Freedom of Speech page 1
divagreen
7th February 2012, 05:37 PM
Privilege or right? What does freedom of speech mean to you.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
ksen
7th February 2012, 05:38 PM
shut up
ksen
7th February 2012, 05:38 PM
:hug:
divagreen
7th February 2012, 05:40 PM
:hmph:
:hug:
:hug:
FedUpWithFaith
7th February 2012, 05:56 PM
You used to be interesting Diva
FedUpWithFaith
7th February 2012, 06:00 PM
I'll bite anyway, because we're lovers.
Freedom of speech is my right to be able to ask you to post a pic of your tits in the forum.
Your freedom of speech would be the priviledge of posting a pic of your tits, or better yet, lot's of pics of your tits and ass.
Ah hell, just PM them to me.
Freedom of speech is my right to be able to ask you to post a pic of your tits in the forum.
Your freedom of speech would be the priviledge of posting a pic of your tits, or better yet, lot's of pics of your tits and ass.
Ah hell, just PM them to me.
Gonzo
7th February 2012, 06:09 PM
WTF. I thought I was diva's internet lover.
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
divagreen
7th February 2012, 06:25 PM
I'll bite anyway, because we're lovers.
Freedom of speech is my right to be able to ask you to post a pic of your tits in the forum.
Your freedom of speech would be the priviledge of posting a pic of your tits, or better yet, lot's of pics of your tits and ass.
Ah hell, just PM them to me.
Freedom of speech gives me the right to tell you to fuck off too, right? :p
WTF. I thought I was diva's internet lover.
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
I used to be this black and white too about this issue...but I don't think people have the right to publish misinformation or libel. Then there is the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, resulting in a stampede that causes the death of 2 people. What do you think about that.
Freedom of speech is my right to be able to ask you to post a pic of your tits in the forum.
Your freedom of speech would be the priviledge of posting a pic of your tits, or better yet, lot's of pics of your tits and ass.
Ah hell, just PM them to me.
Freedom of speech gives me the right to tell you to fuck off too, right? :p
WTF. I thought I was diva's internet lover.
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
I used to be this black and white too about this issue...but I don't think people have the right to publish misinformation or libel. Then there is the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, resulting in a stampede that causes the death of 2 people. What do you think about that.
FedUpWithFaith
7th February 2012, 06:30 PM
WTF. I thought I was diva's internet lover.
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
There are no natural rights. Rights are a human invention. The only objective thing is recognizing there seem to be fairly universal subjective human strivings and desires, which include the desire for freedom - including freedom of speech. We make the rules from those.
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
There are no natural rights. Rights are a human invention. The only objective thing is recognizing there seem to be fairly universal subjective human strivings and desires, which include the desire for freedom - including freedom of speech. We make the rules from those.
Dan B
7th February 2012, 06:59 PM
Rights are as natural as is the being who claims them.
The right to speak is as natural as the right to falsely about, not be spoken.
The right to speak is as natural as the right to falsely about, not be spoken.
Grumps
7th February 2012, 07:01 PM
Privilege or right? What does freedom of speech mean to you.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
Jovan
7th February 2012, 07:02 PM
I think it depends entirely on the circumstances.
It means something different on a forum, to what it means on a crowded bus/tram/train.
We had a debate on another site, where people claimed it was "freedom of speech" to shout racist abuse at another passenger on a tram.
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
I think it always has to be viewed in the context of "breach of the peace", or "harassment", or just plain "abuse".
I think the key thing is "intent", but that too is subjective.
The problem is, (IME) on internet forums, when there's 'no-hold-barred', some people can get a bit over-excited.
Also, there's the 'attraction' of anonymity.
There was a program on the TV last night, about 'internet trolls', who thrive on generating a (negative) reaction. Making people angry, or sad, to the point of actual suicide.
One of the most popular ways to guarantee this, was to post sick remarks about the recently deceased, on social networking memorial pages. "I'm glad she's dead, she was a whore" etc. -Always about people they had absolutely no connection with.
Some people "like" that sort of thing.:dunno:
I think people should be accountable.
I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but people should stand by their words, and not have the cowardly advantage of anonymity.
JMO
:wave:
It means something different on a forum, to what it means on a crowded bus/tram/train.
We had a debate on another site, where people claimed it was "freedom of speech" to shout racist abuse at another passenger on a tram.
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
I think it always has to be viewed in the context of "breach of the peace", or "harassment", or just plain "abuse".
I think the key thing is "intent", but that too is subjective.
The problem is, (IME) on internet forums, when there's 'no-hold-barred', some people can get a bit over-excited.
Also, there's the 'attraction' of anonymity.
There was a program on the TV last night, about 'internet trolls', who thrive on generating a (negative) reaction. Making people angry, or sad, to the point of actual suicide.
One of the most popular ways to guarantee this, was to post sick remarks about the recently deceased, on social networking memorial pages. "I'm glad she's dead, she was a whore" etc. -Always about people they had absolutely no connection with.
Some people "like" that sort of thing.:dunno:
I think people should be accountable.
I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but people should stand by their words, and not have the cowardly advantage of anonymity.
JMO
:wave:
Grumps
7th February 2012, 07:07 PM
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
ksen
7th February 2012, 07:08 PM
I think it depends entirely on the circumstances.
It means something different on a forum, to what it means on a crowded bus/tram/train.
We had a debate on another site, where people claimed it was "freedom of speech" to shout racist abuse at another passenger on a tram.
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
I think it always has to be viewed in the context of "breach of the peace", or "harassment", or just plain "abuse".
I think the key thing is "intent", but that too is subjective.
The problem is, (IME) on internet forums, when there's 'no-hold-barred', some people can get a bit over-excited.
Also, there's the 'attraction' of anonymity.
There was a program on the TV last night, about 'internet trolls', who thrive on generating a (negative) reaction. Making people angry, or sad, to the point of actual suicide.
One of the most popular ways to guarantee this, was to post sick remarks about the recently deceased, on social networking memorial pages. "I'm glad she's dead, she was a whore" etc. -Always about people they had absolutely no connection with.
Some people "like" that sort of thing.:dunno:
I think people should be accountable.
I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but people should stand by their words, and not have the cowardly advantage of anonymity.
JMO
:wave:
somethingawful.com
It means something different on a forum, to what it means on a crowded bus/tram/train.
We had a debate on another site, where people claimed it was "freedom of speech" to shout racist abuse at another passenger on a tram.
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
I think it always has to be viewed in the context of "breach of the peace", or "harassment", or just plain "abuse".
I think the key thing is "intent", but that too is subjective.
The problem is, (IME) on internet forums, when there's 'no-hold-barred', some people can get a bit over-excited.
Also, there's the 'attraction' of anonymity.
There was a program on the TV last night, about 'internet trolls', who thrive on generating a (negative) reaction. Making people angry, or sad, to the point of actual suicide.
One of the most popular ways to guarantee this, was to post sick remarks about the recently deceased, on social networking memorial pages. "I'm glad she's dead, she was a whore" etc. -Always about people they had absolutely no connection with.
Some people "like" that sort of thing.:dunno:
I think people should be accountable.
I'm all in favour of freedom of speech, but people should stand by their words, and not have the cowardly advantage of anonymity.
JMO
:wave:
somethingawful.com
Jovan
7th February 2012, 07:11 PM
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
ksen
7th February 2012, 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovan http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16534#post16534)
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
Are you worried because you're fat?
Originally Posted by Jovan http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16534#post16534)
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
Are you worried because you're fat?
Jovan
7th February 2012, 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovan http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16534#post16534)
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
Are you worried because you're fat?
No, I just think there's a place for both manners, and freedom of speech.
Like I said, it depends on circumstances.
Technically, I have the FOS to declare loudly during a funeral service, of the deceased, that IMO she deserved it.
But even if I thought that, I doubt that I would.
If you think your boss is a prick, would you tell him..?
Originally Posted by Jovan http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16534#post16534)
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
Are you worried because you're fat?
No, I just think there's a place for both manners, and freedom of speech.
Like I said, it depends on circumstances.
Technically, I have the FOS to declare loudly during a funeral service, of the deceased, that IMO she deserved it.
But even if I thought that, I doubt that I would.
