|
On March 27 2012 03:27 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:10 Sea_Food wrote:On March 27 2012 03:08 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:On March 27 2012 02:58 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:55 tnud wrote:On March 27 2012 02:50 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
[quote]
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid. Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible. Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead. People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded? Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion. I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself. You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease. TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot. If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here. Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter. So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose? Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason... When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply. 0/10 on thinking and application. Actually you're wrong on how godwins law applies.
Let's assume that what you're saying is true...
You still have no point, yes if his "law" does stand true then what? Have we supported his "law"? Is that your point? If so what the fuck does that have to do with any of this?
|
On March 27 2012 03:19 xenobarf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:15 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 03:07 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:56 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:48 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:39 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:27 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote:
Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
Happy birthday, but really? No middle area? (Everything allowed to say) ------------------------- (???????????????) ---------------------------------- (nothing allowed to say) Any ideas of what could go in a middle area? (Hint, think of how it is in Sweden.) The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another. And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing. Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times. The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force. Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased. hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so.  Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently. I don't know, what do you propose to do differently? It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not. So you want that what can be said and not said should stand above our current democratic system? Then decided and enforced by who? Do you want to do the same with all laws, or only what you are allowed to say? Can you expand a bit on "best left alone"? I don't understand what method you want to use to decide what is ok and what isn't. It's easy to criticise, but if you don't have a better suggestion it's not worth much tbh.  I think you misunderstand, when I say its best left alone I'm saying that NO ONE should govern what can and cannot be said. It's easy to critize your idea because its completely infallible and will leave someone or somebody out cold, either everyone has freedom of speech or no one has it. Censoring people is not a good idea. If you're worried about people being allowed to go around calling black people racial slurs then thats a good concern and guess what, if that person wants to do that its his right, that doesnt mean theres no consequences for having freedom of speech.
ok, so you just want it to be 100% allowed to say anything, no matter what? That's perfectly fine, although I dont agree with you.
My objection to your first post was how black and white you presented it. "no middle ground". I think of it as a very continuous scale on how liberal you are with this. I mean, start from allowing that you tell kids that you will go and rape their mother and then kill her, go to current Sweden, go to Chinas firewall, to North Korea, to the novel 1984 (Big Brother).
People being on the more liberal side sometimes argue as if the even more liberal options dont exist, making them the most liberal possible, and that everything else is just one opinion, "not liberal". Which imo is missing the picture completely.
Anyway I dont even really know what we were arguing. I feel very confused in general.
|
On March 27 2012 03:23 AwayFromLife wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:06 tnud wrote:On March 27 2012 02:56 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:46 seppolevne wrote:On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:25 Faggatron wrote:
Context:
He's talking about having to tiptoe around religious people because they might be "offended" by criticisms of it. Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing. I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs. Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths. So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's. That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization. Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky. I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past. Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot. Yes but the government provides something? Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins. Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas. But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such. Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...] But hey, keep your blinders on. Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest. Who was shunned and ignored for ages.EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again. The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol. Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundationsTop 5 are not Church related. Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time. Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure. Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out. The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons. Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit. Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope.
1) See my edit, he unified the theory but it's not strictly his discovery. I was thinking of another theory. My bad
2) Very harsh indeed.
3) I was linking to non profit organizations, that's why your search differs. I do find it funny that Church charities turn a profit tho..
4) Stubborn cause he was right. If the church didn't want to accept it that's their problem.. arresting him for talking bad about them is kinda bad don't you think?
Summary: The church isn't the good guys in history as your initial post would paint them out to be. They've done some shitty things too.
Anyway we're far off topic. Talk free people, censuring yourself is not a good idea for the mere potential of offending someone else.
|
On March 27 2012 03:25 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:10 Sea_Food wrote:On March 27 2012 03:08 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:On March 27 2012 02:58 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:55 tnud wrote:On March 27 2012 02:50 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
[quote]
Again you disregard facts (math).
As a human I am biologically attuned to try and maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This can be shown by math. Therefore the human species and the choices we make can be justified or unjustified by math.
Stop screaming "FUCK FACTS". You're coming off stupid. Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible. Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead. People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded? Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion. I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself. You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease. TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot. If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here. Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter. So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose? Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason... When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply. 0/10 on thinking and application. You said "Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter." That qualifies for Godwin. It's not "for no reason", it's about hypberbolic comparisons, which that is. Therefore you automatically lost.
