to hear. If, for example, I can convince the people of Hatrack that you are a deceitful, cowardly plagiarist -- even if it's untrue, and even if I have done you no physical harm -- I can make any visits here unpleasant and/or even intolerable for you, thus ultimately removing this section of cyberspace from your life.
This doesn't only apply to Internet forums, of course, but that's the most obvious example of an environment in which words not only have consequences but are consequences in and of themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously words have power. We're all here which is plenty of evidence that certain people have a way with words that transcends normal communication. If it weren't for the literary talents of OSC, this discusion, if it was ever to happen with the same participants, would have to happen elsewhere.
The issue here is that you've changed the context. One person talking to another person is what I'd discussed. What you're talking about is slander and/or libel. That is illegal because it infringes upon the rights of the victim. By damaging someone's reputation you are stomping on their personal rights.
In that situation violence is still not an effective solution, a legal suit will accomplish the goal far more effectively.
My point wasn't that words don't have consequence. The point was that reaction to words is what gives them weight. In my example, taking offense at someone's statements will in some ways actually lend credence to those statements. If someone made disparaging remarks about your sexual orientation and you got angry, it seems as though that's a soft point. Does that mean that they were right and you're trying to keep it secret? Perhaps you're insecure about your own orientation? No one knows, but the questions are still raised. On the other hand if you just let the insults slide off you with no more reaction than if they'd asked you the time of the day, you are the undisputed victor.
In your example it is the third parties, the "other people" who take the words to heart and give them weight. That's a much stickier situation to deal with. Again, however, the more loudly you protest the more believable the charges become. There are many more "high roads" to deal with this kind of thing, but unfortunately none of them will completely erase the public memory of the slander.
Two different situations that both illustrate how words can, and can not have weight.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sun--I'm sorry, this is just my opinion and a question and I'll make it very short. I've kept up to date on this post and haven't replied even though some of your thoughts on freedoms, I've found wrong. But now, I'm kinda curious. It seems now your are backing off on your argument and I want to know why. I think it could be 1 (or more) of 3 reasons:
1) You started this whole argument on the basis of starting an argument that you were sure wouldn't get any intelligent responses. When you did, you had to scramble for some ideas to support your side and you made some up that seemed feasible.
2) Throughout this argument you have carefully read and understood others' points and have changed your way of thinking. In other words they convinced you that your wrong.
3) You changed your mind, not because you think the others are correct, but because it is the popular point of view, and it's better to be accepted then to be correct.
I'm not posting this to mock you, or make you angry. I've been in this situation, not just through forums, but real life situations, and I'd have to admit that more times then not I change my mind because of #3. I look back at these times and I vow that I will never do that again, but...
Posts: 36 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
4. Due to an effective discussion his views "mellowed" somewhat. Certain aspects were re-evaluated, or perhaps certain ideas found words to describe them that he hadn't fully realized before. While the counter arguments to his points didn't "win" in his mind, they did manage to cast a new light on his thinking.
I can't count the number of times I've had this happen in my own head. Debating various things with intelligent people that weren't able to convince me that I was wrong or they were right, but did suceed in making me re-evaluate my own opinions and see them in a new way.
quote:It seemed likely that someone with the brains to formulate an argument as well as you did...
If by "brains", you mean "cojones" and by "formulate", you mean "fabricate", I totally agree.
quote:This opinion is based on the fact that if people are not given one little thing, then government will end, anarchy will reign, civilization will crumble, and the human race may not survive, and that one little thing is the benefit of the doubt.
So you're saying that, what, we should've given Gabriel the benefit of the doubt? Even as he spewed facts which we knew were positively false--facts he admitted to making up off the top of his head? I think you're crazy go nuts.
quote:Unfortunately there are a lot of half-educated morons running about, and most of them seem to have figure out how to post on forums.
I doubt this statement applies much to Hatrack, aside from the occasional troll.
quote:Intellectual debate, whether simply for the purpose of exercising the mental muscles or for trying to expand one's understanding is a dying sport it seems.
Ditto. I doubt there's a single subject that doesn't get debated regularly at Hatrack. Most recently being the civil union debate, which spanned half-a-dozen threads and the better part of a week (and actually spread to another furum). But if you're trying to imply that sun took his stance in the name of sport and was trying to get us to fine-tune our ideas by contrasting them with his (which range from making little to no sense), I think you're wrong. I think his insulting response to ae proved that he's not really trying to see the other side. I think he really does think he's right. It's fine to play devil's advocate sometimes, but one should really know when the devil's argument has failed, rather than let the discussion degrade into hypocrasy.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If, however, I went up to a complete stranger whom I had had little or no contact with (and btw, I tend not to treat strangers formally as such) and dealt such an insult to them, then I know damned well that I had better be ready to fight, because they are very nearly within their rights to physically attack me, because a verbal attack can be a physical attack, and is nearly treated that way legally.
I promised myself I wouldn't spend any more time butting my head against your peculiar wall, but this statement is too stupid to ignore. Do you know anything about the law at all, really? And then there's this:
quote:I am glad that you at least are willing to accept my premise that one person's legal rights stop where another's begin.
Yeah, y'know, I think everyone here accepts this premise. What you don't seem to understand is that people don't have a legal right not to be insulted! In fact, other people have a legal right to insult them! What will it take for me to get this concept through your ludicrously thick skull?
quote:First and foremost, I am building a castle on air, cause Gabriel simply doesn't give a rat's arse.
I hardly think it's because Gabriel doesn't give a rat's arse. More likely he, unlike you, has the basic common sense to realise that what he did is more or less indefensible.
quote:On forums, therefore, I refrain from insulting this way when I can contain myself, because doing so is cowardly and unjust, irregardless of the fact that we are outside the jurisdiction of the law.