If you think your boss is a prick, would you tell him..?
borealis
7th February 2012, 07:24 PM
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
We are free to volunteer such opinions, but no law says we have to volunteer them. Freedom of speech doesn't operate in some kind of stark ethical vacuum. Individuals choose to express what they think or not, according to whether such speech seems to them to be appropriate to the occasion, or useful, or not useful, or kind or unkind, or necessary or unnecessary, etc.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
We are free to volunteer such opinions, but no law says we have to volunteer them. Freedom of speech doesn't operate in some kind of stark ethical vacuum. Individuals choose to express what they think or not, according to whether such speech seems to them to be appropriate to the occasion, or useful, or not useful, or kind or unkind, or necessary or unnecessary, etc.
ksen
7th February 2012, 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jovan http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16534#post16534)
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
Are you worried because you're fat?
No, I just think there's a place for both manners, and freedom of speech.
Like I said, it depends on circumstances.
Technically, I have the FOS to declare loudly during a funeral service, of the deceased, that IMO she deserved it.
But even if I thought that, I doubt that I would.
Internet messageboards aren't real life so it's hardly practical to try and impose real life borders with what goes on in places like here.
If you think your boss is a prick, would you tell him..?
Does she post here?
Originally Posted by Jovan http://mindromp.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16534#post16534)
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
Are you worried because you're fat?
No, I just think there's a place for both manners, and freedom of speech.
Like I said, it depends on circumstances.
Technically, I have the FOS to declare loudly during a funeral service, of the deceased, that IMO she deserved it.
But even if I thought that, I doubt that I would.
Internet messageboards aren't real life so it's hardly practical to try and impose real life borders with what goes on in places like here.
If you think your boss is a prick, would you tell him..?
Does she post here?
gib
7th February 2012, 07:26 PM
jesus christ this thread
ksen
7th February 2012, 07:30 PM
gib, you're tired and need a shower.
(but your baby is lovely!)
(but your baby is lovely!)
FedUpWithFaith
7th February 2012, 07:41 PM
Rights are as natural as is the being who claims them.
The right to speak is as natural as the right to falsely about, not be spoken.
Speech, free or not, doesn't mean much unless there is somebody to speak to. Hence the conundrum.
The existence of natural rights is an unsettled area of moral philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
However, I find the concept somewhat incoherent. Rights only have meaning in relation to society or the lack thereof. A lone person in the world only thinks of their rights alone in contrast to what they were when with other people. In fact, they may seek to become a hermit on an island to enjoy more rights. Let's take your view to extremes and apply it to a "natural" right to stay alive instead of speech. In the face of limited resources, if I'm one of two people on an island it is my natural right to try to kill the other person first and thereby remove society and all its limitiations to my freedom. The problem is also that societies enable me to have freedoms to do things I would not naturally have alone. We are social animals, it is part of our nature, so I don't believe rights can be defined on the back of individuals alone, as the philosophy of natural rights claims.
The right to speak is as natural as the right to falsely about, not be spoken.
Speech, free or not, doesn't mean much unless there is somebody to speak to. Hence the conundrum.
The existence of natural rights is an unsettled area of moral philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
However, I find the concept somewhat incoherent. Rights only have meaning in relation to society or the lack thereof. A lone person in the world only thinks of their rights alone in contrast to what they were when with other people. In fact, they may seek to become a hermit on an island to enjoy more rights. Let's take your view to extremes and apply it to a "natural" right to stay alive instead of speech. In the face of limited resources, if I'm one of two people on an island it is my natural right to try to kill the other person first and thereby remove society and all its limitiations to my freedom. The problem is also that societies enable me to have freedoms to do things I would not naturally have alone. We are social animals, it is part of our nature, so I don't believe rights can be defined on the back of individuals alone, as the philosophy of natural rights claims.
divagreen
7th February 2012, 08:11 PM
Privilege or right? What does freedom of speech mean to you.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
I would say that there is no such thing as free speech IF you make it absolute.
Free speech is always conditional on how it is decided upon and defined by a society, group or forum.
If all agree and are accountable to that definition and there is no privilege extended to any one person or any group of persons that violates that definition; then freedom of expression or "free speech" can exist within that group.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
I would say that there is no such thing as free speech IF you make it absolute.
Free speech is always conditional on how it is decided upon and defined by a society, group or forum.
If all agree and are accountable to that definition and there is no privilege extended to any one person or any group of persons that violates that definition; then freedom of expression or "free speech" can exist within that group.
oblivion
7th February 2012, 08:47 PM
gib, you're tired and need a shower.
(but your baby is lovely!)
there's a pic of gib's sprog? WHERE?
(but your baby is lovely!)
there's a pic of gib's sprog? WHERE?
ksen
7th February 2012, 09:09 PM
gib, you're tired and need a shower.
(but your baby is lovely!)
there's a pic of gib's sprog? WHERE?
I haven't seen one. I was guessing. :hehe:
(but your baby is lovely!)
there's a pic of gib's sprog? WHERE?
I haven't seen one. I was guessing. :hehe:
charlou
7th February 2012, 09:20 PM
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
We have a voice and language, so yes.
The question is, how far do we go to prevent people from being able to use their voice and language?
A person is free to yell fire in a theatre, but there will be consequences after the fact.
How can a person be prevented from speaking in the first place?
.
We have a voice and language, so yes.
The question is, how far do we go to prevent people from being able to use their voice and language?
A person is free to yell fire in a theatre, but there will be consequences after the fact.
How can a person be prevented from speaking in the first place?
.
ksen
7th February 2012, 09:31 PM
"dammirt"
lol
lol
Dan B
7th February 2012, 09:36 PM
Rights are as natural as is the being who claims them.
The right to speak is as natural as the right to falsely about, not be spoken.
Speech, free or not, doesn't mean much unless there is somebody to speak to. Hence the conundrum.
Not much of a conundrum. No one, to which to speak, means no one to infringe upon one's right to speak. "Meaning", is an arbitrary assignment made or adopted by, the individual. What is natural is Cause and Effect.
The existence of natural rights is an unsettled area of moral philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
However, I find the concept somewhat incoherent. Rights only have meaning in relation to society or the lack thereof. A lone person in the world only thinks of their rights alone in contrast to what they were when with other people. In fact, they may seek to become a hermit on an island to enjoy more rights. Let's take your view to extremes and apply it to a "natural" right to stay alive instead of speech. In the face of limited resources, if I'm one of two people on an island it is my natural right to try to kill the other person first and thereby remove society and all its limitiations to my freedom. The problem is also that societies enable me to have freedoms to do things I would not naturally have alone. We are social animals, it is part of our nature, so I don't believe rights can be defined on the back of individuals alone, as the philosophy of natural rights claims.
As the second statement in my previous post indicates, the right of one may be in contention with the right of another. That is the nature of a society of individuals.
I don't engage in the defense of absurd extrapolations of a position, as the point is lost in the process.
That point being, we are creatures of a natural world. As such, we have a natural inherent behavior, from which we can discern an ethos, by which to allow us to cohabit, with a minimum of repression.
The trick has been and is still, understanding that nature.
The right to speak is as natural as the right to falsely about, not be spoken.
Speech, free or not, doesn't mean much unless there is somebody to speak to. Hence the conundrum.
Not much of a conundrum. No one, to which to speak, means no one to infringe upon one's right to speak. "Meaning", is an arbitrary assignment made or adopted by, the individual. What is natural is Cause and Effect.
The existence of natural rights is an unsettled area of moral philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/
However, I find the concept somewhat incoherent. Rights only have meaning in relation to society or the lack thereof. A lone person in the world only thinks of their rights alone in contrast to what they were when with other people. In fact, they may seek to become a hermit on an island to enjoy more rights. Let's take your view to extremes and apply it to a "natural" right to stay alive instead of speech. In the face of limited resources, if I'm one of two people on an island it is my natural right to try to kill the other person first and thereby remove society and all its limitiations to my freedom. The problem is also that societies enable me to have freedoms to do things I would not naturally have alone. We are social animals, it is part of our nature, so I don't believe rights can be defined on the back of individuals alone, as the philosophy of natural rights claims.
As the second statement in my previous post indicates, the right of one may be in contention with the right of another. That is the nature of a society of individuals.
I don't engage in the defense of absurd extrapolations of a position, as the point is lost in the process.
That point being, we are creatures of a natural world. As such, we have a natural inherent behavior, from which we can discern an ethos, by which to allow us to cohabit, with a minimum of repression.