It's a comparison yes. Is it hyperbolic? No.
|
I'm still getting over what Orb said. The shakes have subsided, at least.
|
I feel like its just situational, Yes there are those events like the ones you cited that people get offended over stupid shit that they shouldn't get offended over, but there are those situations where shit is actually offensive. The quote feels like he just wants people to stop "seeking" to be offended.
|
On March 27 2012 03:29 MaddogStarCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:23 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 03:06 tnud wrote:On March 27 2012 02:56 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:46 seppolevne wrote:On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:
[quote]
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs. Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths. So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's. That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization. Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky. I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past. Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot. Yes but the government provides something? Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins. Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas. But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such. Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...] But hey, keep your blinders on. Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest. Who was shunned and ignored for ages.EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again. The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol. Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundationsTop 5 are not Church related. Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time. Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure. Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out. The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons. Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit. Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope. Oppression is what a western civilization in theory should be straying away from. So you saying "They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive". Is an oxymoron. Galileo was going to be burned alive although because of his sponsors (who also gave money to the church) the church couldn't go through with it because of monetary issues. Trust me, the church has had no problem killing people for stating facts or going against them in any way, shape or form.
You're the one saying bombing Japan is justified to win the war, but setting up a strict and restrictive caste system to keep the people from being killed horrifically is past the line? You have an strong sense of hypocrisy.
Galileo was never to be burned at the stake. One of his predecessors in heliocentricism was, but he also outright blasphemed the church during a time where that was illegal (which it isn't anymore in case you're not up on current matters). He was placed under house arrest, your conspiracy theories non-withstanding.
|
Why are people talking about censorship? It really has very little to do with anything. I think there are people who will freely be offended by a person openly denying the holocaust. But they don't have to say "you aren't allowed to do that." Of course not. You can deny the holocaust all you want and i can be offended all I want. Censorship doesn't really apply.
There's nothing wrong with being offended. Sure, there are people who try to get offended and are dumb but so what? That doesn't mean that being offended is inherently stupid.
|
On March 27 2012 03:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:10 Sea_Food wrote:On March 27 2012 03:08 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:On March 27 2012 02:58 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:55 tnud wrote:
[quote]
Nuking any populated area is mass murder of civilians. There is no justification possible. Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead. People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded? Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion. I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself. You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease. TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot. If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here. Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter. So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose? Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason... When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply. 0/10 on thinking and application. You said "Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter." That qualifies for Godwin. It's not "for no reason", it's about hypberbolic comparisons, which that is. Therefore you automatically lost. It's a comparison yes. Is it hyperbolic? No.
I'm not going to dignify that with a response, since you already lost.
|
On March 27 2012 03:35 DannyJ wrote:
I'm still getting over what Orb said. The shakes have subsided, at least.
Contact EG's sponsors again until the shakes stop.
|
On March 27 2012 03:36 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:10 Sea_Food wrote:On March 27 2012 03:08 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:On March 27 2012 02:58 MaddogStarCraft wrote:
[quote]
Yes there is. Go read about it for 30 minutes and come back here. The causality rates would've been much worse had of the bombs not been dropped and an invasion been used instead.
People were drafted from both sides (Japan and America). Do you consider people in the military not to be citizens? Are you retarded?
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion. I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself. You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease. TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot. If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here. Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter. So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose? Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason... When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply. 0/10 on thinking and application. You said "Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter." That qualifies for Godwin. It's not "for no reason", it's about hypberbolic comparisons, which that is. Therefore you automatically lost. It's a comparison yes. Is it hyperbolic? No. I'm not going to dignify that with a response, since you already lost.
People like you make me doubt humanity, seriously...
|
I kinda hate freedom of speech for some - very particular - situations. For instance, as mentioned, a "God hates fags" sign in a soldier's funeral. Or anything in a funeral that is not related to condolences and tributes. A person's life shouldn't be disrespected like that, no matter who he is.
People should have the right to speech, but not to hate a population. People should not be allowed to hate over a certain group because of their beliefs, tastes or ethnicy. People should not have the right to force their beliefs into someone else's mouth. People should have the right to do whatever the hell they think to be right, as long as that does not interfere with someone's else right to do that.
