Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, but it should be allowed.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Agreed.
Originally posted by Oliver North
honestly, yessunlight is the best disinfectant. These ideas need as much exposure as possible so the people who believe them can be identified and marginalized as the morons they are.
Censorship is a position of cowardice
Then don't complain about reactions.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
So in your mind, "murder: and "saying mean things" both exist on the same point on the scale?
If you want to be liberal about it, they should be the same things because those poor Muslims have no control over their reactions: too much psychological conditioning prevents them from being able to make the choice not to react violently.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Like, if I walk up to you and say that you smell bad, you feel that you should have the right to... kill me?
You do know that this is a strawman, right?
It would be a strawman if it wasn't in the form of a question.
I'm asking him to clarify his position, not defining his position.
Regarding your first point: sure, that's certainly a valid point, from a certain point of view. If you possess such a point of view you are a retard, but none-the-less it's still technically valid.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
So in your mind, "murder" and "saying mean things" both exist on the same point on the scale?
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Like, if I walk up to you and say that you smell bad, you feel that you should have the right to... take my life, in response?
However, your question is besides the point. Thing here is religious beliefs and sensitivities associated with them. If you will insult my beliefs to the point that I would find it impossible to control myself then would it be still my fault?
Guess what? Humans are not machines programmed to act nice in all situations.
Either act responsibly or accept consequences.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDOkay.
No. But best course of action is to not provoke to such an extreme level.
However, if you will insult my beliefs to the point that I would find it impossible to control myself then would it be still my fault?Yes. If it wasn't, no one would ever go to jail for beating the shit out of their loud-mouthed girlfriends.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Either act responsibly or accept consequences.
Murdering someone because you didn't like something they said is responsible behavior?
edit- Do you think that if a black man were to write a news article claiming that John McRacist is a douchebag because he refuses to hire minorities, John McRacist can't be held responsible for beating the black guy's head in with a baseball bat, so long as John McRacist claims that he only did so because the black guy's news article "deeply offended his core beliefs"? I'm curious to see how far you take this logic of "If you say something mean you deserve whatever you get".
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Yes. If it wasn't, no one would ever go to jail for beating the shit out of their loud-mouthed girlfriends.
You cannot just afford to unnecessarily provoke people and always get away with it.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Murdering someone because you didn't like something they said is responsible behavior?
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
edit- Do you think that if a black man were to write a news article claiming that John McRacist is a douchebag because he refuses to hire minorities, John McRacist can't be held responsible for beating the black guy's head in with a baseball bat, so long as John McRacist claims that he only did so because the black guy's news article "deeply offended his core beliefs"? I'm curious to see how far you take this logic of "If you say something mean you deserve whatever you get".
You see every issue from the same lens?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
[B]It wouldn't be just my fault. The person who initiated the provoking should also be penalized.You cannot just afford to unnecessarily provoke people and always get away with it.
Why?
Provoking someone to such an extent is responsible behavior?Saying something that someone else might find offensive doesn't result in that person no longer breathing. You're making a false comparison.
What part of 'religious beliefs and sensitivities associated with them' you did not get?What is the objective difference between "a belief" and "a religious belief"? There are people out there who have literally killed other people for dissing Starcraft. Why is that reprehensible, yet dissing, say, Allah, is not? Obviously to that Starcraft player, dissing the game is as blasphemous as dissing God is to a Muslim.You see every issue from the same lens?
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to be liberal about it, they should be the same things because those poor Muslims have no control over their reactions: too much psychological conditioning prevents them from being able to make the choice not to react violently.
If you're not saying this for outright lolz, it's little more than relieving people of personal responsibility.
Why I see cultures that force women to dress like ninjas as not only demeaning to women, but demeaning to men as well. It essentially saying 'men can't control themselves cos they're base animals, so we better not tempt them and make women cover themselves.'
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
It would be a strawman if it wasn't in the form of a question.I'm asking him to clarify his position, not defining his position.
If you say so. But the question is definitely rhetorical so I reject your back-peddle attempt and smite thee with a "nice try." uhuh
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Regarding your first point: sure, that's certainly a valid point, from a certain point of view. If you possess such a point of view you are a retard, but none-the-less it's still technically valid.
You should know how I feel about extreme libtardedness. 😐
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're not saying this for outright lolz, it's little more than relieving people of personal responsibility.Why I see cultures that force women to dress like ninjas as not only demeaning to women, but demeaning to men as well. It essentially saying 'men can't control themselves cos they're base animals, so we better not tempt them and make women cover themselves.'
While I agree, I also cannot deny that some people truly and honestly believe humans have far less control over their actions than other people think.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's explicitly strawmanning liberalism.
And you're explicitly wrong in this statement.
Originally posted by Oliver North
so, in your opinion, it is ok to offend my core beliefs because I wont murder you, but not ok to offend people who will respond using criminal means?
That sounds like common sense. 😐
Of course, if YDGAF about your life or the lives of people you care about, offend the ones that react with criminal means, too. But...but...don't do that. That's just dumb. Unless you are very old and/or about to die of a terminal illness.
Originally posted by Oliver North
we are talking about censorship
I know.
But I a not inclined to exercise my right to free speech to a bunch of gangster murders about their evil ways.
Yes, I just indirectly compared raging Muslims to gangster murderers.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I always wonder how you can be stupid enough to claim you didn't say things when you know they've been recorded for posterity.
Randomly quoting someone and then making a non sequitur reply is not the best of way to interact with people on a message board. Neither is calling them stupid and bait-trolling them. I hope my advice helps improve your social-abilities.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know.But I a not inclined to exercise my right to free speech to a bunch of gangster murders about their evil ways.
Yes, I just indirectly compared raging Muslims to gangster murderers.
sure, and that is fine. I also tend not to say things that I think will have people assault me
however, in terms of the law, if I do, it is them that are responsible for attacking me, and unless it is a very rare situation, my antagonism of them should be covered by free speech.
Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, and that is fine. I also tend not to say things that I think will have people assault mehowever, in terms of the law, if I do, it is them that are responsible for attacking me, and unless it is a very rare situation, my antagonism of them should be covered by free speech.
You're a bit different than most. Some people are so appalled at other's actions that they cannot hold their peace. Then they get their asses beat or worse.
As far as the thread topic? We know that the movie is just a red herring, but pretend it isn't and it actually makes them rage and start shitting everywhere.
If that's the case, you may want to exercise a bit of censorship on your own. I don't know if I would extend that to the law, though. More like common sense.
Do you consider your right to say whatever you want more important than the lives of innocent people that will catch the backdraft of your words?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you consider your right to say whatever you want more important than the lives of innocent people that will catch the backdraft of your words?
Where do you draw the line at freedom of speech then?
Should I not be allowed to protest guns and be anti-gun to ridiculous proportions cos there's a chance some (other side of the loony spectrum) gun-nut might shoot me and some pedestrians could get caught in the line of fire?
ps, I'm not a loony anti-gun type
IMO, unless it's directly inciting violence/crime, there are few other scenarios where speech should be censored. You take the good with the bad, that's the price.