The trick has been and is still, understanding that nature.
gib
7th February 2012, 09:57 PM
gib, you're tired and need a shower.
(but your baby is lovely!)
i do need to splash me nuts you're right
but i'm not that tired, mrs gib is doing all the hard work!
(but your baby is lovely!)
i do need to splash me nuts you're right
but i'm not that tired, mrs gib is doing all the hard work!
gib
7th February 2012, 09:59 PM
gib, you're tired and need a shower.
(but your baby is lovely!)
there's a pic of gib's sprog? WHERE?
don't have one on the computer yet but she is a darling
(but your baby is lovely!)
there's a pic of gib's sprog? WHERE?
don't have one on the computer yet but she is a darling
gib
7th February 2012, 10:00 PM
diva in response to your colberty comment - what is wrong with it is that the posts are all far too long that's what!
FedUpWithFaith
7th February 2012, 10:12 PM
Privilege or right? What does freedom of speech mean to you.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
You make good points that describe real practical effects but I think you're still fundamentally wrong in a few respects.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be heard. In fact, we don't have a freedom to be heard. We can't force somebody to listen to us or give them a medium of communication. To do so would have to violate someone's rights of privacy, ownership, or movement.
I think the laudable "inclusiveness" part of this forum's founding ethos is interpreted, at least be me and some others (I think Eloise), as to provide as much freedom to be heard as possible. To that end, this site has minimized privacy and the owner puts minimal controls on the medium of communication. The problem is movement. We can't force anyone to move to interact on this site but if there aren't many listeners there won't be much speech. Movement is the one thing we have to go outsde this forum to get. That's why we need to find a mission that drives new eyeballs here.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
You make good points that describe real practical effects but I think you're still fundamentally wrong in a few respects.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be heard. In fact, we don't have a freedom to be heard. We can't force somebody to listen to us or give them a medium of communication. To do so would have to violate someone's rights of privacy, ownership, or movement.
I think the laudable "inclusiveness" part of this forum's founding ethos is interpreted, at least be me and some others (I think Eloise), as to provide as much freedom to be heard as possible. To that end, this site has minimized privacy and the owner puts minimal controls on the medium of communication. The problem is movement. We can't force anyone to move to interact on this site but if there aren't many listeners there won't be much speech. Movement is the one thing we have to go outsde this forum to get. That's why we need to find a mission that drives new eyeballs here.
Grumps
8th February 2012, 07:44 AM
Privilege or right? What does freedom of speech mean to you.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
You make good points that describe real practical effects but I think you're still fundamentally wrong in a few respects.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be heard. In fact, we don't have a freedom to be heard. We can't force somebody to listen to us or give them a medium of communication. To do so would have to violate someone's rights of privacy, ownership, or movement.
I think the laudable "inclusiveness" part of this forum's founding ethos is interpreted, at least be me and some others (I think Eloise), as to provide as much freedom to be heard as possible. To that end, this site has minimized privacy and the owner puts minimal controls on the medium of communication. The problem is movement. We can't force anyone to move to interact on this site but if there aren't many listeners there won't be much speech. Movement is the one thing we have to go outsde this forum to get. That's why we need to find a mission that drives new eyeballs here.
I disagree. Free speech and the freedom to be heard are the same thing. Free speech has never been about noise, it has always been about opinion. It is about the right to express your opinion, and the right to have your opinion heard. Ensuring that someone is never heard is quite the same as ensuring they never speak.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
You make good points that describe real practical effects but I think you're still fundamentally wrong in a few respects.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be heard. In fact, we don't have a freedom to be heard. We can't force somebody to listen to us or give them a medium of communication. To do so would have to violate someone's rights of privacy, ownership, or movement.
I think the laudable "inclusiveness" part of this forum's founding ethos is interpreted, at least be me and some others (I think Eloise), as to provide as much freedom to be heard as possible. To that end, this site has minimized privacy and the owner puts minimal controls on the medium of communication. The problem is movement. We can't force anyone to move to interact on this site but if there aren't many listeners there won't be much speech. Movement is the one thing we have to go outsde this forum to get. That's why we need to find a mission that drives new eyeballs here.
I disagree. Free speech and the freedom to be heard are the same thing. Free speech has never been about noise, it has always been about opinion. It is about the right to express your opinion, and the right to have your opinion heard. Ensuring that someone is never heard is quite the same as ensuring they never speak.
Grumps
8th February 2012, 07:48 AM
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
That's precisely the point of free speech, to protect unpopular and even inflammatory opinions. Why not use a real example?
Why not take a look at Syria? The protestors' opinions weren't asked for, so I suppose they should just be quiet as well?
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
That's precisely the point of free speech, to protect unpopular and even inflammatory opinions. Why not use a real example?
Why not take a look at Syria? The protestors' opinions weren't asked for, so I suppose they should just be quiet as well?
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 08:22 AM
Privilege or right? What does freedom of speech mean to you.
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
You make good points that describe real practical effects but I think you're still fundamentally wrong in a few respects.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be heard. In fact, we don't have a freedom to be heard. We can't force somebody to listen to us or give them a medium of communication. To do so would have to violate someone's rights of privacy, ownership, or movement.
I think the laudable "inclusiveness" part of this forum's founding ethos is interpreted, at least be me and some others (I think Eloise), as to provide as much freedom to be heard as possible. To that end, this site has minimized privacy and the owner puts minimal controls on the medium of communication. The problem is movement. We can't force anyone to move to interact on this site but if there aren't many listeners there won't be much speech. Movement is the one thing we have to go outsde this forum to get. That's why we need to find a mission that drives new eyeballs here.
I disagree. Free speech and the freedom to be heard are the same thing. Free speech has never been about noise, it has always been about opinion. It is about the right to express your opinion, and the right to have your opinion heard. Ensuring that someone is never heard is quite the same as ensuring they never speak.
Sorry Grumps, you're still wrong except for your last sentence which is misleading you due to its public/non-public non-commutability. Free speech pertains only to the entity issuing speech IN PUBLIC. In public forums, I agree that inhibiting you from being heard is wrong and effectively the same as as preventing free speech. I should have qualified that before - my mistake. But you can't or shouldn't force anyone to listen nor can you command a platform on any non-public forum which make up over 99% of all communication. And even public forums have some restrictions to prevent all-out free speech to protect other rights in the public forum.
So you can go and shout in the street if you want to or create your own webpage. But this forum (MR) is not public and need not give you a speech platform nor does any private newspaper, web forum, radio program, or television show. Those who own those media control the speech. One hopes that in their scope and diversity that they will, in toto, give the public voice, and in the US, are required to by the FCC at various levels since the public airwaves are licensed by govt. and they are supposed to be used in the "public good".
Since this is one of the core principles of this site, I thought that it might be pretty interesting to hear people's different perspectives on this. :)
And what about ethical censorship? Do you think it exists?
Censorship can not be applied by consensus, or individual deliberation, flawlessly...
BUT
Anybody who advocates complete 'free speech' must understand that they are advocating the limitation of speech.
How? Quite simply, when you don't have a way of moderating speech, you let loud angry people, or mobs of the indignant, drown out certain other voices.
You silence some people by letting other people run wild.
Principally, the idea is to find a way to allow all opinions, any opinions, to be shared, but to ensure that volume doesn't silence the contrary or the minority opinion.
Good luck trying to do that though.
TL;DR No such thing as free speech, even when you make it absolute.
You make good points that describe real practical effects but I think you're still fundamentally wrong in a few respects.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to be heard. In fact, we don't have a freedom to be heard. We can't force somebody to listen to us or give them a medium of communication. To do so would have to violate someone's rights of privacy, ownership, or movement.
I think the laudable "inclusiveness" part of this forum's founding ethos is interpreted, at least be me and some others (I think Eloise), as to provide as much freedom to be heard as possible. To that end, this site has minimized privacy and the owner puts minimal controls on the medium of communication. The problem is movement. We can't force anyone to move to interact on this site but if there aren't many listeners there won't be much speech. Movement is the one thing we have to go outsde this forum to get. That's why we need to find a mission that drives new eyeballs here.
I disagree. Free speech and the freedom to be heard are the same thing. Free speech has never been about noise, it has always been about opinion. It is about the right to express your opinion, and the right to have your opinion heard. Ensuring that someone is never heard is quite the same as ensuring they never speak.