Am I wrong on having this feeling?
|
On March 27 2012 03:37 Zephirdd wrote:
I kinda hate freedom of speech for some - very particular - situations. For instance, as mentioned, a "God hates fags" sign in a soldier's funeral. Or anything in a funeral that is not related to condolences and tributes. A person's life shouldn't be disrespected like that, no matter who he is.
People should have the right to speech, but not to hate a population. People should not be allowed to hate over a certain group because of their beliefs, tastes or ethnicy. People should not have the right to force their beliefs into someone else's mouth. People should have the right to do whatever the hell they think to be right, as long as that does not interfere with someone's else right to do that.
Am I wrong on having this feeling?
No you're perfectly right as far as I'm concerned. I still can't believe some people would protest against a dead person..
If it boils down to it I'd let Hitlers inner circle have a proper damn funeral without anyone interfering like those people did. This is about respect for other people's right to mourn though, I'm not sure if you can apply this here on this topic =/
I'd consider shouting insults and protesting on someones funeral a VERY valid harassment arrest.
MaddogStarCraft: ... I wish we never meet.
|
On March 27 2012 03:37 Zephirdd wrote:
I kinda hate freedom of speech for some - very particular - situations. For instance, as mentioned, a "God hates fags" sign in a soldier's funeral. Or anything in a funeral that is not related to condolences and tributes. A person's life shouldn't be disrespected like that, no matter who he is.
People should have the right to speech, but not to hate a population. People should not be allowed to hate over a certain group because of their beliefs, tastes or ethnicy. People should not have the right to force their beliefs into someone else's mouth. People should have the right to do whatever the hell they think to be right, as long as that does not interfere with someone's else right to do that.
Am I wrong on having this feeling?
They have the right to make their idiotic protests, without morons like them the world would be boring.
I honestly fail to understand why a solider choose to shoot 18 Afghan civilians as opposed to killing everyone in that church.
|
Can we just stop addressing MaddogSC and continue on with the conversation? He's completely distracted this thread. I think it's an interesting discussion topic, and would like to see more relevant responses than sift through three pages of gunk.
To address the point, I'll just go ahead and say that I'm an advocate for free speech. Unless a person's seriously afflicted by a phrase or action to a point of a mental/physical harm, then speech can be easily casted away as it is cast out.
|
Its true people today are offended by the tiniest critism , maybe they do need to grow a pair and roll with the punches.
But there is always a line we do not cross, freedom of expression is not an excuse for you to say inappropriate or even hateful thing without reprecussion (shouting g_s the j_ws! or do hitler salutes came to mind).
Some words/action are just not productive and are designed to offend / discriminate or belittle specific group of people, logically speaking do we even need to do/say these things?
And lastly insulting people often came down articulation of your dislike towards them, not everyone is capable of doing so. When words fails you can imagine what will come next
|
On March 27 2012 03:41 ShamTao wrote:
Can we just stop addressing MaddogSC and continue on with the conversation? He's completely distracted this thread. I think it's an interesting discussion topic, and would like to see more relevant responses than shift through three pages of gunk.
To address the point, I'll just go ahead and say that I'm an advocate for free speech. Unless a person's seriously afflicted by a phrase or action to a point of a mental/physical harm, then speech can be easily casted away as it is cast out.
I've continued to post about the OP.
My post about the topic in the OP is what started the whole religion debate.
It derived from my response to the OP.
Arguments are derived from other arguments, get over it.
|
On March 27 2012 03:32 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:19 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:15 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 03:07 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:56 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:48 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:39 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:32 xenobarf wrote:On March 27 2012 02:27 Cascade wrote:On March 27 2012 02:17 xenobarf wrote:
Thoughts are as follows, either we have free speech or we do not, there is no middle area. Personally I'm for free speech.
