lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: The right to upset others
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-19-2007, 10:20 PM   #1
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
The right to upset others

In discussions with some people on the Internet they believe, and have even said, that they have the right and duty to upset people. I really don't know about this one, I think it's just an excuse, but your thoughts.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-19-2007, 11:30 PM   #2
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,352
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
That doesn't make much sense to me. I think they call that flaming and trolling.

Prime is offline   you may:
Old 05-19-2007, 11:31 PM   #3
Rogue15
Reconnaissance Specialist
 
Rogue15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Kaas City
Posts: 18,682
Current Game: The Old Republic
Roleplayer 10 year veteran! 
I believe in the freedom of speech.

though i'd have to completely disagree with DUTY TO UPSET, that's harassment.


Battle is a pure form of expression. It is heart and discipline, reduced to movement and motion. In battle, the words are swept away, giving way to actions-- mercy, sacrifice, anger, fear. These are pure moments of expression.
Rogue15 is offline   you may:
Old 05-20-2007, 04:29 AM   #4
Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
 
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
I think she's talking about how Spider says he feels he has a moral duty to 'convert' people to atheism.

My view is that politeness is going out the window these days. Everyone from comedians to idiots are acting like they're being persecuted Nazi-style if anyone dares be offended by what they say. Sure, you should have the Constitutional right to say whatever you want, but please - not every single one of your thoughts needs expressing.

If people today are told they've offended someone, rather than having to apologize they can just scream 'OMG I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS STOP CENSORING ME!1111' at a thousand decibels. Whatever happened to this old phenomena called... respect?

Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may:
Old 05-20-2007, 12:27 PM   #5
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Actually, public politeness went out the window the better part of a generation ago. The problem becomes who decides what's sufficiently polite for public consumption and in what venue. The degree of coarseness in communication has become highlighted over here in the US by things like Don Imus and Opie and Anthony (among others). But, to what degree should the "offended" be allowed to proscribe the speech of others. Outside of outright slander, where does one person's right to express their pov get trumped by some group's decision that such speech should be outlawed or regulated?
Totenkopf is offline   you may:
Old 05-20-2007, 02:21 PM   #6
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Eagle's correct, Nancy's presumably referring to me again. (however, I have never been interested in "converting" anyone to anything, so he's incorrect on that score)

However, the sentiment I actually expressed in the past was that I have a moral duty to speak factual truths in debates, even if those truths upset people. And that rule applies to everyone, and it's a very moral rule.

As for how far free speech should be allowed... there's a very simple, pragmatic rule that most enlightened lawmakers have already delineated in the past. Specifically, the ONLY moral restrictions on free speech are restrictions that prevent active, specific and direct incitement to violence. End of story. Everything else should be protected under the law, and not censored.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 05-20-2007, 05:16 PM   #7
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
In discussions with some people on the Internet they believe, and have even said, that they have the right and duty to upset people. I really don't know about this one, I think it's just an excuse, but your thoughts.
Thank you for reminding me why I no longer actively participate in discussions here or Kavar's Corner, Nancy. Same old, same old.

It isn't the people who go around offending or upsetting others that's the problem, generally. It's the ones who decide that something or another shouldn't ever be said because it offends their ever-so-delicate personal beliefs who are in fact forcing their beliefs on others, not the other way around.

ie: "God isn't real." "You're forcing me to believe God isn't real! Moderators, make him stop! Help! Help! I'm being offended!"

Does that ring a bell?


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may:
Old 05-20-2007, 05:32 PM   #8
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
Help! Help! I'm being offended!"
Did you see him? Did you see him repressing me there? That's what I'm goin on about!


This thread is going nowhere fast, F-



ET Warrior is offline   you may:
Old 05-20-2007, 11:41 PM   #9
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
I think if people make public claims about their beliefs with the expectation that they be accepted as matters of fact, particularly when these same beliefs are pressured into government and society as codifications, then one has a duty to criticize and even ridicule them. And by "ridicule," I'm referring to the time-honored and democratic practice of satire and parody, examples of which find their way in our political cartoons and the Daily Show.

As for upsetting, if the believer finds this to be upsetting, then I hold to the quote of Lord Reith of the BBC, which says, "there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend." Let's face it, some peoples' beliefs on the internet are screwed up. Why should their rants on politics, pseudoscience and wild economic policies go un-answered with a voice of reason or unchallenged by criticism and inquiry? Why shouldn't this same reason, criticism and inquiry apply to <gasp> religious beliefs?


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 12:23 AM   #10
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Re-opening the thread at the behest of the thread starter, as the original intentions were apparently unclear. I shall allow an attempt at re-clarification.



ET Warrior is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 07:49 AM   #11
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
That doesn't make much sense to me. I think they call that flaming and trolling.
That's how I see it but some people believe otherwise and they make a good case. See below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue15
I believe in the freedom of speech.