Why the hell is it cowardly and unjust? Because the victim can't respond in kind? Oh, wait: he can. What he can't do is retaliate physically to a verbal insult. This is somehow unjust. . . ?
I'm with Frisco. You're crazy go nuts.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why the hell is it cowardly and unjust? Because the victim can't respond in kind? Oh, wait: he can."
Ok, let me try to put this verrry simple for you. Words affect different people different ways. For example, if I am me, and if you are a human being with black skin and you have had a very painful history of being discriminated against for it, and I maliciously(sp?) call you a 'nigger', and you are sensitive to that particular term, then it is very unlikely that there are any equivalent insults that you can come up with.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Sob* I wrote a big long post trying to give an argument to the people who weren't calling me stupid and crazy(not that I mind the latter one bit ) and the stupid library computer kicked me off an killed it and now I have no more time. Sorry, later I guess.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, let me try to put this verrry simple for you. Words affect different people different ways. For example, if I am me, and if you are a human being with black skin and you have had a very painful history of being discriminated against for it, and I maliciously(sp?) call you a 'nigger', and you are sensitive to that particular term, then it is very unlikely that there are any equivalent insults that you can come up with.
posted
Much like death takes the form of the grim reaper, suntranafs seems to be the embodiment of the non-sequiter.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'm back, well sort of. Finally I have time(I think) to write something and I am so tired and worn out that it will probably crappy and fragmented.
First to respond to Jestak "
quote: Sun--I'm sorry, this is just my opinion and a question and I'll make it very short. I've kept up to date on this post and haven't replied even though some of your thoughts on freedoms, I've found wrong. But now, I'm kinda curious. It seems now your are backing off on your argument and I want to know why. I think it could be 1 (or more) of 3 reasons:
1) You started this whole argument on the basis of starting an argument that you were sure wouldn't get any intelligent responses. When you did, you had to scramble for some ideas to support your side and you made some up that seemed feasible.
2) Throughout this argument you have carefully read and understood others' points and have changed your way of thinking. In other words they convinced you that your wrong.
3) You changed your mind, not because you think the others are correct, but because it is the popular point of view, and it's better to be accepted then to be correct.
I'm not posting this to mock you, or make you angry. I've been in this situation, not just through forums, but real life situations, and I'd have to admit that more times then not I change my mind because of #3. I look back at these times and I vow that I will never do that again, but...
I'm gonna say that I may be too tired to do this question justice, but here: I don't really think any of the choices apply. If you knew me well, you would know that number 3. is not really a possible reaction for me, my personality is more like 'say what you think, right or wrong, and hell with the critics'. That's just the way I am. Which is not to say that I don't mind people hating me and looking down on me any more than the next guy, and is not to say that I didn't try to soften my approach a little when I realized I'd possibly been a bit excessively violent in my speech. 2. isn't correct cause I definitely haven't changed my way of thinking- and I seldom do. 1. isn't correct because I still think my argument was lacking feasible ideas and I didn't purposefully get no inteligent responses, albeit that was the effect So I guess one applies the most, and two the least, but none are descriptive of my situation. Which is, actually, still wanting to argue this point in a logical manner with logical people. And omg I'm gonna get booted. bye for now.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me, but haven't we strayed from the topic just a little? Personally, I don't see how a comparison between Hitler and Ender relates at all to the inadvertant suppression of free speech, unless it was meant that such a comparison would provoke people to be defensive of their own free speech, which it obviously has.
Anyway, the only possible relation I see between Hitler and Ender would be their instinct to completely crush an enemy when it stands in their way, rather than simply disabling it. Their motives for doing so are completely different, of course- with Hitler I suppose it would be power and world domination and with Ender it would simply be survival or accomplishing a goal...
But anyway, I know no one knows me yet really, but hey guys, whoa! Don't lets be nasty!
Posts: 6 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't know the background, indeed I can see how the topics, as stated, are not 'in the same argument'.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what about all the Good things Hitler did?
I saw that on a T-Shirt and could not resist.
However I find it interesting that the claim is made that Hitler was insane and Ender was not. Frankly this is a pretty fine point.
In the end we learn that Ender was just as "wrong" in his assumptions as Hitler and both were proceeding from what they considered to be fact to logical conclusions.
Hitlers facts ammounted to "Jews Bad" so he did what he had to do to correct it. Most of the Germans involved saw it as a messy job but a needful one. They believed they were cleaning up a mess that the future would thank them for. They were the heroes that were doing the dirty job so nobody would have to do it again. (Except Stalin)
Ender was the hero cleaning up the Formic's mess his logic was based from the fact "Formic's Bad" and he proved to be wrong in the end.
Perhaps the lesson that can be taken from these cases is that tarring broadly with a brush called "Bad" is likely to lead one astray.
Therefore "Hitler Bad" might be a as mistaken. Better to say he was wrong or bigotted or some more specific adjetives. He was nice to his girlfriend and probably kind to dogs. Though he never struck me as a cat person.
posted
Man, talk about a topic going full circle. But at least it gives me an excuse to quote myself. (From the thread to which THIS thread was a response:
quote: There is no evidence that Hitler actually considered the Jews a real threat. Rather, his writings make it quite clear that they were a useful scapegoat. Uniting a country by creating a common enemy is an old tactic -- and often a very effective one. At least temporarily.
quote: There is quite a bit of evidence that Mein Kampf was not a true expression of Hitler's beliefs, but an excuse for them. He knew Jews personally -- served under a Jewish commander in WWI, his childhood doctor was a Jew -- viewing Jews as animals was certainly not evidenced in his earlier life.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
right? That wouldn't be the first ammendment, anyway, it'd be the 9th, if you weren't wrong.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
That was quite a first post. I love newbies who jump in feet-first.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