Happy birthday, but really? No middle area? (Everything allowed to say) ------------------------- (???????????????) ---------------------------------- (nothing allowed to say) Any ideas of what could go in a middle area? (Hint, think of how it is in Sweden.) The problem is that if we go into it trying to define a middle area, the who does this? All human beings are infallible and or biased in some form or another. And yes, I agree that going around throwing racial slurs or doing salutes to Hitler is not a nice thing. Yeah, it's crazy hard to decide what things are ok to say, and which are simply not ok. And different people have different opinions as you say. There is no single right answer, and it is certainly different in different places and at different times. The ones to decide and enforce it should be the same people that decide and enforce what you are allowed to DO, rather than SAY. Which will be some kind democratically elected (well, in several steps, representative w/e don't know the terms) group of people and some kind of police force. Because letting the government (or some form of government) decide what you can and cannot say is going to work out just fine. It's okay to have utopian ideas, but we still live in reality where, like I said, people are infallible and biased. hmm, not sure if any of that is sarcasm, please clarify if so. Anyway, no, it's not the ultimate solution, but I think it is the best we can do in the current political system we are using atm. I mean, you can vote for a party that will decide where to put this line, and then it is by democracy supposed to end up with a set of rules that most find acceptable, although everyone will have some details that they would have done differently. I don't know, what do you propose to do differently? It was sarcasm. It is definately not the ultimate solution. If voting for a group of people with their own bias, morals and ideas is the only way to land in some form of "middle ground" then its best left alone. The moment you let something subjective be decided by a few human beings is the moment someone gets royally fucked in the ass, whether they deserver it or not. So you want that what can be said and not said should stand above our current democratic system? Then decided and enforced by who? Do you want to do the same with all laws, or only what you are allowed to say? Can you expand a bit on "best left alone"? I don't understand what method you want to use to decide what is ok and what isn't. It's easy to criticise, but if you don't have a better suggestion it's not worth much tbh. I think you misunderstand, when I say its best left alone I'm saying that NO ONE should govern what can and cannot be said. It's easy to critize your idea because its completely infallible and will leave someone or somebody out cold, either everyone has freedom of speech or no one has it. Censoring people is not a good idea. If you're worried about people being allowed to go around calling black people racial slurs then thats a good concern and guess what, if that person wants to do that its his right, that doesnt mean theres no consequences for having freedom of speech. ok, so you just want it to be 100% allowed to say anything, no matter what? That's perfectly fine, although I dont agree with you. My objection to your first post was how black and white you presented it. "no middle ground". I think of it as a very continuous scale on how liberal you are with this. I mean, start from allowing that you tell kids that you will go and rape their mother and then kill her, go to current Sweden, go to Chinas firewall, to North Korea, to the novel 1984 (Big Brother). People being on the more liberal side sometimes argue as if the even more liberal options dont exist, making them the most liberal possible, and that everything else is just one opinion, "not liberal". Which imo is missing the picture completely. Anyway I dont even really know what we were arguing. I feel very confused in general.
Well, we're rather discussing whether freedom of speech should be just that or some sort of censored version of it in favor or someone or some people. I dont really understand the part about telling kids about raping their mother (?).
I might be liberal, but theres simply no compromise that would suit everyone on such a subjective matter.
|
On March 27 2012 03:37 MaddogStarCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:36 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:25 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On March 27 2012 03:17 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:10 Sea_Food wrote:On March 27 2012 03:08 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 03:01 PanN wrote:
[quote]
Oh look! Absolutely no point, just tells you to go read then calls you retarded. Obviously we have a star debater here, definitely a champion.
I'm not going to list facts for you that you can go and read by yourself. You're either too lazy to read it or too stupid to comprehend the simple material that a 9 year old can understand with ease. TIL everyone who disagrees with MaddogStarCraft are retarded/stupid/idiot. If they disagreed with reason, sadly there is a lack of it here. Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter. So does that mean you've now godwin yourself out of the thread with that post and automatically lose? Godwin's "law" applies when I reference Nazi's for no reason... When I do it with logic his "law" doesn't apply. 0/10 on thinking and application. You said "Clearly you can't read, and make arguably shittier observations than Hilter." That qualifies for Godwin. It's not "for no reason", it's about hypberbolic comparisons, which that is. Therefore you automatically lost. It's a comparison yes. Is it hyperbolic? No. I'm not going to dignify that with a response, since you already lost. People like you make me doubt humanity, seriously...
People who arbitrarily compare others who disagree with them to hitler make me doubt humanity, seriously...
|
On March 27 2012 03:33 tnud wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 03:23 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 03:06 tnud wrote:On March 27 2012 02:56 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:46 seppolevne wrote:On March 27 2012 02:42 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:40 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:38 AwayFromLife wrote:On March 27 2012 02:34 MaddogStarCraft wrote:On March 27 2012 02:31 AwayFromLife wrote:
[quote]
Well, even in that regard, there's a line to be drawn. There's a difference between talking calmly and kindly about differences in religion, and screaming at one another because you don't believe in the same thing.
