|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 05 2015 01:10 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 00:53 Plansix wrote:On May 05 2015 00:47 Yoav wrote:On May 05 2015 00:43 Nyxisto wrote:There's a reason a lot of countries punish hate speech, racist statements or propaganda. Attacking people verbally at the core of what they are can just be as devastating a a punch to the face. Yeah, but it's a shitty reason, contrary to the notion of liberal democracy. Free discourse should always be allowed, and words should never merit violent responses. Sure, there are things people could say that would make me beat their asses, but I'd be wrong to do so, and the law should certainly look on it as such. No insult against my faith is mine to avenge. Fee discourse is allowed. But many of the countries that have those laws also have a history of that speech being used to rally groups of people to do hateful things. Sometimes entire governments were mobilized. One of the most important parts of free speech is to recognize when it is being as a method to harm people. Every hate group has always said they are just excising their right to free speech, right up to the point where they hurt people. Okay, but surely the irony is apparent, right? Yes, speech has been used for evil. And governments were the greatest criminals! Let's give governments more power over free fucking speech to keep that from happening again. The idea behind free discourse is that it's better to have this out in the real of ideas. Racism should be rejected because it's stupid, not because it's illegal. Any other solution is brittle to simply subversion, and comes down even easier if somebody in government has different ideas. Example of countries that tried to outlaw ideologies with counterproductive results are all around. Turkey, Egypt, basically any country around the time of colonial independence or popular revolution...
If a people are unwilling to make the hard decision on when to limit free speech for the safety of others, than the freedom is to dangerous for them. Ideal the right to free speech would never need to be limited in any way. The reality is far more complicated that that.
And this isn't political discourse. This is hate speech people are discussing when they talk about limiting free speech. It is speech with the purpose of rallying people to harm a specific group/s of people.
|
On May 05 2015 01:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see this thick line really. If you're deliberately provoking someone (and let's be real, there was no way that this was not meant to be a provocation), you invite some sort of response. While that response might be morally, ethically, and legally wrong, you can't not (double negative, gross) understand the POV of the aggressor to some degree.
As Nyx said, it's a little silly to define harm in purely physical terms. Say we have two scenarios:
A bunch of bullies torment a gay kid all throughout high school, right before graduation one of two things happen:
1. The kid kills himself
2. The kid kills the bullies
Who decides what is "justified violence", whatever that means, anyways?
What about Option 3, where the kid doesn't kill anyone, goes into therapy to deal with the bullying, and moves on with his life after graduating high school, the worst time in every person's life?
I have no doubt that they are deliberately provoking extremists, being attacked like this only furthers the narrative that all Muslims are crazy terrorists. But that still doesn't excuse a violent response, and I CAN not understand the PoV of the aggressor. I have never been in a fight in my entire life, no matter how much I was bullied or insulted, and I am hard pressed to think of something someone could say that would make me want to kill them.
Religion makes some people crazy, and makes some crazy people dangerous. I see no reason why I should empathize or make excuses for them, since the world I want to live in has no place for them.
|
On May 05 2015 01:23 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 01:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see this thick line really. If you're deliberately provoking someone (and let's be real, there was no way that this was not meant to be a provocation), you invite some sort of response. While that response might be morally, ethically, and legally wrong, you can't not (double negative, gross) understand the POV of the aggressor to some degree.
As Nyx said, it's a little silly to define harm in purely physical terms. Say we have two scenarios:
A bunch of bullies torment a gay kid all throughout high school, right before graduation one of two things happen:
1. The kid kills himself
2. The kid kills the bullies
Who decides what is "justified violence", whatever that means, anyways? What about Option 3, where the kid doesn't kill anyone, goes into therapy to deal with the bullying, and moves on with his life after graduating high school, the worst time in every person's life? I have no doubt that they are deliberately provoking extremists, being attacked like this only furthers the narrative that all Muslims are crazy terrorists. But that still doesn't excuse a violent response, and I CAN not understand the PoV of the aggressor. I have never been in a fight in my entire life, no matter how much I was bullied or insulted, and I am hard pressed to think of something someone could say that would make me want to kill them. Religion makes some people crazy, and makes some crazy people dangerous. I see no reason why I should empathize or make excuses for them, since the world I want to live in has no place for them.
Are you the ultimate arbiter of the human experience or just a solipsist?
|
On May 05 2015 01:25 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 01:23 ZasZ. wrote:On May 05 2015 01:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see this thick line really. If you're deliberately provoking someone (and let's be real, there was no way that this was not meant to be a provocation), you invite some sort of response. While that response might be morally, ethically, and legally wrong, you can't not (double negative, gross) understand the POV of the aggressor to some degree.