though i'd have to completely disagree with DUTY TO UPSET, that's harassment.
The duty to upset is harassment in my opinion, but there's a good case to challenge beliefs as I'll explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
I think she's talking about how Spider says he feels he has a moral duty to 'convert' people to atheism.
Completely forgot about all that, this is what's called Cause and Effect, or Converse Accident. I'm not blaming anyone here of doing this but since Atheism was brought up the example I was thinking of was something like going to religious forums and saying 'ZOMG WTF THERE IZ NO GODZ LOLZ!1!!11ONE!1!!11ELEVEN!1!!11' or posting Holocaust images in Jewish forums, that sort of thing. Especially when people cry freedom of speech when action is taken against them. People who do things and think if it gets a reaction great, if it really hurts someone that's good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
My view is that politeness is going out the window these days. Everyone from comedians to idiots are acting like they're being persecuted Nazi-style if anyone dares be offended by what they say. Sure, you should have the Constitutional right to say whatever you want, but please - not every single one of your thoughts needs expressing.
As you said it boils down to respecting the right for other people not hearing those things if they don't want to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle
If people today are told they've offended someone, rather than having to apologize they can just scream 'OMG I HATE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS STOP CENSORING ME!1111' at a thousand decibels. Whatever happened to this old phenomena called... respect?
I think this is part of the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Actually, public politeness went out the window the better part of a generation ago.
I don't like it but it seems that some people don't care about respecting others, or even themselves. How so? They subject themselves to a life of conflict telling others what's right is what they say is right and what's wrong is what they say is wrong. Of course people are going to react badly to such claims, even to the point they would take action. They might go to the trouble of hunting these people down online or it could become physical if done face to face.

Just on that, how much consideration, because of how someone might react face to face, is given to online discussion? I mean, some of the things that are discussed would have to be put delicately, even if only to avoid getting a smack in the mouth. So how diffirent, if at all, is it online?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The problem becomes who decides what's sufficiently polite for public consumption and in what venue. The degree of coarseness in communication has become highlighted over here in the US by things like Don Imus and Opie and Anthony (among others). But, to what degree should the "offended" be allowed to proscribe the speech of others.
It seems that what was taboo years ago is becoming more and more accepted. Language, sexist remarks, ect yet it's the other way, and rightfully so, for something such as race. To what degree should we be offended? I think when something goes beyond the boundries of what is generally acceptable is when complaint is warrented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace MacLeod
Thank you for reminding me why I no longer actively participate in discussions here or Kavar's Corner, Nancy. Same old, same old.
Yes, same old same old and I know you're just dieing for me to react.

...

...

Sorry, not gonna happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
I think if people make public claims about their beliefs with the expectation that they be accepted as matters of fact, particularly when these same beliefs are pressured into government and society as codifications, then one has a duty to criticize and even ridicule them.
I would certainly agree that someine's beliefs should be examined and questioned if they are out there. However short of beliefs that are harmful (my religion demands I bomb abortion clinics, Grand Theft Auto made me go on a shooting rampage), people should not be made to feel that they are on trial or that they have to give up their beliefs. On the other hand people in debate forums should probably expect their beliefs to be attacked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
And by "ridicule," I'm referring to the time-honored and democratic practice of satire and parody, examples of which find their way in our political cartoons and the Daily Show.
Like the Mohammed cartoons. The reaction to them was certainly over the line, but by the same token the people who drew them could have expected a reaction. Though, say, charactitures of Bush are something I don't even bat an eye at, or even if someone were to do a charactiture of myself I'd probably say "yep that's pretty accurate". A somewhat self depreciating point of view helps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinWalker
As for upsetting, if the believer finds this to be upsetting, then I hold to the quote of Lord Reith of the BBC, which says, "there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend." Let's face it, some peoples' beliefs on the internet are screwed up. Why should their rants on politics, pseudoscience and wild economic policies go un-answered with a voice of reason or unchallenged by criticism and inquiry? Why shouldn't this same reason, criticism and inquiry apply to <gasp> religious beliefs?
As a mod surely there's a line between a duty to offend (I myself did this on a post about Iraq last week) and something that, while it may not breach the rules demands action be taken. I imagine that it's a fairly fine line at that. So, if I may ask, as a mod how do you balence out what is offensive but acceptable and what has to be deleted? If someone says that believing in religion is deluded for example is that acceptable? Of course language wouldn't be. And there are things that all but demand criticism, redicule, ect, in debate forums pretty much anything's fair game but in particular I'm thinking conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, ect. But when would something demand, without going too far, demand more than a voice of reason and inquiry?

Perhaps the best way to explain it all is like this. We should think of how we want to be treated, and how we want to be percieved, before putting pen to paper. However there are those who seemingly don't care or, even worse, want to be thought of in a very negative light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine
Pointing out people's flaws in reasoning is all well and good. Being condescending and belittling when you do it isn't. I'm sure that you would like to be made aware of the flaws in your reasoning without being called delusional or deluded.
BINGO!

Last edited by Nancy Allen``; 05-21-2007 at 07:53 AM. Reason: Added Rogue Nine's post
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 07:49 AM   #12
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Nancy may be referring to the content of such posts and that's well and good. However, I think she touches upon another related issue, which is how one says things. I don't really care if you tell me my beliefs are wrong and show me boatloads of proof. But at least be nice about it.

Shamelessly copypasta'ed from elsewhere:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Pointing out people's flaws in reasoning is all well and good. Being condescending and belittling when you do it isn't. I'm sure that you would like to be made aware of the flaws in your reasoning without being called delusional or deluded.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 08:19 AM   #13
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Nancy Allen``:

With all due respect Nancy, after reading your post a few times, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that people SHOULD speak factual truths, even if it offends people...

Or are you saying that people SHOULDN'T speak the truth... when that truth will offend others.

You seem to be saying both at various points in your post, so please clarify for me.

-

Rogue Nine:

Quote:
I'm sure that you would like to be made aware of the flaws in your reasoning without being called delusional or deluded.
Couldn't disagree more. If I were deluding myself in some respect, I would want to be made aware of it.

You've touched on a perennially re-emerging issue here, Rogue. The issue of whether calling someone's beliefs delusional is in some way "insulting". Certainly people often claim to be insulted by the word, but that doesn't mean the word is inherently offensive.