Sorry Grumps, you're still wrong except for your last sentence which is misleading you due to its public/non-public non-commutability. Free speech pertains only to the entity issuing speech IN PUBLIC. In public forums, I agree that inhibiting you from being heard is wrong and effectively the same as as preventing free speech. I should have qualified that before - my mistake. But you can't or shouldn't force anyone to listen nor can you command a platform on any non-public forum which make up over 99% of all communication. And even public forums have some restrictions to prevent all-out free speech to protect other rights in the public forum.
So you can go and shout in the street if you want to or create your own webpage. But this forum (MR) is not public and need not give you a speech platform nor does any private newspaper, web forum, radio program, or television show. Those who own those media control the speech. One hopes that in their scope and diversity that they will, in toto, give the public voice, and in the US, are required to by the FCC at various levels since the public airwaves are licensed by govt. and they are supposed to be used in the "public good".
Grumps
8th February 2012, 11:50 AM
Except what? Simply saying "no" doesn't make my point any less valid.
If this forum is really all about 'inclusiveness' then it has to accept that speech does have to be moderated if it ever intends to let people share their opinion.
Also, what makes this a private platform? The number of users?
Is facebook a private or a public platform? Twitter?
What makes these different from a speech in a privately owned hall, such as at a university?
If this forum is really all about 'inclusiveness' then it has to accept that speech does have to be moderated if it ever intends to let people share their opinion.
Also, what makes this a private platform? The number of users?
Is facebook a private or a public platform? Twitter?
What makes these different from a speech in a privately owned hall, such as at a university?
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 12:08 PM
Except what? Simply saying "no" doesn't make my point any less valid.
Can't help it if you can't follow logical argument
If this forum is really all about 'inclusiveness' then it has to accept that speech does have to be moderated if it ever intends to let people share their opinion.
I was addressing the abstract concept of Free Speech regardless of the existence of this forum. I thought that was at least part of the nature of this thread.
I can see, under a number of circumstances, how lack of moderation inhibits your abilility to be heard but not your freedom to speak, at least not at MR. It is the core value of inclusion (not specifically mentioned BTW on splash page) that promotes ability to be heard.
Also, what makes this a private platform? The number of users?
Is facebook a private or a public platform? Twitter?
What makes these different from a speech in a privately owned hall, such as at a university?
Are you kidding me? This forum, Facebook, Twitter, private hall (LOL) - ALL PRIVATE. All of them have the right to make rules to restrict speech. They could all forbid the use of the word "fuck" if they wanted to and kick your ass out if you used it. Universities, including public universities, can also restrict speech and many do, though it tends to violate the ethos of a university. That ethos isn't enforceable by law unless it's incorporated into a legal charter governing the institution, in which case violation and subsequent litigation would generally be a civil matter, not a federal one (at least in US, unless it involves discrimination and other civil rights requirements).
Can't help it if you can't follow logical argument
If this forum is really all about 'inclusiveness' then it has to accept that speech does have to be moderated if it ever intends to let people share their opinion.
I was addressing the abstract concept of Free Speech regardless of the existence of this forum. I thought that was at least part of the nature of this thread.
I can see, under a number of circumstances, how lack of moderation inhibits your abilility to be heard but not your freedom to speak, at least not at MR. It is the core value of inclusion (not specifically mentioned BTW on splash page) that promotes ability to be heard.
Also, what makes this a private platform? The number of users?
Is facebook a private or a public platform? Twitter?
What makes these different from a speech in a privately owned hall, such as at a university?
Are you kidding me? This forum, Facebook, Twitter, private hall (LOL) - ALL PRIVATE. All of them have the right to make rules to restrict speech. They could all forbid the use of the word "fuck" if they wanted to and kick your ass out if you used it. Universities, including public universities, can also restrict speech and many do, though it tends to violate the ethos of a university. That ethos isn't enforceable by law unless it's incorporated into a legal charter governing the institution, in which case violation and subsequent litigation would generally be a civil matter, not a federal one (at least in US, unless it involves discrimination and other civil rights requirements).
Jovan
8th February 2012, 06:26 PM
I disagreed, because no-one (not the 'victim' anyway) had asked for her opinion.
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
That's precisely the point of free speech, to protect unpopular and even inflammatory opinions. Why not use a real example?
Why not take a look at Syria? The protestors' opinions weren't asked for, so I suppose they should just be quiet as well?
I did use a real example, that actually happened to me, with my then, 3 year-old son, on a bus.
I had to explain why it wasn't polite, and how people's feelings could be hurt. It's very simple to understand, you just have to imagine how you might feel, to have a stranger, volunteering their opinion of your appearance.
We all have freedom of speech, all of the time (here, the UK, IMO) but we generally moderate our speech. (Most polite people do, at any rate).
I take your point about Syria, but if they end up as some crazy muslim theocracy, (like Iran did, after the fall of the 'Shah') the irony will be apparent.
As I said earlier, freedom of speech means different things, in different circumstances; political, social, on a forum. etc.
I don't think you necessarily need permission, but even when you implicitly have permission, as in "does my arse look big in this..?" and other awkward situations, we may have absolute freedom of speech, but sometimes we simply choose not to use it.
They used to call that; "tact". :dunno:
:wave:
An opinion does not need permission - permission is contrary to free speech.
So we're all free to volunteer our "opinions", loudly, to whoever we meet, in any situation..?
Why did I bother to teach my children not to say "That lady's really fat" then.?
That's precisely the point of free speech, to protect unpopular and even inflammatory opinions. Why not use a real example?
Why not take a look at Syria? The protestors' opinions weren't asked for, so I suppose they should just be quiet as well?
I did use a real example, that actually happened to me, with my then, 3 year-old son, on a bus.
I had to explain why it wasn't polite, and how people's feelings could be hurt. It's very simple to understand, you just have to imagine how you might feel, to have a stranger, volunteering their opinion of your appearance.
We all have freedom of speech, all of the time (here, the UK, IMO) but we generally moderate our speech. (Most polite people do, at any rate).
I take your point about Syria, but if they end up as some crazy muslim theocracy, (like Iran did, after the fall of the 'Shah') the irony will be apparent.
As I said earlier, freedom of speech means different things, in different circumstances; political, social, on a forum. etc.
I don't think you necessarily need permission, but even when you implicitly have permission, as in "does my arse look big in this..?" and other awkward situations, we may have absolute freedom of speech, but sometimes we simply choose not to use it.
They used to call that; "tact". :dunno:
ksen
8th February 2012, 06:29 PM
We all have freedom of speech, all of the time (here, the UK, IMO)
:unsure:
:unsure:
DangerBlouse
8th February 2012, 09:07 PM
It seems to me that freedom of speech is a construct intended to protect the ability to express concepts. When it is enlisted to support name-calling or fraud or fear or exposure of one's private data, it rather dilutes the "value." Of course, determination of value is another topic.*
*
But, consider the "freedom" to use swear words or racist terminology. At one time, the shock value associated with such words was, in itself, an impetus to reflect on the meaning of such words (their "inherent" evil and/or value).*
*
Nowadays, the shock has worn off of many words that one can observe in a multitude of media; the "concept" associated with that particular form of expression has been presented and most people are aware of the fact that words, themselves, are not in fact, evil.*
*
So, is the need to express oneself in such a way a noble attempt to open the minds of others to the importance of freedom of expression? Hardly. That avenue for stretching the mind's boundaries was novel 50 years ago, but feels hackneyed, now, IMO.*
*
Such tiresome cage rattling seems rather impotent when the cage door is open. The same can be said for racist comments. Is the intent to stun the audience into an apoplectic fit with one's use of racial epithets? This is considered proper if one employs the epithets associated with one's own race, but not others. However, the use of foul language seems in today's world somewhat distracting and speaks not to the freedom of discussing concepts in an unfettered manner, but the need for attention and, in some circles, the lack of anything better or more accurate to say.*
*
In summary, I feel the emphasis on freedom of speech is best served when it allows for the broadest exchange of ideas and does not obviate one from the responsibility of communicating one's thoughts with possibly distracting and gratuitous fucking language.