As Nyx said, it's a little silly to define harm in purely physical terms. Say we have two scenarios:
A bunch of bullies torment a gay kid all throughout high school, right before graduation one of two things happen:
1. The kid kills himself
2. The kid kills the bullies
Who decides what is "justified violence", whatever that means, anyways? What about Option 3, where the kid doesn't kill anyone, goes into therapy to deal with the bullying, and moves on with his life after graduating high school, the worst time in every person's life? I have no doubt that they are deliberately provoking extremists, being attacked like this only furthers the narrative that all Muslims are crazy terrorists. But that still doesn't excuse a violent response, and I CAN not understand the PoV of the aggressor. I have never been in a fight in my entire life, no matter how much I was bullied or insulted, and I am hard pressed to think of something someone could say that would make me want to kill them. Religion makes some people crazy, and makes some crazy people dangerous. I see no reason why I should empathize or make excuses for them, since the world I want to live in has no place for them. Are you the ultimate arbiter of the human experience or just a solipsist?
Could this question be more disingenuous if it tried?
|
On May 05 2015 01:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 01:25 puerk wrote:On May 05 2015 01:23 ZasZ. wrote:On May 05 2015 01:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't see this thick line really. If you're deliberately provoking someone (and let's be real, there was no way that this was not meant to be a provocation), you invite some sort of response. While that response might be morally, ethically, and legally wrong, you can't not (double negative, gross) understand the POV of the aggressor to some degree.
As Nyx said, it's a little silly to define harm in purely physical terms. Say we have two scenarios:
A bunch of bullies torment a gay kid all throughout high school, right before graduation one of two things happen:
1. The kid kills himself
2. The kid kills the bullies
Who decides what is "justified violence", whatever that means, anyways? What about Option 3, where the kid doesn't kill anyone, goes into therapy to deal with the bullying, and moves on with his life after graduating high school, the worst time in every person's life? I have no doubt that they are deliberately provoking extremists, being attacked like this only furthers the narrative that all Muslims are crazy terrorists. But that still doesn't excuse a violent response, and I CAN not understand the PoV of the aggressor. I have never been in a fight in my entire life, no matter how much I was bullied or insulted, and I am hard pressed to think of something someone could say that would make me want to kill them. Religion makes some people crazy, and makes some crazy people dangerous. I see no reason why I should empathize or make excuses for them, since the world I want to live in has no place for them. Are you the ultimate arbiter of the human experience or just a solipsist? Could this question be more disingenuous if it tried?
He says he never encountered an emotional problem he can't handle and therefore wants to hold every human being to a standard he himself can pass, that is pretty disingenuous, and rightfully provokes a response 
|
On May 05 2015 01:18 Plansix wrote:
If a people are unwilling to make the hard decision on when to limit free speech for the safety of others, than the freedom is too dangerous for them.
Said every tyrant ever.
On May 05 2015 01:18 Plansix wrote:
And this isn't political discourse. This is hate speech people are discussing when they talk about limiting free speech. It is
speech with the purpose of rallying people to harm a specific group/s of people.
I didn't say political discourse, I said free discourse. But it certainly includes politics. I think a lot of anti-immigrant politics is dog-whistle racism. Should I have that banned? Of course not. I should try to argue against it rationally. The problem is that nobody has a right to outlaw someone else's ideas.
|
Lol at everyone comparing this to a gay kid being bullied at high school, which by the way would not justify him taking a gun and killing his bullies.
The gunmen tried to shoot people, over cartoons, at an event they were not forced to attend. All religions believe in fairy tales, one of them will kill you if you draw a picture of their prophet/pedophile/warlord. It would be nice if people could start condemning violent psychopaths instead of making excuses for them.
|
Most people have probably some experience with bullying at some point in their lives and nobody can honestly tell me that they didn't care. Some school-kids have quite literally been bullied to insanity with the result of suicide or school-shootings. That's not because they're crazy people but because they've simply been pushed until they broke. Now that doesn't make it 'right', 'fair' or 'justified' because it's silly to apply those words to these situations anyway, but it's the reaction you get if you put humans through years of these experiences and everybody knows it, so it's not right to load all the responsibility on the perpetrator alone and act like "words can't harm anybody" when it's clear that they do.
(also that's not supposed to be related to the Charlie Hebdo shootings, as years of psychological abuse are obviously not comparable to someone being upset about a cartoon)
|
On May 05 2015 01:36 Nyxisto wrote:
it's not right to load all the responsibility on the perpetrator alone and act like "words can't harm anybody" when it's clear that they do.
If you try to shoot people for offending you, yeah, it is right to load all the responsibility on you.