I'm a believer, and I would never insult anyone of a different religion, and I don't make fun of my atheist friends. I don't get upset when a non-believer asks me why I believe in God, but I do get my jimmies rustled when someone immediately identifies me as a bible-thumping idiot and claims superiority over me for my beliefs. Yes but here is the problem you support an organization (the church) that is responsible for millions of deaths. So you support an organization that has used mass genocide, mass murder, rape, enslavement and torture. You sound like you support the Nazi's. That's why I find "offence" in you even being part of that organization. Let alone the fact that you are belittling the logic of all of humanity by thinking that there is a mystical man in the sky. I also choose to live in America, so does that mean I support the genocide of Native Americans, the use of minorities as slave labor, and using nuclear weapons on civilians? Because Americans have done all that in the past. Extremism statements are silly. I don't condone everything the organizations I'm part of have done in the past (I live in Illinois, but I think selling Senate seats is wrong. How craAazy), and if you think every single person of faith does, you're an idiot. Yes but the government provides something? Your mystical man in the sky doesn't provide anything other than a false hope and a jobs for virgins. Honestly? I'd rather have "false" hope than $5 a gallon for gas. But the point is that you are throwing all of human knowledge out the window because "fuck proof". You are an idiot or insane. Fucking bonkers. You can be called such. Throwing out... alright, history lesson. [...] But hey, keep your blinders on. Who came up with the initial idea of the Big Bang? Catholic Priest. Who was shunned and ignored for ages.EDIT: My bad, he didn't know what he discovered* EDIT2: My bad again, I keep mixing up these damn theories. The big bang discovery had been discussed for a while before that priest got involved. It's not his discovery Who kept the majority of the European countries from falling apart during the Dark Ages and kept a record of all scientific advances during that time so they weren't lost? ...Catholic Church, again. The dark ages are named after the oppression the church and religion had on sciences and critical thinking. The church was not a good factor lol. Who supports the largest charitable organizations on the planet? Huh, Catholic Church again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_foundationsTop 5 are not Church related. Who never taught that the Earth was flat? The Church, even though they did stick to the whole "Sun revolving around the Earth" bit for a long time. Galileo is very happy that they prosecuted and convicted him for heresy for that theory I'm sure. Dunno about the other 2. Just don't spew out things you don't know about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître - or find another non-wikipedia biography. Nowhere does it talk about him being ostracized or cast out, so don't just spew things out. The dark ages were caused by the Visigoths, germanic tribes, rampaging about Europe, raping and pillaging everything in their path. The Church came down (heavy handed, admittedly) and kept everything in order. They were oppressive, but they kept Western civilization alive. History lessons. Well, http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html - for America, but most Catholic organizations are small groups like communities going out and helping, not one nebulous Catholic nonforprofit. Galileo was also stubborn about it and decided to publicly humiliate the Church, which forced a house arrest on him, despite being a close friend of the Pope. 1) See my edit, he unified the theory but it's not strictly his discovery. I was thinking of another theory. My bad 2) Very harsh indeed. 3) I was linking to non profit organizations, that's why your search differs. I do find it funny that Church charities turn a profit tho.. 4) Stubborn cause he was right. If the church didn't want to accept it that's their problem.. arresting him for talking bad about them is kinda bad don't you think? Summary: The church isn't the good guys in history as your initial post would paint them out to be. They've done some shitty things too. Anyway we're far off topic. Talk free people, censuring yourself is not a good idea for the mere potential of offending someone else.
1) Saw that a bit late, sorry. But it still stands, as no scientific discovery is built without predecssors. He was, in fact, the first to propose the expanding universe theory, despite the research related that he used beforehand. But that's not the point of it in the first place, it was to dissuade the idea that the Church is a science hating organization.
2) Yes, but (take it as you will), I'd rather have had that than have all written and recorded documents destroyed by rampaging scoundrels.
3) Profits go to paying Priests and upkeep on churches and the like. It's not to just buy things, it's generally for community works, restoration, and housing.
4) Well yeah Different times and what not, and no (relevant!) free speech during those times. He basically gave the finger to the ruling authorities in front of everyone in the know. It'd be like taking a dump in the Oval Office on camera.
Everyone's done some shitty things. The Church isn't always the good guys, but making it out to be the worst organization in the world is just as blind. It's run by humans, who do both good and bad, and have a large enough history to have plenty of examples of both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
109
32
EPT