*
But, consider the "freedom" to use swear words or racist terminology. At one time, the shock value associated with such words was, in itself, an impetus to reflect on the meaning of such words (their "inherent" evil and/or value).*
*
Nowadays, the shock has worn off of many words that one can observe in a multitude of media; the "concept" associated with that particular form of expression has been presented and most people are aware of the fact that words, themselves, are not in fact, evil.*
*
So, is the need to express oneself in such a way a noble attempt to open the minds of others to the importance of freedom of expression? Hardly. That avenue for stretching the mind's boundaries was novel 50 years ago, but feels hackneyed, now, IMO.*
*
Such tiresome cage rattling seems rather impotent when the cage door is open. The same can be said for racist comments. Is the intent to stun the audience into an apoplectic fit with one's use of racial epithets? This is considered proper if one employs the epithets associated with one's own race, but not others. However, the use of foul language seems in today's world somewhat distracting and speaks not to the freedom of discussing concepts in an unfettered manner, but the need for attention and, in some circles, the lack of anything better or more accurate to say.*
*
In summary, I feel the emphasis on freedom of speech is best served when it allows for the broadest exchange of ideas and does not obviate one from the responsibility of communicating one's thoughts with possibly distracting and gratuitous fucking language.
Cunt
8th February 2012, 10:01 PM
I used to be this black and white too about this issue...but I don't think people have the right to publish misinformation or libel. Then there is the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, resulting in a stampede that causes the death of 2 people. What do you think about that.
With that quote in mind, what about someone who passes out flyers protesting the 'draft'? (slave-armies to those outside the US)
The person speaking about the evils of slave armies might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre', or might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre which is on fire at the time'
Some smart contrarian...
To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker?
In summary, I feel the emphasis on freedom of speech is best served when it allows for the broadest exchange of ideas and does not obviate one from the responsibility of communicating one's thoughts with possibly distracting and gratuitous fucking language.
I have chosen the name I use in part because you are wrong. Scream my name in various venues to see that there is, indeed, some shock still felt.
Also, many folks can not get past the sound of one word like 'cunt'. I am happy to let them go away (from me) because if that offends them, they had better not try to understand my position on, say, abortion.
With that quote in mind, what about someone who passes out flyers protesting the 'draft'? (slave-armies to those outside the US)
The person speaking about the evils of slave armies might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre', or might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre which is on fire at the time'
Some smart contrarian...
To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker?
In summary, I feel the emphasis on freedom of speech is best served when it allows for the broadest exchange of ideas and does not obviate one from the responsibility of communicating one's thoughts with possibly distracting and gratuitous fucking language.
I have chosen the name I use in part because you are wrong. Scream my name in various venues to see that there is, indeed, some shock still felt.
Also, many folks can not get past the sound of one word like 'cunt'. I am happy to let them go away (from me) because if that offends them, they had better not try to understand my position on, say, abortion.
DangerBlouse
8th February 2012, 10:33 PM
I have chosen the name I use in part because you are wrong. Scream my name in various venues to see that there is, indeed, some shock still felt.*
*
Hope I am quoting properly.*
*
I am not sure where i was "wrong." I said Nowadays, the shock has worn off of many words that one can observe in a multitude of media; the "concept" associated with that particular form of expression has been presented and most people are aware of the fact that words, themselves, are not in fact, evil.*
Note the use of "many," not "all."*
*
1) I am aware of the revulsion the word cunt has (inspires) in public usage. Much of it is attached to the denigration of women. I wonder why, for full effect, you did not choose the name "nigger cunt?"*
*
2) What is the "concept" your use of this term is trying to convey? Are you attempting to remind people that:*
a) some words, in and of themselves, conjure up a visceral reaction?*
b) this site can be relied upon to allow the broadest expression of speech? (I still think your illustration falls short of my suggestion, above)*
c) you are inured to the impact, so hope the repeated display of the term will desensitize those who observe it?*
*
You should be aware that many people are not "shocked" by such language as they are selective of the words they choose from which to surround themselves. Your "position" on abortion is an opinion that another person is free to entertain, learn from or reject.*
*
The repetitive online "chanting" of the word cunt that appears in association with each post or communication may not offer any well-formed or charitable insight into your thought process. Perhaps you don't care; preferring to drive off those you may feel do not share your views or perhaps tolerance for profanity.*
*
That would be a very naive perspective - to think that because one may not like a word that denigrates those who have the cunt, that they are unlikely to be open-minded enough to respect your opinion on abortion. How does that correlate exactly?*
*
Anyway, you are NOT "Scream[ing] [your] name in various venues," you are, in fact, visiting a word which some people may interpret as an unfortunate perspective on females. It is not necessarily the badge of a free-thinking progressive libertarian as seen by some who may visit this site without the benefit of knowing something of the disputes under which the site was founded. You (and possibly this site) are the one(s) who will "suffer" the consequences of peoples' assumptions about your motives, since most won't be arsed to inquire about something which seems so puerile in this day and age and come to their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly).
*
Hope I am quoting properly.*
*
I am not sure where i was "wrong." I said Nowadays, the shock has worn off of many words that one can observe in a multitude of media; the "concept" associated with that particular form of expression has been presented and most people are aware of the fact that words, themselves, are not in fact, evil.*
Note the use of "many," not "all."*
*
1) I am aware of the revulsion the word cunt has (inspires) in public usage. Much of it is attached to the denigration of women. I wonder why, for full effect, you did not choose the name "nigger cunt?"*
*
2) What is the "concept" your use of this term is trying to convey? Are you attempting to remind people that:*
a) some words, in and of themselves, conjure up a visceral reaction?*
b) this site can be relied upon to allow the broadest expression of speech? (I still think your illustration falls short of my suggestion, above)*
c) you are inured to the impact, so hope the repeated display of the term will desensitize those who observe it?*
*
You should be aware that many people are not "shocked" by such language as they are selective of the words they choose from which to surround themselves. Your "position" on abortion is an opinion that another person is free to entertain, learn from or reject.*
*
The repetitive online "chanting" of the word cunt that appears in association with each post or communication may not offer any well-formed or charitable insight into your thought process. Perhaps you don't care; preferring to drive off those you may feel do not share your views or perhaps tolerance for profanity.*
*
That would be a very naive perspective - to think that because one may not like a word that denigrates those who have the cunt, that they are unlikely to be open-minded enough to respect your opinion on abortion. How does that correlate exactly?*
*
Anyway, you are NOT "Scream[ing] [your] name in various venues," you are, in fact, visiting a word which some people may interpret as an unfortunate perspective on females. It is not necessarily the badge of a free-thinking progressive libertarian as seen by some who may visit this site without the benefit of knowing something of the disputes under which the site was founded. You (and possibly this site) are the one(s) who will "suffer" the consequences of peoples' assumptions about your motives, since most won't be arsed to inquire about something which seems so puerile in this day and age and come to their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly).
charlou
8th February 2012, 10:44 PM
Cunt is beautiful.
Well I like mine, anyway. :)
I'm here because my mother has one, and all her mothers before her.
Cunt, is not a dirty word.
Well I like mine, anyway. :)
I'm here because my mother has one, and all her mothers before her.
Cunt, is not a dirty word.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 10:56 PM
I used to be this black and white too about this issue...but I don't think people have the right to publish misinformation or libel. Then there is the example of someone yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, resulting in a stampede that causes the death of 2 people. What do you think about that.
With that quote in mind, what about someone who passes out flyers protesting the 'draft'? (slave-armies to those outside the US)
The person speaking about the evils of slave armies might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre', or might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre which is on fire at the time'
Some smart contrarian...
To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker?
I side with Diva on this one Cunt, and not just because I'm still hoping she emails me pics of her tits. (OK, that's mostly the reason)
"Rights" whatever they are, never run an infinitely parallel path. They invariably intersect to conflict with each other, as I've argued our own core ethos-derived rights will.
In philosophy and law there are many mechanisms to resolve the conflict, none of them perfect. Generally, if you view the total of all your rights (to life, speech, privacy, etc.) as "X", the goal is to maximize that (operations research people call this a utility function). Moreover, we tend to hierarchically categorize and weigh some rights more than others. For example, without my right to live, my right to speak is pretty much useless. Every culture, including this forum's, has or will be forced to agree on their own utility function when rights conflict.
In the examples above, you have made a fatal flaw Cunt in failing to distinguish between thought and action. Yelling fire falsely in a crowded theatre induces an immediate risk of action, without thought or deliberation, that can lead to imminent death which is a deprivation of the most critical right of life. We always distinguish between the value of various forms of speech when building our utility function. Why do we ban spam? Why do most societies place restrictions on advertising speech?