A delusional belief is- and this is the literal, technical meaning- an unfounded belief, which is nevertheless regarded as true by the holder. A belief that contradicts the available evidence, or is based on no evidence. It's also defined in the dictionary as simplistically as "a false belief".

In short, it's a pretty dry, technical term. Those who decide to be offended by it do so- in my opinion- only out of insecurity. And the same goes for all similar language. The world over, people are always up in arms about having their beliefs (political, religious, or any other type) exposed to critical analysis. They campaign for free speech to be restricted so that they never have to be reminded that they are deluding themselves. And that's immoral.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 09:22 AM   #14
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider AL
A delusional belief is...In short, it's a pretty dry, technical term.
I'm glad you can delude yourself into thinking that it's nothing more than that.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 09:25 AM   #15
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
The fact that I can go to www.dictionary.com and have it PROVEN to me, would seem to indicate that I am not deluding myself as to the definition and connotations of the word "delusion".

I would be interested to hear why you think I'm deluding myself on that score, however. I do not foresee any logical reasoning to back up such a claim.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 01:24 PM   #16
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,352
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
That's how I see it but some people believe otherwise and they make a good case. See below.
I was refering to the act of specifically posting with the purpose and self perceived duty to intentionally upset people. That was the flaming and trolling I was aluding to. In that case, they have no interest in having a debate, but only to "push the buttons" of others. This is unacceptable.

That is completely different to debating a topic. In a case where someone has differing views, if they wish to participate in the discussion it is indeed their duty to express their points, even if it will upset other parties. It is also their duty, As Al put it, to speak with factual truths, and to back up their claims. It is then the duty of the opposing party to respond to any points in kind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I would certainly agree that someine's beliefs should be examined and questioned if they are out there. However short of beliefs that are harmful (my religion demands I bomb abortion clinics, Grand Theft Auto made me go on a shooting rampage), people should not be made to feel that they are on trial or that they have to give up their beliefs.
The problem with that last statement is that the point at which people feel that way varies greatly. To some, that point is reached as soon as someone merely mentions that they disagree with their beliefs. Others are perfectly willing to debate the merits of their beliefs with those who think differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
On the other hand people in debate forums should probably expect their beliefs to be attacked.
Exactly. But "attacked" in a way that is to the point and backed up. Then the person can either respond to those points or leave the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
As a mod surely there's a line between a duty to offend (I myself did this on a post about Iraq last week) and something that, while it may not breach the rules demands action be taken. I imagine that it's a fairly fine line at that.
Well, to me it is pretty cut and dry in almost all cases (although sometimes the modding group will discussion for a consensis). For me the "line" is how an argument is presented. As long as they are not attacking the person directly, then everything else is fair game, again as long as the argument is backed up with specific points. For example, I would probably accept:

"I think you are mistaken for believing X because of A, B, and C"

but not...

"You are an idiot because you believe in A."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
So, if I may ask, as a mod how do you balence out what is offensive but acceptable and what has to be deleted?
I would say it varies slightly based on the forum it is in. I'm likely to let a bit more go in this forum than say Alto. But again, what has to be deleted are specific attacks directly at an individual. Attacking viewpoints is fair game, especially if those viewpoints are expressed as a reponse to something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
If someone says that believing in religion is deluded for example is that acceptable?
Personally, in this forum I think that is OK, as it would be OK for someone to say the other person is deluded for not believing in it. Hopefully specific points are brought up. I would say that if someone just said "You are deluded", I would moderated more on the point that such a comment doesn't contribute to the debate, and is potentially trolling. But if they say, "You are deluded about X because of Y" I think that is OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Of course language wouldn't be. And there are things that all but demand criticism, redicule, ect, in debate forums pretty much anything's fair game but in particular I'm thinking conspiracy theories, outlandish claims, ect.
To me those are all fair game. Anyone has the right to express such theories, and anyone has the right to attack those theories with reasons in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
But when would something demand, without going too far, demand more than a voice of reason and inquiry?
When the tone of the attacks switches from the points and topic itself to the individual themselves in my opinion. Or if the views being attacked are off-topic for the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Perhaps the best way to explain it all is like this. We should think of how we want to be treated, and how we want to be percieved, before putting pen to paper.
True. But even that is a grey area. For example, Al expressed the opinion that he would want to be made aware if he had a delusional belief. Others will only accept being told they are right to believe in something. It is not possible for the latter to expect that they will be treated in that manner.

But what can be universal in the manner in which we address others. And that should be in a respectful manner (meaning no personal attacks).

Prime is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 04:20 PM   #17
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
As for how far free speech should be allowed... there's a very simple, pragmatic rule that most enlightened lawmakers have already delineated in the past. Specifically, the ONLY moral restrictions on free speech are restrictions that prevent active, specific and direct incitement to violence. End of story. Everything else should be protected under the law, and not censored.
To paraphrase Vader (this is a SW forum, afterall): Don't be too proud of the moral loophole you've constructed/cited, al. Any or all speech could ultimately end up as an incitement to violence (mother jokes, general name calling, etc..) if someone punches you in the mouth (stabs you, shoots you, etc..) after saying it. Should such speech then be proscribed as dangerous? And given the direction society seems to be moving in (ie the "offended" party gets to make the call on what is/isn't acceptable) currently, thats not a "delusional" observation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
You've touched on a perennially re-emerging issue here, Rogue. The issue of whether calling someone's beliefs delusional is in some way "insulting". Certainly people often claim to be insulted by the word, but that doesn't mean the word is inherently offensive.

