There was myself and Raz arguing over global warming a few months back. Raz wanted to widen it up but no-one else was interested. Thread was called 'The Real Star Wars'. Oh yeah, we also argued about the Star Wars missile defence system in it.
Intense stuff, but seriously non-hostile. He's still wrong, though (heheheh...)
Am I trying to martyr myself? No.
~~~~~
A thread about killing America (or any other country) doesn't qualify as free speech, only verbal terrorism. I don't endorse that. I never have.
Besides, that would be a contradiction. It would be like someone saying, "I hate America because I hate freedom yet I have the freedom to say that I hate freedom because I'd rather have tyranny." Therefore, anyone who claims that hating America is free speech is a hypocrite.
My ideals and a lot of the things I like to talk about have to do with individuality and maximum freedom. So to close threads that deal with liberty is to oppose liberty.
I can understand closing threads that personally attack a specific person on this board. I never attack. I only defend (Yoda taught me that). But if I want to talk about killer klowns or guns or Jar Jar or libertarianism or whatnot, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to. If those kinds of things offend someone, then they're too touchy about the wrong things. Don't get me wrong. Sensitivity is good. I'm a sensitive person myself. But there's a huge difference between sensitivity and just being easily offended by things that shouldn't be considered offensive. It's like blaming id Software and the entire video game industry for what happened at Columbine just because Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were avid players of Doom II: Hell on Earth.
I cannot even begin to tell you how wrong it is to say that it is automatically hypocritical to defend anti-American comments as free speech. They may well be wrong but how can you say they are automatically wrong? Is America immune to criticism or something? These things have to be judged individually. And you are way wrong if you think they did this to your country because you are free.
It is also breahtakingly arrogant to assume people are over-sensitive to be offended by some of the topics you started.
We happened to think that their senstivities were valid. You CANNOT automatically dismiss their views as wrong, adn assume that everyone else should as well. Personally, I do not think you stand for liberty at all; your views scare the heck out of me, and quite frankly there is nothing that has made me so happy that governments run countries and not extremist members of the public. You couldn't have more strongly sent me in the opposite direction to what you beleive. You always assume that when we disagree it is because we don't understand where you are coming from; I repeat, it's actually because we understand all too well.
I would not censor your views just because I disagree with them. But you seem to assume that any position contrary to your views is not only wrong, but impossible. Well, that is not so.
You clearly do not agree that their sensitivies were valid. I am sorry about that, but there is no way we are going to put your wishes to be able to say whatever the heck you like (unless, of course, it is something you seem to find offensive, like the US attacks thing) above the very reasonable wishes of other members of the community that such threads are inappropriate. We would not be doing a responsible job as moderators if we let such threads continue.
So, you can either live with that or not; stay here with that being the case or not. The situation will not change, and our position has been made clear.
I think you've misunderstood me again. I was just using the US attack thing as an example since it got brought up. I'm American to the core. I voted for Bush and I think he's doing the right things. I'm not an absolute government-hater. I just believe that the people of a nation should be in charge, not some tyrannical elitist oligarchy. I'm the opposite of an elitist - whatever you might call me.
I'm tired of trying to explain myself. I've tried and tried and still no one understands, here or anywhere else. There's no reason for me to keep trying. 🙁
"I would not censor your views just because I disagree with them. But you seem to assume that any position contrary to your views is not only wrong, but impossible. Well, that is not so."
You're putting words in my mouth.
~~~~~
And about the sensitivities thing, what if I decided that every topic started by an Anti-Jar, a communist, or a gun-control advocate offended me? Would you respect my sensitivity to such things? Of course not! You know why? Because I'm not the status-quo! You only defend the status-quo! My perspective defies the world as you know it, therefore you don't see me for who I am, only as the misconceived spector you think I am - evidenced by your denial of my belief in unhindered freedom. I truly believe in full-on liberty. You can't convince me that I don't because I know what I believe.
And i never said that only MY perspective is the only good one. It isn't even 'my' perspective. I didn't invent the concept of freedom. It's something that exists that I recognize. Freedom is the natural state of humankind, the yearning of the human spirit. Tyranny is against nature. That's what I believe and you can't tell me I don't believe that.
I'm different, that's why you don't understand me. I don't blame you. It happens all the time. I wish we could have gotten off on a different foot. Can we at least shake on it?
Sigh... again, it seems like you are trying to martyr yourself; no-one understands you; no-one tries to understand you; the world is against you...
Ok, Look, I'm sorry if it seems that way, and maybe I was a bit harsh there. I DO unserstand what you say. I even think some if it is valid. I don;t agree with most of it, but what the heck should yuo care about that? But I DO understand what you say, I assure you.
Now, it is unfortunate for you that your views, that you wish to discuss, are deemed inappropriate for this board. But in the end, I am afraid, that's just how it is. I wish we could talk about anything in the world with everyone being level-headed and no-one being offended, but that;s not the way it works.
Is there any chance I can ask you to trust us when we say that allowing those threads to be open was a bad idea? That might seem a bit nuch, but some of these people have been modding a lot longer than I have and they have seen some threads mess up places before. In many ways, we have to pl;ay it safe. SO I am sorry; there is plenty we will talk about but there HAVE to be limits; the mods decide where those limits are and in this case they decided those threads were over it.
As for the opposite of an elitist? That's a tricky one, because it is technically a socialist but that's not where I think you are.
A socialist is a type of oligarch, therefore is an elitist. Your socialist views offend me. Get thee hence and ban yourself before I start to cry. 😉
Nah, I'm just jerkin yer chain. But really though, there are many leftist-elitists. Socialism is a form of bureaucratic collectivism in which society is believed to be greater than the individual, hence the term "social-ism." It's specifically an economic form in which the State is all-powerful and the people have no power. Communism is both economic and political. I make no distinction between communism and fascism. Tyranny is tyranny.
If anything, I'm the right-wing breed of anarchist. Don't be afraid. I'm your friend. Only inhuman dictators need fear me.
~~~~~
By the way, it's okay if you don't want me to talk about these things. I'll just concentrate more on talking abou...JAR JAR!! 😄
Difficult to pigeonhole you, though I think as far as categories go, it'll be hard not to call you an individualist.
I'll ask my brother; he knows all about this.
Anyway. Sorry things got a little unpleasant there; sorry about your defunct threads (looking back at it, not many were closed for inappropriate nature; for example, one got closed by queeq because it was too similar to another (and then the other one got closed, in turn, by Dim)), I hope everything works out peachy from here. Ok?
BTW, Socialism doesn't have ti have an all-powerful state. Just look at the UK. Labour gets accused of being a Nanny state but in the end, power is VERY devolved around here.
Originally posted by HavocHound
My ideals and a lot of the things I like to talk about have to do with individuality and maximum freedom.
See, this is where the clue lies. Maximum freedom and individuality leaves little room for those who cannot enforce their own freedom and indivduality, i.e. the weak in society. Because from your point of view, HH, in a "power to the people or anarchy" point of view, only the strong, powerful and rich take control and make the world their playground. This is not theory, just reality. Just look at how US democracry works, the big economic factors dominate society.
So all in all you seem (NOTE: SEEM) to prefer a society where you can do whatever you want, where you are not hindered by anything or anyone. Well, here's my advice: buy an uninhabited island in the south pacific and try living there by yourself: room for individuality and maximum freedom. Enjoy!