I would argue that most valuable and important forms of speech are those that warn of true danger or which lead to thoughtful dialogue and debate, no matter how disagreeable or dangerous.
Falsely yelling fire contravenes the first and prevents the later. It's as worthless a form as speech as there could be and the fact that it is downright dangerous to the right of life makes this a logical no-brainer.
Peaceful draft protests offer no immediate threat though they could lead to disaster I suppose after the society accepts or rejects the argument and makes the wrong decision. But how could you know beforehand? You can't be sure that your protesting might not stiffen the opposition and make militarism more likely. The point is that protest, debate and dialogue are generally good for society even when they occassionally lead to bad decisions. If you can't be sure what the outcome will be you can't call the speech threat imminent. That is the standard applied by the US Supreme Court.
There is a similar form of argument for libel and slander but they're not as clear cut and you generally find that different democracies differ on this issue more. It all comes down to the relative values we place on being allowed to make false statements vs. the imminent or provable damage to a human's right to pursue happiness which may involve being gainfully employed and all those things we want/need that rely on our reputation.
With that quote in mind, what about someone who passes out flyers protesting the 'draft'? (slave-armies to those outside the US)
The person speaking about the evils of slave armies might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre', or might be 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre which is on fire at the time'
Some smart contrarian...
To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker?
I side with Diva on this one Cunt, and not just because I'm still hoping she emails me pics of her tits. (OK, that's mostly the reason)
"Rights" whatever they are, never run an infinitely parallel path. They invariably intersect to conflict with each other, as I've argued our own core ethos-derived rights will.
In philosophy and law there are many mechanisms to resolve the conflict, none of them perfect. Generally, if you view the total of all your rights (to life, speech, privacy, etc.) as "X", the goal is to maximize that (operations research people call this a utility function). Moreover, we tend to hierarchically categorize and weigh some rights more than others. For example, without my right to live, my right to speak is pretty much useless. Every culture, including this forum's, has or will be forced to agree on their own utility function when rights conflict.
In the examples above, you have made a fatal flaw Cunt in failing to distinguish between thought and action. Yelling fire falsely in a crowded theatre induces an immediate risk of action, without thought or deliberation, that can lead to imminent death which is a deprivation of the most critical right of life. We always distinguish between the value of various forms of speech when building our utility function. Why do we ban spam? Why do most societies place restrictions on advertising speech?
I would argue that most valuable and important forms of speech are those that warn of true danger or which lead to thoughtful dialogue and debate, no matter how disagreeable or dangerous.
Falsely yelling fire contravenes the first and prevents the later. It's as worthless a form as speech as there could be and the fact that it is downright dangerous to the right of life makes this a logical no-brainer.
Peaceful draft protests offer no immediate threat though they could lead to disaster I suppose after the society accepts or rejects the argument and makes the wrong decision. But how could you know beforehand? You can't be sure that your protesting might not stiffen the opposition and make militarism more likely. The point is that protest, debate and dialogue are generally good for society even when they occassionally lead to bad decisions. If you can't be sure what the outcome will be you can't call the speech threat imminent. That is the standard applied by the US Supreme Court.
There is a similar form of argument for libel and slander but they're not as clear cut and you generally find that different democracies differ on this issue more. It all comes down to the relative values we place on being allowed to make false statements vs. the imminent or provable damage to a human's right to pursue happiness which may involve being gainfully employed and all those things we want/need that rely on our reputation.
DangerBlouse
8th February 2012, 10:57 PM
Cunt is beautiful.
Well I like mine, anyway.
I'm here because my mother has one, and all her mothers before her.
Cunt, is not a dirty word.
I agree. Cunts are beautiful. Somehow, that is not the message that I get when I see Cunt's username in conjunction with his/her signature.
His/her response focused on the shock value of his/her username. After all, the chosen username is not "I love cunts," or "Cunts are fabulous."
I shall anticipate with interest his/her response to my query:
2) What is the "concept" your use of this term is trying to convey?
Well I like mine, anyway.
I'm here because my mother has one, and all her mothers before her.
Cunt, is not a dirty word.
I agree. Cunts are beautiful. Somehow, that is not the message that I get when I see Cunt's username in conjunction with his/her signature.
His/her response focused on the shock value of his/her username. After all, the chosen username is not "I love cunts," or "Cunts are fabulous."
I shall anticipate with interest his/her response to my query:
2) What is the "concept" your use of this term is trying to convey?
Jovan
8th February 2012, 11:01 PM
Oooooh. You said n****r.
:doublefacepalm:
:doublefacepalm:
FedUpWithFaith
9th February 2012, 12:43 AM
Cunt is beautiful.
Well I like mine, anyway. :)
I'm here because my mother has one, and all her mothers before her.
Cunt, is not a dirty word.
You're a wise cunt.
Well I like mine, anyway. :)
I'm here because my mother has one, and all her mothers before her.
Cunt, is not a dirty word.
You're a wise cunt.
Cunt
9th February 2012, 02:30 AM
I have chosen the name I use in part because you are wrong. Scream my name in various venues to see that there is, indeed, some shock still felt.*
*
Hope I am quoting properly.*
*
I am not sure where i was "wrong." I said Nowadays, the shock has worn off of many words that one can observe in a multitude of media; the "concept" associated with that particular form of expression has been presented and most people are aware of the fact that words, themselves, are not in fact, evil.*
Note the use of "many," not "all."*Right.
*
1) I am aware of the revulsion the word cunt has (inspires) in public usage. Much of it is attached to the denigration of women. I wonder why, for full effect, you did not choose the name "nigger cunt?"*If you are asking, it's because my choice of name has nothing at all to do with 'race issues', or the word nigger. I did not choose it only to cause offense, but to exercise a freedom which I find important. There were many words which could do that but none quite so targeted and brutal as cunt. It happens to alert me to narrow-mindedness of a certain variety sometimes.
(this could take a minute)
When someone sees you doing something 'bad' and says 'don't be a fag', it is a way of insulting you, but more importantly (to me, the bystander) it is a way of making it sound like there is something 'bad' about being gay.
When someone calls you a 'retard', think of a nice lady I met who was locked up in an institution as a youth without having committed any crime. She was being raped often, so the staff decided to give her a hysterectomy. You know, didn't want her to end up pregnant...that would have been awkward.
Think that they decided to pick on a group who have been victimized so much people STILL fucking think it's okay. A group so weak that it should be an embarrassment for anyone using it.
I think people deserve better.
ANYway, people are using 'cunt' the same way, and insulting women's private parts - directing them to feel shame - is off-putting to me.
But if you weren't asking, but say, trying to pretend to speculate as a way of attacking my character, well go ahead! But please take your blouse off first.
Oh, and when forced to go without it once, I chose Pudendum. The word has it's origins in the word for 'shame'. I think 'Cunt' communicates that connection more clearly than Pudendum.
Plus I REALLY like cunts.
*
2) What is the "concept" your use of this term is trying to convey? Are you attempting to remind people that:*
a) some words, in and of themselves, conjure up a visceral reaction?*
b) this site can be relied upon to allow the broadest expression of speech? (I still think your illustration falls short of my suggestion, above)*
c) you are inured to the impact, so hope the repeated display of the term will desensitize those who observe it?*
There are so many speculations I could answer there!
I first chose it, mainly, because my posts were razed because they contained foul language. I considered it unpleasant enough that I made sure every post was unacceptable to anyone with those standards. I don't even like participating in forums where I can't be 'Cunt'. I use the Bruce quote in my signature for much the same reason.
Freedom of speech is important to me. So are people with cunts. Easy-peasy.
The repetitive online "chanting" of the word cunt that appears in association with each post or communication may not offer any well-formed or charitable insight into your thought process. Perhaps you don't care; preferring to drive off those you may feel do not share your views or perhaps tolerance for profanity.*I can't drive someone off with a few letters, they would be making that choice for themselves.
Wouldn't they?
*
That would be a very naive perspective - to think that because one may not like a word that denigrates those who have the cunt, that they are unlikely to be open-minded enough to respect your opinion on abortion. How does that correlate exactly?*It doesn't, but there is a high correlation between folks who get upset over a word and folks who get upset over my firm position on abortion. I now understand that correlation does not indicate causation and will watch more closely. There are a lot of reasons I have this name, though. Here is another - I like it.