A delusional belief is- and this is the literal, technical meaning- an unfounded belief, which is nevertheless regarded as true by the holder. A belief that contradicts the available evidence, or is based on no evidence. It's also defined in the dictionary as simplistically as "a false belief".

The same could be said of the word "whore". Technically, it's a pretty dry term. Still, most women would see it a perjorative if questioned.

Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded. The only rational position is to admit ignorance in the face of a paucity of conclusive information. Anything else (belief/disbelief) is just guessing. The End.
Totenkopf is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 05:17 PM   #18
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Don't be too proud of the moral loophole you've constructed/cited, al. Any or all speech could ultimately end up as an incitement to violence (mother jokes, general name calling, etc..) if someone punches you in the mouth (stabs you, shoots you, etc..) after saying it.
Nonsense, Tot. Insulting someone's mother does not constitute "active, specific and direct incitement to violence".

Priest of religion "X" telling his followers: "all those who do not follow our religion are evil heretics and should be killed! Those who kill the evil ones will surely find their way to heaven!!11" does qualify. The boundaries are quite clear and easy to see. If you tell someone that they should go out and do violence, that's direct incitement to violence. Everything else... from mother jokes to politically dissident speeches... should be protected under the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Should such speech then be proscribed as dangerous? And given the direction society seems to be moving in (ie the "offended" party gets to make the call on what is/isn't acceptable) currently, thats not a "delusional" observation.
That's exactly the problem that we're currently discussing, Tot. It's a problem exemplified by religious people who wish to stop others from speaking factual truths, because they've decided to arbitrarily "feel offended".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The same could be said of the word "whore". Technically, it's a pretty dry term. Still, most women would see it a perjorative if questioned.
An absolutely ridiculous comparison, Tot. Utterly mind-boggling.

First of all, the word "whore" has a long history as an obscene slur. Someone with some sort of grievance concerning a woman may choose to insult her by calling her a "whore". The word "deluded" however, is not often flung around during emotionally charged altercations, say... road-rage incidents. The word "deluded" would be more comparable to "prostitute" in terms of its clinical character and lack of obscenity. (And in point of fact, the word "prostitute" isn't usually flung around in such incidents either, again a neat parallel.)

And to echo Prime's sentiments above, if you say to a person: "you are a prostitute, because you charge money for sexual favours, here's some evidence." it really cannot be construed as anything but a solid argument. Precisely comparable to: "your beliefs are delusional because of reasons x, y and z." Not insulting, merely true. How exactly could a prostitute justify taking offence at being called a prostitute?

If you were to go around calling random people prostitutes without any evidence at all, however, that might indeed be regarded as insulting behaviour, and yes, the same might apply for screaming "YOU'RE DELUSIONAL" without providing any evidence. I for one have always provided evidence. End of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods
I shall interject here and point out that while there no doubt are atheists who wish to "convert" religious people, I am not one of them and never have been. I have no interest in "leading people away" from any conclusions. I debate using factual truths, because I wish to find the truth and to prove the truth. For myself. Nothing to do with theists or their reactions, either positive or negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded. The only rational position is to admit ignorance in the face of a paucity of conclusive information. Anything else (belief/disbelief) is just guessing. The End.
Again Tot, you demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding the word "atheism". Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). That is all it is.

There is a total lack of evidence to suggest the existence of god(s). Therefore the rational man lacks belief in god(s) totally. It is not a "guess", and is nothing to do with conjecture. It is a default position pending evidence. It is the same position we adopt regarding giant invisible cucumbers hovering over our houses. They MIGHT be there... but until a scrap of evidence suggests their existence we are all a-giantcucumberists.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 06:35 PM   #19
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Just because you can use any and all means to defeat your opponent doesn't mean you should. Is it really worth the hatred you will surely recieve for acting this way? Not only do you upset those you target, others not involved might react the same way and anyone reading such inflammatary posts will think 'well this guy's a jerk'. It could make you appear, Prime's words, that you 'have no interest in having a debate, but only to "push the buttons" of others' even if that may not be the case. And acting like this can get you into trouble, fast. Especially face to face when, as Tot pointed out, someone could pull a knife or a gun if you catch them on a bad day. The police take provocation into account, someone who has their head kicked in for calling a woman a 'black bitch' can't expect much recourse. I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.

Should people be allowed to have diffirent tolerance levels? Of course having a thick skin is pretty much a must but, for example, would if be offensive to call an Atheist a bigot? Just because it is an accurate way of describing them doesn't mean they won't get upset being labelled as such. The dictionary describes bigot as 'a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion' or 'One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ'.

Also some handy hints from Andrew Heenan. Now this is for flaming but I think we can apply it equally to debate as well.

Refuse to be Silenced: Accuse your opponent of attempting censorship, even though its probably a tad of an exaggeration. It is your right to post whatever you want to the net, even tasteless, obscene or boring notes. On the other hand, you might stop for a moment to consider your audience's right not to be upset, insulted or bored.

To think otherwise is heartless and thoughtless. And...

One way to look at a flame war is that it is a duel; the one who loses their temper loses all. Being reasonable increases the likelihood that your opponent will crack first; being reasonable increases your self confidence, being reasonable gives all the opportunity for peace with honour. But this means be very reasonable - polite, well written postings. Concede that your opponent has a valid point or two.

May as well post what is valid and helpful.