Don't get me wrong, Wilders and Geller are creeps, but that's not the same as saying you can go out and shoot some motherfuckers. The point above is also true: there's a huge gap between lethal and nonlethal violence, morally speaking.
|
On May 05 2015 01:36 Nyxisto wrote:
Most people have probably some experience with bullying at some point in their lives and nobody can honestly tell me that they didn't care. Some school-kids have quite literally been bullied to insanity with the result of suicide or school-shootings. That's not because they're crazy people but because they've simply been pushed until they broke. Now that doesn't make it 'right', 'fair' or 'justified' because it's silly to apply those words to these situations anyway, but it's the reaction you get if you put humans through years of these experiences and everybody knows it, so it's not right to load all the responsibility on the perpetrator alone and act like "words can't harm anybody" when it's clear that they do.
(also that's not supposed to be related to the Charlie Hebdo shootings, as years of psychological abuse are obviously not comparable to someone being upset about a cartoon)
I can tell you I didn't care. I was bullied quite a bit. I've always been a geeky weakling, and I also have muscular dystrophy. They had plenty of ammo. They could harass me for being a nerd or for being a cripple. But I didn't let it get to me.
|
I have been bullied, I did care, I would never kill my bullies. Some might, but from all the accounts I have read about school shooters (Cho, Eric Harris, Dyland Klebold), they either have psychiatric problems or are assholes. Few of them are people who were bullied and snapped.
These two situations are not at all comparable. No one is getting specific, sustained targeted harassment at a conference that no one is forced to attend. If you don't like it don't attend it. South Park makes fun of Jesus all the time and no one gets shot over it. Muslims should not be treated as these special snowflakes where their religion is off bounds to be made fun of.
|
I think we can all agree there would be a good chance of some sort of violence if someone threw a Bible burning party in the bible belt. Just because fundamentalist Christians focus their violence on people working at abortion clinics doesn't mean they won't rise to the bait. Islam is not unique in this regard.
|
Christians do kill over abortion clinics. I think 8 total killed in the US according to wikipedia. Lol religion. Still less then the death toll of one incident, the Charlie Hebdo shootings.
To my knowledge, no Christian has ever killed killed for people drawing a picture of Jesus. Maybe there might be violence if people start burning bibles in the bible belt, and if that happens I will be the first to condemn it. But so far it hasn't happened. Meanwhile in the real world, muslims are shooting people over cartoons. Christians are not, Buddhists are not, Mormons are not, Scienetologists are not, even those Westboro baptist pricks aren't shooting people.
|
On May 05 2015 01:52 Plansix wrote:
I think we can all agree there would be a good chance of some sort of violence if someone threw a Bible burning party in the bible belt. Just because fundamentalist Christians focus their violence on people working at abortion clinics doesn't mean they won't rise to the bait. Islam is not unique in this regard.
Even if we were to grant that burning bibles in the bible belt would lead to people being murdered, which I'm not entirely convinced it would. Anyone is well within their rights to do so as an expression of their freedom of speech. Anyone who assaulted or killed someone over their right to burn the bible would be entirely in the wrong, 100% of the blood and responsibility on them. I also find it hard to believe that the same people who say we shouldn't be offending the delicate sensibilities of Islam would then be saying we shouldn't be offending the delicate sensibilities of Christians and we should censor ourselves as to not make them mad.
Freedom of speech is the most important freedom we have. It can not ever be curtailed in any way for any purpose.
|
On May 05 2015 02:09 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 01:52 Plansix wrote:
I think we can all agree there would be a good chance of some sort of violence if someone threw a Bible burning party in the bible belt. Just because fundamentalist Christians focus their violence on people working at abortion clinics doesn't mean they won't rise to the bait. Islam is not unique in this regard. Even if we were to grant that burning bibles in the bible belt would lead to people being murdered, which I'm not entirely convinced it would. Anyone is well within their rights to do so as an expression of their freedom of speech. Anyone who assaulted or killed someone over their right to burn the bible would be entirely in the wrong, 100% of the blood and responsibility on them. I also find it hard to believe that the same people who say we shouldn't be offending the delicate sensibilities of Islam would then be saying we shouldn't be offending the delicate sensibilities of Christians and we should censor ourselves as to not make them mad. Freedom of speech is the most important freedom we have. It can not ever be curtailed in any way for any purpose.
I agree with you in principle. But, you can't yell fire in a theater. We can, and should curtail speech for any number of reasons involving safety and the protection of others.
I don't think the "cartoon contest" should have been stopped, just be be clear. It clearly wasn't directly harming anyone. It was stupid and assholish, but that's no reason for the government to stop something.
|
Maybe a different framing might help understand:
How is someone advancing society, if he knowingly provokes violence just to demonstrate that the person he provoked was in fact as irrational as he claimed?