Anyway, you are NOT "Scream[ing] [your] name in various venues," you are, in fact, visiting a word which some people may interpret as an unfortunate perspective on females. Yes, it is an ugly fact that many thing ugly thoughts when they hear a word describing such beauty.
I know there are reasons for it, but I simply do not agree with them.
It is not necessarily the badge of a free-thinking progressive libertarian as seen by some who may visit this site without the benefit of knowing something of the disputes under which the site was founded.Anyone can ask. Even if they 'fake-ask' as a means to put up a bunch of insults I will likely take a bit of time to answer. I'm good like that.
You (and possibly this site) are the one(s) who will "suffer" the consequences of peoples' assumptions about your motives, since most won't be arsed to inquire about something which seems so puerile in this day and age and come to their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly).Suffer? I have been ENJOYING the consequences so far (though I admit I have only tried it for a few years)
*
Hope I am quoting properly.*
*
I am not sure where i was "wrong." I said Nowadays, the shock has worn off of many words that one can observe in a multitude of media; the "concept" associated with that particular form of expression has been presented and most people are aware of the fact that words, themselves, are not in fact, evil.*
Note the use of "many," not "all."*Right.
*
1) I am aware of the revulsion the word cunt has (inspires) in public usage. Much of it is attached to the denigration of women. I wonder why, for full effect, you did not choose the name "nigger cunt?"*If you are asking, it's because my choice of name has nothing at all to do with 'race issues', or the word nigger. I did not choose it only to cause offense, but to exercise a freedom which I find important. There were many words which could do that but none quite so targeted and brutal as cunt. It happens to alert me to narrow-mindedness of a certain variety sometimes.
(this could take a minute)
When someone sees you doing something 'bad' and says 'don't be a fag', it is a way of insulting you, but more importantly (to me, the bystander) it is a way of making it sound like there is something 'bad' about being gay.
When someone calls you a 'retard', think of a nice lady I met who was locked up in an institution as a youth without having committed any crime. She was being raped often, so the staff decided to give her a hysterectomy. You know, didn't want her to end up pregnant...that would have been awkward.
Think that they decided to pick on a group who have been victimized so much people STILL fucking think it's okay. A group so weak that it should be an embarrassment for anyone using it.
I think people deserve better.
ANYway, people are using 'cunt' the same way, and insulting women's private parts - directing them to feel shame - is off-putting to me.
But if you weren't asking, but say, trying to pretend to speculate as a way of attacking my character, well go ahead! But please take your blouse off first.
Oh, and when forced to go without it once, I chose Pudendum. The word has it's origins in the word for 'shame'. I think 'Cunt' communicates that connection more clearly than Pudendum.
Plus I REALLY like cunts.
*
2) What is the "concept" your use of this term is trying to convey? Are you attempting to remind people that:*
a) some words, in and of themselves, conjure up a visceral reaction?*
b) this site can be relied upon to allow the broadest expression of speech? (I still think your illustration falls short of my suggestion, above)*
c) you are inured to the impact, so hope the repeated display of the term will desensitize those who observe it?*
There are so many speculations I could answer there!
I first chose it, mainly, because my posts were razed because they contained foul language. I considered it unpleasant enough that I made sure every post was unacceptable to anyone with those standards. I don't even like participating in forums where I can't be 'Cunt'. I use the Bruce quote in my signature for much the same reason.
Freedom of speech is important to me. So are people with cunts. Easy-peasy.
The repetitive online "chanting" of the word cunt that appears in association with each post or communication may not offer any well-formed or charitable insight into your thought process. Perhaps you don't care; preferring to drive off those you may feel do not share your views or perhaps tolerance for profanity.*I can't drive someone off with a few letters, they would be making that choice for themselves.
Wouldn't they?
*
That would be a very naive perspective - to think that because one may not like a word that denigrates those who have the cunt, that they are unlikely to be open-minded enough to respect your opinion on abortion. How does that correlate exactly?*It doesn't, but there is a high correlation between folks who get upset over a word and folks who get upset over my firm position on abortion. I now understand that correlation does not indicate causation and will watch more closely. There are a lot of reasons I have this name, though. Here is another - I like it.
Anyway, you are NOT "Scream[ing] [your] name in various venues," you are, in fact, visiting a word which some people may interpret as an unfortunate perspective on females. Yes, it is an ugly fact that many thing ugly thoughts when they hear a word describing such beauty.
I know there are reasons for it, but I simply do not agree with them.
It is not necessarily the badge of a free-thinking progressive libertarian as seen by some who may visit this site without the benefit of knowing something of the disputes under which the site was founded.Anyone can ask. Even if they 'fake-ask' as a means to put up a bunch of insults I will likely take a bit of time to answer. I'm good like that.
You (and possibly this site) are the one(s) who will "suffer" the consequences of peoples' assumptions about your motives, since most won't be arsed to inquire about something which seems so puerile in this day and age and come to their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly).Suffer? I have been ENJOYING the consequences so far (though I admit I have only tried it for a few years)
divagreen
9th February 2012, 05:09 AM
Welcome, DangerBlouse!
:hehe:
:hehe:
Hermit
11th February 2012, 12:22 AM
When someone sees you doing something 'bad' and says 'don't be a fag', it is a way of insulting you, but more importantly (to me, the bystander) it is a way of making it sound like there is something 'bad' about being gay.
When someone calls you a 'retard', think of a nice lady I met who was locked up in an institution as a youth without having committed any crime. She was being raped often, so the staff decided to give her a hysterectomy. You know, didn't want her to end up pregnant...that would have been awkward.
Think that they decided to pick on a group who have been victimized so much people STILL fucking think it's okay. A group so weak that it should be an embarrassment for anyone using it.
I think people deserve better.
ANYway, people are using 'cunt' the same way, and insulting women's private parts - directing them to feel shame - is off-putting to me.
In another forum I encountered a member who was trying to develop, advocate and promote what he termed An Aesthetic of Offence. It made less sense to me than yours, but not by much.
Also, you are not a bystander. I am. :D
When someone calls you a 'retard', think of a nice lady I met who was locked up in an institution as a youth without having committed any crime. She was being raped often, so the staff decided to give her a hysterectomy. You know, didn't want her to end up pregnant...that would have been awkward.
Think that they decided to pick on a group who have been victimized so much people STILL fucking think it's okay. A group so weak that it should be an embarrassment for anyone using it.
I think people deserve better.
ANYway, people are using 'cunt' the same way, and insulting women's private parts - directing them to feel shame - is off-putting to me.
In another forum I encountered a member who was trying to develop, advocate and promote what he termed An Aesthetic of Offence. It made less sense to me than yours, but not by much.
Also, you are not a bystander. I am. :D
Cunt
11th February 2012, 12:31 AM
If I started to insult people by saying 'Don't be such a fucking Seraph', would you think I was also insulting you?
Hermit
11th February 2012, 01:02 AM
If I started to insult people by saying 'Don't be such a fucking Seraph', would you think I was also insulting you?Of course! Stupid question!
Cunt
11th February 2012, 01:07 AM
So using 'Seraph', or 'retard', or 'nigger' or 'faggot' as an insult is also insulting 'Seraph', 'retarded', etc.
Get it?
Get it?
Hermit
11th February 2012, 01:22 AM
So using 'Seraph', or 'retard', or 'nigger' or 'faggot' as an insult is also insulting 'Seraph', 'retarded', etc.
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Jerome
11th February 2012, 01:46 AM
Oooooh. You said NIGGER.
:nada:
:nada:
Cunt
11th February 2012, 01:50 AM
So using 'Seraph', or 'retard', or 'nigger' or 'faggot' as an insult is also insulting 'Seraph', 'retarded', etc.
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Not quite. It's not 'Seraphness' which is insulted, but Seraph. It's not 'retardedness', but those who have worn that label.
Do you think of someone being a bit daft when you think of retarded? Or someone born with downs syndrome, or a developmental disability? (for most it is the latter, which makes it more than a little abusive, you fucking dyke)
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Not quite. It's not 'Seraphness' which is insulted, but Seraph. It's not 'retardedness', but those who have worn that label.