A word of caution: Flaming really can be painful. It is wise to watch from the sidelines until you are familiar with the rules - and even when confident, it is safer to experiment and develop your own strategies before leaving yourself wide open. Every group has one or two members who can be relied on to squash the idiots and the innocents - be sure you know who they are (remember the gunslingers of the 'ole west. Once you make a splash, everyone wants to try their luck).
Once you commit yourself, unless you have disguised your own identity, you have labelled yourself for good or ill



And most importantly...

Outside of 'Flame' groups, where wars are routine, if there is one sure thing about flaming, it is this: There are No Winners.

Flaming is the chess of the net; a long game of skill, planning a campaign and being prepared for all that your opponent can throw at you. By the end of the War, all involved can have little doubt of the outcome.

If you were defeated, or merely a Firefighter on the periphery, then you know your place - you may be so humiliated that you may have to leave that group. But if you defeated a Damp Squib who dared to oppose you, you may be the Flame Master - but you have been seen to be a bully, and who wants to risk a few rounds with you? You can stay in the group - but how welcome are you?

There are No Winners.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 06:51 PM   #20
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
would if be offensive to call an Atheist a bigot?
It would be offensive if you were to call someone a bigot without providing any real rationale for the label. Simply being an atheist is not synonymous with bigotry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
someone who has their head kicked in for calling a woman a 'black bitch' can't expect much recourse.
Indeed, although I cannot think of any rational or justifiable reason for calling somebody that. In this case you are clearly simply trying to offend without any rational basis.

And the rest of your post just doesn't make any sense so I shalln't be responding to it.



ET Warrior is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 06:55 PM   #21
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
How doesn't it make sense? That because you can doesn't mean you should? How people would percieve what is posted? The advice I copypastaed? Please explain.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 07:13 PM   #22
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Yes, same old same old and I know you're just dieing for me to react.
No, I'm not dying for you to react. I'm dying for you to finally figure out that your personal subjective experience of being upset or offended is NOT the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes acceptable free speech either on LFnet or the greater world at large. You've only been told about 50 times.


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 07:23 PM   #23
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Of course I'm the ultimate arbiter of what I consider right and wrong. As are you for your values. Do I apply these to the forums? Of course. Do my views override what the mods may think? Prove that I've in any way demonstrated this.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 07:57 PM   #24
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf

Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded. The only rational position is to admit ignorance in the face of a paucity of conclusive information. Anything else (belief/disbelief) is just guessing. The End.
You got it Totenkopf, until we go out there in the universe, all our beliefs is suspected.
We will all remain blind, until that venture is undertaken.
But I don't think we will find a God or Gods, since those supreme beings may be infinite in extent and quantity.

As for flame wars, if someone start one with me I will respond in kind.
I don't mind arguing, if someone desire it.
Windu Chi is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 08:19 PM   #25
Mace MacLeod
Food-based rocker
 
Mace MacLeod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Somewhere else. Probably.
Posts: 1,096
Current Game: World of Warcraft
Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Of course I'm the ultimate arbiter of what I consider right and wrong. As are you for your values. Do I apply these to the forums? Of course. Do my views override what the mods may think? Prove that I've in any way demonstrated this.
We've been over this one before. Everyone else here but you has seen it, got sick of it, and moved on. I mean, what's the topic of this thread...? I lost count of the number of times you've whined about being upset and offended in here a long time ago. See earlier post, Help! Help! I'm being offended!"


Be considerate to others or I will bite your torso and give you a disease!
Mace MacLeod is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 08:38 PM   #26
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Knew it, you can't prove your claims otherwise you would have done so already. I take a moral stand om what I consider wrong, of course, but never have I considered myself above the law.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 09:04 PM   #27
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Knew it, you can't prove your claims otherwise you would have done so already.
What claims? I don't recall him MAKING any claims that you then came back and debated against. In fact, all of your posts in this thread seem to ignore what everyone else is saying and go off on random tangents about flaming or gods know what else.



ET Warrior is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 09:08 PM   #28
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
On the contrary, I replied to Prime, you, Tot and Rogue Nine, took in and agreed with what was said. As for Mace he claims that I go off screaming that I get offended every chance I get. He hasn't been able to prove it.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-21-2007, 10:33 PM   #29
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,352
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
To paraphrase Vader (this is a SW forum, afterall): Don't be too proud of the moral loophole you've constructed/cited, al. Any or all speech could ultimately end up as an incitement to violence (mother jokes, general name calling, etc..)
But that wouldn't be direct, would it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Still, using the atheism example, an atheist's claim of moral imperative to lead people away from the wrong conclusions about the (non)existence of God/gods leads me to think of the expression "the blind leading the blind" or to paraphrase it for the purposes of this discussion... the delusional leading the deluded.
As Al pointed out, athiests have no imperative to lead others away from religion, although there may be some who decide to try to do so. Athiests simply don't believe in deities and things of that nature. They actually tend not to attempt to lead others away from religion because they usually do not spend much effort even thinking about such issues, and have "moved onto other things". Usually the only time athiests tend to debate or oppose religious folk is when the latter expresses their views in some public arena (e.g. they should teach creationism in public schools).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Just because you can use any and all means to defeat your opponent doesn't mean you should.
This language implies something that I think is incorrect. A debate should not be viewed as an attempt to "defeat your opponent". That makes it a personal thing. A debate should focus on the topic and arguments being presented. If someone takes it as a personal fight all they are likely going to do is become offended and angry because they will feel they are being attacked personally, when that really isn't the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Is it really worth the hatred you will surely recieve for acting this way? Not only do you upset those you target, others not involved might react the same way and anyone reading such inflammatary posts will think 'well this guy's a jerk'.
If someone gets upset after you respond to their argument with factual points, then that is their problem. You can't spend your life worrying that someone somewhere might possibly be affended by one of your points. If you do, you will never say anything. All you can do is act in a respectful manner. How others will react to that is out of your hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Especially face to face when, as Tot pointed out, someone could pull a knife or a gun if you catch them on a bad day. The police take provocation into account, someone who has their head kicked in for calling a woman a 'black bitch' can't expect much recourse. I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.
But there has to be an expectation of a reasonable response. While it is wrong to call someone an "a--hole", that doesn't give someone the right to drop a bomb on their house. There is still some level of responsibility as to the response of the recipient of such things. It is not open season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Should people be allowed to have diffirent tolerance levels?
Sure. And it is important for each of us to know what our own levels are, and then avoid places where we know those levels will be exceeded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Of course having a thick skin is pretty much a must but, for example, would if be offensive to call an Atheist a bigot? Just because it is an accurate way of describing them doesn't mean they won't get upset being labelled as such.
It isn't offensive to call and athiest a bigot if they actually are one and you show them to be with evidence. If they do take offense, that again is their own problem. Sometimes the truth hurts. The proper response is to either accept the criticism or respond to the points raised with evidence of their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Also some handy hints from Andrew Heenan. Now this is for flaming but I think we can apply it equally to debate as well.

Refuse to be Silenced: Accuse your opponent of attempting censorship, even though its probably a tad of an exaggeration. It is your right to post whatever you want to the net, even tasteless, obscene or boring notes. On the other hand, you might stop for a moment to consider your audience's right not to be upset, insulted or bored.
I disagree. I don't think these points apply to debating. It is not about personal attacks and making exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims. It is not about who loses their temper or cracks first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
As for flame wars, if someone start one with me I will respond in kind.
No you won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
On the contrary, I replied to Prime, you, Tot and Rogue Nine, took in and agreed with what was said. As for Mace he claims that I go off screaming that I get offended every chance I get. He hasn't been able to prove it.
Mace and Nancy, if you have a private issue with each other, use the PM system. If you have an issue with a post, use the report post button. Otherwise, drop it.

Prime is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 02:57 AM   #30
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
]Insulting someone's mother does not constitute "active, specific and direct incitement to violence".
Wrong as usual, al. When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face. Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
Priest of religion "X" telling his followers: "all those who do not follow our religion are evil heretics and should be killed! Those who kill the evil ones will surely find their way to heaven!!11" does qualify. The boundaries are quite clear and easy to see. If you tell someone that they should go out and do violence, that's direct incitement to violence. Everything else... from mother jokes to politically dissident speeches... should be protected under the law.
Frankly, saying "Go out and kill the infidel" is a much better example of a DIRECT incitement than the arguably vague example you give.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
That's exactly the problem that we're currently discussing, Tot. It's a problem exemplified by religious people who wish to stop others from speaking factual truths, because they've decided to arbitrarily "feel offended".
As usual,al, you demonstrate a penchant for stating the obvious Fact is, you aren't speaking factual truths and even seem to recognize such when you resort to expressions like "default position" or "working definition". These are expressions which attempt to frame the debate on terms favorable to your position, not necessarily the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
......Utterly mind-boggling.
The only thing mind boggling is your consistent assertion that the term "deluded" has only a neutral connotation. Sadly, on the subject of religion, you've only combated other people's "delusions" with your own. End.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
I shall interject here and point out that while there no doubt are atheists who wish to "convert" religious people, I am not one of them and never have been. I have no interest in "leading people away" from any conclusions. I debate using factual truths, because I wish to find the truth and to prove the truth. For myself. Nothing to do with theists or their reactions, either positive or negative.
This is unfortunately the biggest self delusion of all that you consistently hold to. If you are merely disabusing, from your pov, the delusions of others for yourself, then you would NOT need to post your pov everytime someone stated a position you didn't agree with, especially if it's not addressed to you. The fact that you posted your position once would suffice, but that would even be overkill, as you do not need to post your pov if it's only for your own edification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
....is nothing to do with conjecture. It is a default position pending evidence. It is the same position we adopt regarding giant invisible cucumbers hovering over our houses. They MIGHT be there... but until a scrap of evidence suggests their existence we are all a-giantcucumberists.
As ever, you confuse that default position with "fact". Otherwise, I don't disagree with the sentiment "Show me...."
Totenkopf is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 03:26 AM   #31
Windu Chi
Banned
 
Windu Chi's Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Getting revenge on that traitor, Anakin.
Posts: 882
Cool Guy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks
That will count as a ass whipping, for the one who says that.
That will not be very wise.

Last edited by windu6; 05-22-2007 at 03:48 AM.
Windu Chi is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 07:40 AM   #32
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right. Pick where this came from and you get a cookie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
This language implies something that I think is incorrect. A debate should not be viewed as an attempt to "defeat your opponent". That makes it a personal thing. A debate should focus on the topic and arguments being presented. If someone takes it as a personal fight all they are likely going to do is become offended and angry because they will feel they are being attacked personally, when that really isn't the case.
That's good advice to share. Things that are said on the Internet are taken too much to heart. Still I believe we should fight against what we see as wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
If someone gets upset after you respond to their argument with factual points, then that is their problem. You can't spend your life worrying that someone somewhere might possibly be affended by one of your points. If you do, you will never say anything. All you can do is act in a respectful manner. How others will react to that is out of your hands.
Well, I've said a lot of things, even some that pushed the line, all the while thinking about how people might react to my comments. Otherwise you'd get something like 'you're a ****wit if you vote for the Jews being wiped out'. I work to make my point without upsetting others, if they do anyway, or if the few times I do make upsetting comments (such as a reply to the celebration of deaths in Iraq) tough.

Besides which, you do want people to read what you write don't you? They won't if they think poorly of the person who wrote it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
But there has to be an expectation of a reasonable response. While it is wrong to call someone an "a--hole", that doesn't give someone the right to drop a bomb on their house. There is still some level of responsibility as to the response of the recipient of such things. It is not open season.
It shouldn't end like that. An arguement over money shouldn't end in murder. A spat between a father and daughter shouldn't end with her being shot in the back so that the father could keep her all to himself. But it happens. And what about all the anti war and government protests that turn violent? That's not an indictment on those who attend them, it's an example of the cause and effect that happens despite the fact that it shouldn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
Sure. And it is important for each of us to know what our own levels are, and then avoid places where we know those levels will be exceeded.
When the fight is taken to them, say if something about a person is discovered and it keeps being brought up in off topic discussion, what then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
Mace and Nancy, if you have a private issue with each other, use the PM system. If you have an issue with a post, use the report post button. Otherwise, drop it.
Well it's amazingly petty to bring up claims of what I was meant to have said months ago, so I consider the matter truely dropped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Wrong as usual, al. When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face. Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by windu6
That will count as a ass whipping, for the one who says that.
That will not be very wise.
I think this is known as asking for it. Go ahead, go to Foss Park or Rucker with a white supremist attitude, see what happens.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 04:19 PM   #33
Prime
Am I a truck or robot?
 
Prime's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cybertron
Posts: 12,352
Current Game: Skyrim, Macross PS2
10 year veteran! LF Jester Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Wrong as usual, al. When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face. Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.
Again, that is still not a direct comment to incite violence. While you may be correct that such a response is likely, in terms of free speech that is still not direct. And a violent response is still wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, saying "Go out and kill the infidel" is a much better example of a DIRECT incitement.
Exactly. This is a different scenario as far as free speech is concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right. Pick where this came from and you get a cookie.
Ghostbusters 2? I like chocolate cookies!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
It shouldn't end like that. An arguement over money shouldn't end in murder. A spat between a father and daughter shouldn't end with her being shot in the back so that the father could keep her all to himself. But it happens.
But that doesn't make it right, does it? Just because someone was wrong to say something, that doesn't give the recipient the right to give a violent response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
When the fight is taken to them, say if something about a person is discovered and it keeps being brought up in off topic discussion, what then?
In the case of a forum such as this, a simple reporting of the post is sufficent. Then it is up to the moderators to deal with that situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I think this is known as asking for it. Go ahead, go to Foss Park or Rucker with a white supremist attitude, see what happens.
Again, does that response represent what is right?

Prime is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 06:23 PM   #34
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Nup, and nup, though in the latter case if you wanted to be on the news being killed is one way.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 07:35 PM   #35
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Wrong as usual, al.
Hmm. It's certainly within the realms of possibility that I am "usually wrong", but that would rather beg the question: "If I, Spider, am wrong so often, why has Totenkopf failed to demonstrate that I am wrong... even once?"

It's a puzzler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
When's the last time you insulted someone's mother to his face.
Late 2004, I believe.

In all seriousness, that was a ludicrous question, with no relevance to any of the points that have been brought up during the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Besides, are you saying that yelling the "n" word in a crowd of blacks or "Israel rules!" at a Hamas rally would not be specific and direct incitements to violence? To argue otherwise is fairly obtuse.
Prime has addressed this, but it's worth pointing out again... You seem to be seriously confused about the nature of "direct incitement to violence", versus "behaviour that might conceivably lead to violence".

Walking around at about eight o' clock in a bad part of town might well result in violence being visited upon one. Insulting someone's mother might result in violence being visited upon one. Do either of these things qualify as "direct incitement to violence"? Of course they don't. Direct incitement to violence is when the nefarious perpetrator directly tells & encourages others to commit violent acts.

Everything but direct incitement to violence should be protected as free speech under the law. That includes insults and obscenity. I don't like insults or obscenity... but I will fight to protect other people's rights to be insulting and obscene. That's what free speech is. Freedom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Frankly, saying "Go out and kill the infidel" is a much better example of a DIRECT incitement than the arguably vague example you give.
Anyone attempting to argue that the example I gave (if you kill infidels you'll be rewarded beyond your wildest dreams) was in ANY way vague... would fail miserably.

As for your example, "go out and kill the infidel" is another good example of direct incitement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
As usual,al, you demonstrate a penchant for stating the obvious
I always state the obvious. That's why it's always so surprising to me that folks like yourself try to argue against the obvious, everyday truths that I post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Fact is, you aren't speaking factual truths and even seem to recognize such when you resort to expressions like "default position" or "working definition". These are expressions which attempt to frame the debate on terms favorable to your position, not necessarily the truth.
Such expressions are an attempt to frame the debate in terms of logic and rationalism. As I am a rational person, I suppose you could say that these terms are "favourable" to my rational position... but such a comment would be redundant, as a rational position is the only valid position by definition.

The term "default position" is a simple one. It merely describes the position that a rational man must adopt when there is zero evidence to suggest the existence of a thing. If there is zero evidence to suggest the existence of a thing, a rational man must have zero belief in the thing. He will act in the world as if the thing does not exist. Because belief of ANY strength requires evidence, if one is being rational.

Thus, atheism is the default position. Because there is zero evidence to suggest the existence of god(s). It's that simple. There's nothing particularly difficult to understand about it.

As for the term "working principle", it's once again a simple rationalist term. As rational men we must be quite clear with ourselves and others about the fact that we (and all others) cannot be 100% certain about ANYTHING in life. Anyone who is peddling a 100% certainty (such as religious people) is deluded and/or lying.

Thus, all we have in the world is a set of working principles. Even the things that we are most sure about in the world: "I won't fall through the earth, it will hold my weight" and "the sky is blue"... these things are merely working principles by which we can function in the world. Again, very simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The only thing mind boggling is your consistent assertion that the term "deluded" has only a neutral connotation. Sadly, on the subject of religion, you've only combated other people's "delusions" with your own. End.
Spare us the straw men, Tot. Nobody has said that the word deluded "has only neutral connotations". Only you have said this.

To be deluded is undoubtedly negative. I would hate to delude myself the way religious people do. But does the fact that being deluded is a negative thing make the word "offensive"? Of course it doesn't. It's a technical term for "holding unfounded beliefs" The reason certain people don't like to hear it is because they don't WANT to be made aware that their world-view doesn't make any kind of sense. It's insecurity.

I mean, you've been calling me "deluded" throughout this thread, but I don't mind. Since you haven't provided any cogent arguments to back up your claim that I'm deluded, the claim is spurious, and could be regarded as merely an attempt to be offensive... but frankly, it's not as if you're insulting my mother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
This is unfortunately the biggest self delusion of all that you consistently hold to. If you are merely disabusing, from your pov, the delusions of others for yourself, then you would NOT need to post your pov everytime someone stated a position you didn't agree with, especially if it's not addressed to you. The fact that you posted your position once would suffice, but that would even be overkill, as you do not need to post your pov if it's only for your own edification.
Well that's sheer nonsense Tot, and you clearly haven't been absorbing the things I've been posting. The POINT of logical debate is that it is a crucible in which falsehoods are burned away. I continually debate, because one day someone may come and shatter my arguments with superior logic.

It's not happened so far. But if I were to say to myself "Right, I am 100% sure I have the truth now, I will stop debating because there's nothing anyone else can teach me"... it'd be sheer arrogance. And I'm not arrogant. I want to prove truths in debates. And I will continue to do so as long as the opportunity is afforded me, because I know that there's always room for refinement in my world-view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
As ever, you confuse that default position with "fact". Otherwise, I don't disagree with the sentiment "Show me...."
Once again, you clearly don't understand what the term "default position" means. It means that if there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a thing, one should lack belief in that thing totally. Nobody but you is confusing anything with "fact". The fact is that there are no "100% facts"... but a state of zero evidence is as CLOSE to a fact as one can get in issues of the non-existence of things.

Like when we state that the sky is blue... that's a fact. But even these things we regard as immutable facts contain within them a tiny tiny possibility that they are NOT in fact... facts.

-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
It shouldn't end like that. An arguement over money shouldn't end in murder. A spat between a father and daughter shouldn't end with her being shot in the back so that the father could keep her all to himself. But it happens. And what about all the anti war and government protests that turn violent? That's not an indictment on those who attend them, it's an example of the cause and effect that happens despite the fact that it shouldn't.
Here you seem to be saying (rightly) that violent responses are not morally justified. But earlier you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.
Well... which is it? Do you agree with the use of violence in response to... mere words? Or not? I honestly can't find a single consistent point in any of your posts in this thread. You seem to contradict yourself in every successive post.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 08:05 PM   #36
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Well I would, and I make no apologies about it. If that makes me amoral or inconsistent go cry to someone who cares about it.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 08:11 PM   #37
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Sigh, once again I'm going to have to try to decipher a post.

Quote:
Well I would, and I make no apologies about it. If that makes me amoral or inconsistent go cry to someone who cares about it.
Well you would? Well you would what?

IF you are saying that you would respond to a mere verbal insult with physical violence, then yes, arguably that DOES make you amoral in this respect.

It most certainly makes you inconsistent.

As for "crying to someone who cares"... That's just a childish comment, and it deserves no attention.

If however you meant something different by "well I would", then please enlighten us as to what you meant.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 08:25 PM   #38
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
It is wrong to act that way but I consider it justified, the same as I would if someone made anti semetic comments and something happened to them. Don't like it? Too bad. Childish? Awww, that childish is it, am I acting immature? Waah waah, tough.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 08:31 PM   #39
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
It is wrong to act that way but I consider it justified
No Nancy, violence in response to verbal insults is EITHER wrong... OR it is justified. It cannot be both. Which is it?

Quote:
the same as I would if someone made anti semetic comments and something happened to them.
So now you're saying it's "ok" if people are violently attacked for making racist remarks? I don't like racism, but it's not moral to beat people up because of their beliefs.

Quote:
Don't like it? Too bad. Childish? Awww, that childish is it, am I acting immature? Waah waah, tough.
Your comments are just getting ever more childish. Don't you have any desire to be mature in debate? To seek the truth honestly, wherever that search might lead you? If not, it's a shame.


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may:
Old 05-22-2007, 08:37 PM   #40
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
I fully support doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Such as? Kicking in the head of a racist. And as I said before the police force take the idea that someone who was assaulted because of comments they made have little recourse. An example, one sleezebag was trying to pick up this black woman, she turned him down, he made racist comments and copped a bloody nose for it. He wanted to lay charges, which the police said that it was within his right to do, but given what led to the assault his chances weren't good.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may:
Post a new thread. Sorry, this thread is closed. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > The right to upset others

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.