Being right on principle is one thing, but forcing through a principle, to be right and to get violent responses from irrational people sounds like a terribly stupid dick move to me.
I do not endorse or excuse any kind of violence, and that is why i have a problem with knowingly provoking irrational people. You have to deal with them, but through much more involved and evolved communicative ways. Deeskalation is a thing, although this thread shows how little some people care about this concept as long as they have their own gun to win an escalation.
|
On May 05 2015 01:52 Plansix wrote:
I think we can all agree there would be a good chance of some sort of violence if someone threw a Bible burning party in the bible belt. Just because fundamentalist Christians focus their violence on people working at abortion clinics doesn't mean they won't rise to the bait. Islam is not unique in this regard.
The hilarity of the attempts at demonstrating the equivalence between radical Christianity and radical Islam never gets old.
|
On May 05 2015 02:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2015 02:09 OuchyDathurts wrote:On May 05 2015 01:52 Plansix wrote:
I think we can all agree there would be a good chance of some sort of violence if someone threw a Bible burning party in the bible belt. Just because fundamentalist Christians focus their violence on people working at abortion clinics doesn't mean they won't rise to the bait. Islam is not unique in this regard. Even if we were to grant that burning bibles in the bible belt would lead to people being murdered, which I'm not entirely convinced it would. Anyone is well within their rights to do so as an expression of their freedom of speech. Anyone who assaulted or killed someone over their right to burn the bible would be entirely in the wrong, 100% of the blood and responsibility on them. I also find it hard to believe that the same people who say we shouldn't be offending the delicate sensibilities of Islam would then be saying we shouldn't be offending the delicate sensibilities of Christians and we should censor ourselves as to not make them mad. Freedom of speech is the most important freedom we have. It can not ever be curtailed in any way for any purpose. I agree with you in principle. But, you can't yell fire in a theater. We can, and should curtail speech for any number of reasons involving safety. I don't think the "cartoon contest" should have been stopped, just be be clear. It clearly wasn't directly harming anyone. It was stupid and assholish, but that's no reason for the government to stop something.
People are allowed to be stupid and assholes, it's their rights as American's to be as big of assholes as they want. I hate the Westboro Baptist Church as much as anyone else, but they have and SHOULD have the right to say anything they want, be the biggest assholes they can be! Its not always fun, but it's the only stance anyone with any intellectual capacity can take.
People should never be subjected to the rules of a religion, especially a religion they don't subscribe to. The fact that Islam says you can't draw Mohammad doesn't apply to me. I'm not part of their religion, their rules don't apply to me and as such I'll draw whatever the fuck I want. You can't try through violence to make me follow the rules your religion prescribes and that's entirely what's happening in these situations. Anyone who says drawing their prophet means they brought violence upon themselves are bowing to those who would impose their rules and religion through violence as well as victim blaming.
Also you can yell fire in a theater. That's an example used in an old court case, that was overturned, but contrary to popular belief the first amendment doesn't grant freedom of speech, except when yelling fire in a theater.
|
why do people think everything that comes out of your mouth falls under the freedom of speech.
if i say to my friend: hey lets kill this guy over there. i dont use my constitutional right to freedom of speech. its a murder plot.
its the same for a hate speech. of course the line is more blurry and at some point the decision has to be made - but its not a discussion with different opinions. they dont discuss something in a hate speech.
there is no, and probably never will be a law that allows you to say everything in every situation.
its like the https://xkcd.com/1357/ comic.
freedom of speech just should guarantee you, that you dont get thrown into jail for speaking out on political ideas.
but only if these ideas respect the human rights.
so if you tell 1000 people they should kill all jews, you dont exercise your right to freedom of speech.
|
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Puerto Rico's governor on Sunday signed an executive order to authorize the use of medical marijuana in the U.S. territory in an unexpected move following a lengthy public debate.
Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla said the island's health secretary has three months to issue a report detailing how the executive order will be implemented, the impact it will have and what future steps could be taken. The order went into immediate effect.
"We're taking a significant step in the area of health that is fundamental to our development and quality of life," Garcia said in a statement. "I am sure that many patients will receive appropriate treatment that will offer them new hope."
The order directs the health department to authorize the use of some or all controlled substances or derivatives of the cannabis plant for medical use.
Garcia said the government also will soon outline the specific authorized uses of marijuana and its derivatives for medical purposes. He noted that medical marijuana is used in the U.S. mainland and elsewhere to treat pain associated with migraines and illnesses including epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and AIDS.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