Do you think of someone being a bit daft when you think of retarded? Or someone born with downs syndrome, or a developmental disability? (for most it is the latter, which makes it more than a little abusive, you fucking dyke)
Jerome
11th February 2012, 01:56 AM
The wisest course is to not bother with name-calling, if someone can take you out of who you are by saying a word, they are in control of you.
ficus
11th February 2012, 03:13 AM
Rights are as natural as is the being who claims them.True, and since the being claiming them is a human, rights are artificial, since artifice is human nature.
ficus
11th February 2012, 03:18 AM
The wisest course is to not bother with name-calling, if someone can take you out of who you are by saying a word, they are in control of you.In Spicland we don't have a general conception of racial slur. If you would want to offend someone because of their race, no word alone will suffice: It requires either the addition of an adjective to the racial term (filthy, stupid..), or a despective tone in its enunciation.
ficus
11th February 2012, 03:22 AM
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
Jury finds against your client: The 'natural' defense is found lacking and meaningless, since 'all is nature'. Rights are legal constructs, granted or denied by those holding power over society (aka 'might is right').
Jury finds against your client: The 'natural' defense is found lacking and meaningless, since 'all is nature'. Rights are legal constructs, granted or denied by those holding power over society (aka 'might is right').
Jerome
11th February 2012, 03:28 AM
Rights are as natural as is the being who claims them.True, and since the being claiming them is a human, rights are artificial, since artifice is human nature.
DanB believes in ancient aliens!
DanB believes in ancient aliens!
Hermit
11th February 2012, 07:15 AM
So using 'Seraph', or 'retard', or 'nigger' or 'faggot' as an insult is also insulting 'Seraph', 'retarded', etc.
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Not quite. It's not 'Seraphness' which is insulted, but Seraph. It's not 'retardedness', but those who have worn that label.
Do you think of someone being a bit daft when you think of retarded? Or someone born with downs syndrome, or a developmental disability? (for most it is the latter, which makes it more than a little abusive, you fucking dyke)
What I think the meaning of 'Seraphness', 'retardednes' or whatever is does not matter. In fact, you can use any word you like in order to insult someone. It's your intention to insult that gives the word you choose your meaning. Of course I need not agree with your meaning of the word at all, but no matter if I do or not, this remains, and clearly so: Your intention is to denigrate, and in order to do so you choose a word you think is denigratory. If you call someone full of Seraphness in order to insult, I know what you think of me.
Call me a retard. I still don't get your point. :D
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Not quite. It's not 'Seraphness' which is insulted, but Seraph. It's not 'retardedness', but those who have worn that label.
Do you think of someone being a bit daft when you think of retarded? Or someone born with downs syndrome, or a developmental disability? (for most it is the latter, which makes it more than a little abusive, you fucking dyke)
What I think the meaning of 'Seraphness', 'retardednes' or whatever is does not matter. In fact, you can use any word you like in order to insult someone. It's your intention to insult that gives the word you choose your meaning. Of course I need not agree with your meaning of the word at all, but no matter if I do or not, this remains, and clearly so: Your intention is to denigrate, and in order to do so you choose a word you think is denigratory. If you call someone full of Seraphness in order to insult, I know what you think of me.
Call me a retard. I still don't get your point. :D
Grumps
11th February 2012, 03:09 PM
Holy crap has this conversation gone full-retard.
divagreen
11th February 2012, 03:17 PM
Holy crap has this conversation gone full-retard.
:ironicat:
:ironicat:
Cunt
11th February 2012, 03:27 PM
Watch The Freedom Tour Trailer! - YouTube
FedUpWithFaith
11th February 2012, 06:51 PM
So using 'Seraph', or 'retard', or 'nigger' or 'faggot' as an insult is also insulting 'Seraph', 'retarded', etc.
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Not quite. It's not 'Seraphness' which is insulted, but Seraph. It's not 'retardedness', but those who have worn that label.
Do you think of someone being a bit daft when you think of retarded? Or someone born with downs syndrome, or a developmental disability? (for most it is the latter, which makes it more than a little abusive, you fucking dyke)
What I think the meaning of 'Seraphness', 'retardednes' or whatever is does not matter. In fact, you can use any word you like in order to insult someone. It's your intention to insult that gives the word you choose your meaning. Of course I need not agree with your meaning of the word at all, but no matter if I do or not, this remains, and clearly so: Your intention is to denigrate, and in order to do so you choose a word you think is denigratory. If you call someone full of Seraphness in order to insult, I know what you think of me.
Call me a retard. I still don't get your point. :D
I wish people would be more careful in their semantics. "Seraph" is not synonymous with "retard". It is, however, synonymous with "simpleton" as Seraph himself has argued here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16944#post16944)and here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16953#post16953):
... I am essentially a simpleton than anything else. My powers to conceptualise barely reach beyond the pedestrian.
FedUpWithFaith, I said I am a simpleton. That is not an insincere, rhetorical utterance. It is a matter of fact.
Now I don't want to get into another one of MindRomp's tedious semantic tangles but I think it is pretty obvious that a "simpleton" is not the same as a "retard". A retard can be a simpleton but a simpleton is not necessarily a retard. A simpleton can be one of normal cognitive abilities who simply chooses to be ignorant or not challenge themselves intellectually.
Some may prefer to be called a retard to a simpleton. At least a retard has no choice in the matter of their intellectual limitations. I know I would be insulted to be called a retard, a simpleton, or a seraph.
:hehe:
Get it?You'll have to help me out there. I'm too retarded to follow. If you use 'Seraph' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of Seraphness, yes? Similarly, If you use 'retard' as an insult, you must have a very low opinion of retardedness, and so on. What else follows?
Not quite. It's not 'Seraphness' which is insulted, but Seraph. It's not 'retardedness', but those who have worn that label.
Do you think of someone being a bit daft when you think of retarded? Or someone born with downs syndrome, or a developmental disability? (for most it is the latter, which makes it more than a little abusive, you fucking dyke)
What I think the meaning of 'Seraphness', 'retardednes' or whatever is does not matter. In fact, you can use any word you like in order to insult someone. It's your intention to insult that gives the word you choose your meaning. Of course I need not agree with your meaning of the word at all, but no matter if I do or not, this remains, and clearly so: Your intention is to denigrate, and in order to do so you choose a word you think is denigratory. If you call someone full of Seraphness in order to insult, I know what you think of me.
Call me a retard. I still don't get your point. :D
I wish people would be more careful in their semantics. "Seraph" is not synonymous with "retard". It is, however, synonymous with "simpleton" as Seraph himself has argued here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16944#post16944)and here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=16953#post16953):
... I am essentially a simpleton than anything else. My powers to conceptualise barely reach beyond the pedestrian.
FedUpWithFaith, I said I am a simpleton. That is not an insincere, rhetorical utterance. It is a matter of fact.
Now I don't want to get into another one of MindRomp's tedious semantic tangles but I think it is pretty obvious that a "simpleton" is not the same as a "retard". A retard can be a simpleton but a simpleton is not necessarily a retard. A simpleton can be one of normal cognitive abilities who simply chooses to be ignorant or not challenge themselves intellectually.
Some may prefer to be called a retard to a simpleton. At least a retard has no choice in the matter of their intellectual limitations. I know I would be insulted to be called a retard, a simpleton, or a seraph.
:hehe:
gib
13th February 2012, 01:39 PM
Holy crap has this conversation gone full-retard.
in
in
gib
13th February 2012, 01:46 PM
I did use a real example, that actually happened to me, with my then, 3 year-old son, on a bus.
I had to explain why it wasn't polite, and how people's feelings could be hurt.
.................................................. ................. http://talkrational.org/images/smilies/blanksay.gif
http://s1.cdn.memeburn.com/wp-content/uploads/UK-woman-arrested-for-racist-rant-posted-on-YouTube-650-x-397.jpg
I had to explain why it wasn't polite, and how people's feelings could be hurt.
.................................................. ................. http://talkrational.org/images/smilies/blanksay.gif
http://s1.cdn.memeburn.com/wp-content/uploads/UK-woman-arrested-for-racist-rant-posted-on-YouTube-650-x-397.jpg
Gallstones
13th February 2012, 10:00 PM
WTF. I thought I was diva's internet lover.
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
Libertarian!
:grin:
People always moving in on my...
uh, oh...
Freedom of speech is a natural right of man, to be denied to no one for any reason whatsoever. I rest my case.
Libertarian!
:grin:
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét