|
On September 15 2011 12:23 101toss wrote:Show nested quote +The court heard that Duffy has Asperger's syndrome and lived a "miserable existence" drinking alcohol alone at his home in Reading. Posting this because people here seem to think it's fine to punish the mentally ill like this (or didn't read the article).
posting this, because nowadays every average nerd and their mother claims to have aspies. and even if, asperger's in particular does not make you unliable
|
Deserves it, I wonder if this guy also calls me a fag after I 7 pool him using random
|
On September 15 2011 14:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 14:09 Tektos wrote:On September 15 2011 13:46 mikyaJ wrote:On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment. He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship. Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeNotice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line...
To quote your page
The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. How do you categorize what is acceptable and unacceptable on the internet in terms of free speech versus harassment? This is not a "Category A vs. Category B" discussion, it is a gray scale with no clearly defined categories. Until you can tangibly assess what is acceptable and unacceptable social etiquette the "slippery slope" argument is not fallacious.
Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. Minor action in my example would be a slightly less sever case of internet trolling being punished with a jail sentence. Repeat this minor action numerous times over a long period of time. Logically valid according to your Wikipedia article.
It is exactly like the pedophilia/child porn situation. In the 1950s boy scouts would strip off to go swimming on camps, children would run nude under sprinklers out on the front lawn. Nowadays? A parent can't take a photo or hire a professional photographer to take a photo of their half-nude baby (wearing a nappy) without the photo being deemed child pornography. Sure, you can just say "LOL SLIPPERY SLOPE = LOGICAL FALLACY" but both the Wikipedia article you linked and reality show that it is not always a logical fallacy.
Seems like you haven't even read the article you linked.
"Foot-in-the-door technique" seems more applicable to my argument than the slippery slope fallacy.
|
My brother was a sheriff who died on duty when his patrol car crashed into a tree while he was en-route to a scene. He pretty much lost control of his car and only he knows what really happened, but there was a lot of negativity saying that his kids/family shouldn't be given any assistance because he essentially caused it himself. Obviously because he was a cop a lot of people were making remarks to the effect of elation, but having grown up around the internet and know how people view police officers it was to be expected.
I think it's unfortunate that this went to court and the guy was punished for this. The internet is the only place I can go where I give 0 shits about what some hater says and by punishing this behavior they bring relevance to the trolls/haters.
I don't understand why anyone would be so foolish as to open the can of worms. They can't even police pirating when it's costing imaginary billions of dollars and they want to try to tackle bullying on the internet? Good luck sirs... good luck...
|
On September 15 2011 14:48 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 14:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 15 2011 14:09 Tektos wrote:On September 15 2011 13:46 mikyaJ wrote:On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment. He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship. Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeNotice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line... How do you categorize what is acceptable and unacceptable on the internet in terms of free speech versus harassment? This is not a "Category A vs. Category B" discussion, it is a gray scale with no clearly defined categories. Until you can tangibly assess what is acceptable and unacceptable social etiquette the "slippery slope" argument is not fallacious.
Like you'd do in "real life?"
On September 15 2011 15:02 starcraft911 wrote: I don't understand why anyone would be so foolish as to open the can of worms. They can't even police pirating when it's costing imaginary billions of dollars and they want to try to tackle bullying on the internet? Good luck sirs... good luck...
I've asked this before without a good answer. Why should it matter if they can or can not enforce it? I don't think you'd like it if we legalized everything that the police have a hard time enforcing... People like to use this argument for things like pot and piracy but conveniently ignores everything else that it would apply to.
I'm not saying I agree with the sentance I just don't get the reasoning.
|
It`s sad this has happened. While Nationalistic bullshit rhetoric in countries is allowed under the norm of Freedom of speech (which is also trolling) this isn`t .... I neither understand why people would even approve the state jailing someone for this.
It is becoming more and more like George Orwell predicted in Europe.
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
George Orwell
|
On September 15 2011 14:48 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 14:23 Mohdoo wrote:On September 15 2011 14:09 Tektos wrote:On September 15 2011 13:46 mikyaJ wrote:On September 15 2011 10:52 paintfive wrote: huh? freedom of speech anyone? shit like this leads to unnecessary censorship This isn't censorship this is punishment. And plus, if you live in the US your "Right to say anything" is not that... flexible. There's things called Libel and Slander, even obscenity classified by the Miller Test are not subject to the First Amendment. He didn't call it censorship, he said it leads to censorship. Sure, at first they are stopping people from relentlessly harassing others but who is to say the border wont get skewed further until in a few decades time we've got as much freedom of speech as China does? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slopeNotice how this is exactly what you're doing? Notice how its recognized in philosophy as a fallacy and thus invalid? Argue the topic, not some wildly speculative result years down the line... To quote your page Show nested quote +The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. How do you categorize what is acceptable and unacceptable on the internet in terms of free speech versus harassment? This is not a "Category A vs. Category B" discussion, it is a gray scale with no clearly defined categories. Until you can tangibly assess what is acceptable and unacceptable social etiquette the "slippery slope" argument is not fallacious. Show nested quote +Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. Minor action in my example would be a slightly less sever case of internet trolling being punished with a jail sentence. Repeat this minor action numerous times over a long period of time. Logically valid according to your Wikipedia article. It is exactly like the pedophilia/child porn situation. In the 1950s boy scouts would strip off to go swimming on camps, children would run nude under sprinklers out on the front lawn. Nowadays? A parent can't take a photo or hire a professional photographer to take a photo of their half-nude baby (wearing a nappy) without the photo being deemed child pornography. Sure, you can just say "LOL SLIPPERY SLOPE = LOGICAL FALLACY" but both the Wikipedia article you linked and reality show that it is not always a logical fallacy. Seems like you haven't even read the article you linked. "Foot-in-the-door technique" seems more applicable to my argument than the slippery slope fallacy.
What? All you said to counter his point was that "there's a gray middle ground, thus it's not fallacious." You stated that it was a slippery slope and implied that if we don't keep completely protected from stuff like this (Category A), we could end up with speech as limited as China down the road (Category B). Which is ridiculous. I hate the slippery slope argument, I personally think it's terrible. The area is hardly as gray anyways as you're making it be.
|
I'm sorry, but in this case First Amendment rights protect him. Don't get me wrong, I served in the Marine Corps, and i got to see Westboro Baptist Church disgrace my fallen comrades. I still firmly believe in the right of freedom of speech and would have died for my country defending these clowns. It is not the place of any government to punish anyone for their right to be a trolling piece of shit, karma will take of it. People let simple words bother them way too much. As stated, this poor loser was living by himself and a drunk, let him go on his slow path to suicide, rather than give him attention.
|
Oh come on... gonna jail all the comedians making fun of dead people too? Deal with it... why are people so easily offended.
|
On September 16 2011 01:32 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm sorry, but in this case First Amendment rights protect him. Don't get me wrong, I served in the Marine Corps, and i got to see Westboro Baptist Church disgrace my fallen comrades. I still firmly believe in the right of freedom of speech and would have died for my country defending these clowns. It is not the place of any government to punish anyone for their right to be a trolling piece of shit, karma will take of it. People let simple words bother them way too much. As stated, this poor loser was living by himself and a drunk, let him go on his slow path to suicide, rather than give him attention.
Betcha $10,000 it doesn't.
|
What country is he from? I didnt catch the whole thing, just the premise. In America, he should be protected, because he did not threaten anyone. Just imagine how sad of a person you'd have to be to make fun of a family whose daughter commited suicide, and how petty you'd have to be to pursue criminal charges. That is lowering yourself to his level.
|
On September 16 2011 01:39 ChampionZerg wrote: What country is he from? I didnt catch the whole thing, just the premise. In America, he should be protected, because he did not threaten anyone. Just imagine how sad of a person you'd have to be to make fun of a family whose daughter commited suicide, and how petty you'd have to be to pursue criminal charges. That is lowering yourself to his level.
Considering the link goes to a UK paper... and it's been pointed out in discussion many a times it happened in the UK... :p
|
On September 16 2011 01:37 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 01:32 ChampionZerg wrote: I'm sorry, but in this case First Amendment rights protect him. Don't get me wrong, I served in the Marine Corps, and i got to see Westboro Baptist Church disgrace my fallen comrades. I still firmly believe in the right of freedom of speech and would have died for my country defending these clowns. It is not the place of any government to punish anyone for their right to be a trolling piece of shit, karma will take of it. People let simple words bother them way too much. As stated, this poor loser was living by himself and a drunk, let him go on his slow path to suicide, rather than give him attention. Betcha $10,000 it doesn't. How does this constitute libel/obscenity, unless you have a super conservative judge?
Also, since when did the 1st amendment matter in the UK?
|
On September 14 2011 20:25 Pandemona wrote: But to ban him from social networks for 5 years is a bit weak, if you cruel to animals your nomally banned from having them completely, let alone 5 years. Kind of stupid. I think police know that a perma ban from social media is unenforcable over the long term.
|
well...thats why i said theres no right for any government to enforce punishment for free speech... UK or anywhere else
second off...
WHY...do pseudo intellectuals come in here and try to bring fallacies into arguements off of articles they looked up on wikipedia?
|
On September 16 2011 02:32 ChampionZerg wrote: well...thats why i said theres no right for any government to enforce punishment for free speech... UK or anywhere else
second off...
WHY...do pseudo intellectuals come in here and try to bring fallacies into arguements off of articles they looked up on wikipedia?
and why, why do you want to impose the US-only 1st amendment on the rest of the world? seems like other countries run just fine, no?
|
On September 16 2011 02:32 ChampionZerg wrote: well...thats why i said theres no right for any government to enforce punishment for free speech... UK or anywhere else
second off...
WHY...do pseudo intellectuals come in here and try to bring fallacies into arguements off of articles they looked up on wikipedia?
Personally, I think unrestricted free speech would be one of the worst things possible to implement in a modern society. Words have consequences. I'm glad there are libel/slander laws. And I don't think things like in the OP should be protected. I think free speech is valuable only up til a certain point, nor do I buy the slippery slope argument.
|
I'm not imposing, just exercising my opinion. Sorry if it offended anyone. Theres an example of free speech!
Nah, in all seriousness, words only should only be punished if you're threatening to harm someone or even yourself. THAT is my personal opinion and i wish not to impose it on anyone.
|
|
so they jailed a guy for being a douchebag, even though he didn't hurt anyone physically, wasn't a threat to anyone. i wonder, if the guy trashtalked the girl in the same way ina bar with a police officer, would anything have happened?
|
|
|
|