Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:22:23 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:20:29 PMQuote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 06:09:54 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:05:44 PMQuote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 05:57:29 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.Funny, Hitler felt the same way when he shut down subversive elements like Bolshevism within Germany.Hitler was also 75 years ago in a completely different age and society. This is a slippery slope."muh slippery slope" is not a fallacy when discussing social and policy change which is, surprise, drawn out and gradual.You're gonna have to do better than that. Certain restrictions on free speech have been globally accepted for about 70 years now, and I haven't noticed my society getting much closer to a dictatorial rule of what I can or cannot criticise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#BelgiumI fucking love Germany's law. "downplaying the acts", the fuck does that mean? Spreading the truth and clearing public misconceptions is illegal? Oy vey my 6 million, Goy.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:20:29 PMQuote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 06:09:54 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:05:44 PMQuote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 05:57:29 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.Funny, Hitler felt the same way when he shut down subversive elements like Bolshevism within Germany.Hitler was also 75 years ago in a completely different age and society. This is a slippery slope."muh slippery slope" is not a fallacy when discussing social and policy change which is, surprise, drawn out and gradual.You're gonna have to do better than that. Certain restrictions on free speech have been globally accepted for about 70 years now, and I haven't noticed my society getting much closer to a dictatorial rule of what I can or cannot criticise.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Belgium
Quote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 06:09:54 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:05:44 PMQuote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 05:57:29 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.Funny, Hitler felt the same way when he shut down subversive elements like Bolshevism within Germany.Hitler was also 75 years ago in a completely different age and society. This is a slippery slope."muh slippery slope" is not a fallacy when discussing social and policy change which is, surprise, drawn out and gradual.You're gonna have to do better than that. Certain restrictions on free speech have been globally accepted for about 70 years now, and I haven't noticed my society getting much closer to a dictatorial rule of what I can or cannot criticise.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:05:44 PMQuote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 05:57:29 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.Funny, Hitler felt the same way when he shut down subversive elements like Bolshevism within Germany.Hitler was also 75 years ago in a completely different age and society. This is a slippery slope."muh slippery slope" is not a fallacy when discussing social and policy change which is, surprise, drawn out and gradual.
Quote from: Cyrus on November 23, 2015, 05:57:29 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.Funny, Hitler felt the same way when he shut down subversive elements like Bolshevism within Germany.Hitler was also 75 years ago in a completely different age and society. This is a slippery slope.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.Funny, Hitler felt the same way when he shut down subversive elements like Bolshevism within Germany.
Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.
Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?
Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.
Quote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?
Pretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.
Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:25:41 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:24:29 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:13:52 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:08:25 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:01:30 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."We're not talking about thought here, we're talking about speech and expression. It's only when those Islamic ideas go to far that they need to be addressed, as is the case for any other type of speech.I'm not sure why you think censorship is the appropriate response to addressing radical speech though. Tackling speech through subversive means only galvanizes the idea's being espoused and gives people a victim status to latch on to.History has shown otherwise, though. In theory it sounds perfectly reasonable to assume that any restrictions will just create martyrs and light the fire of the "victims" spirts to fight harder, but that does not really seem to be the case as measures taken often do seem to be effective at preventing certain ideologies from gathering large amounts of followers.The continual rise of populist far right parties in Europe would like a word.Far right parties have as much of a right to exist as other parties. It's perfectly possible to be right wing without being racist, inciting violence or spreading hate speech.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:24:29 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:13:52 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:08:25 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:01:30 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."We're not talking about thought here, we're talking about speech and expression. It's only when those Islamic ideas go to far that they need to be addressed, as is the case for any other type of speech.I'm not sure why you think censorship is the appropriate response to addressing radical speech though. Tackling speech through subversive means only galvanizes the idea's being espoused and gives people a victim status to latch on to.History has shown otherwise, though. In theory it sounds perfectly reasonable to assume that any restrictions will just create martyrs and light the fire of the "victims" spirts to fight harder, but that does not really seem to be the case as measures taken often do seem to be effective at preventing certain ideologies from gathering large amounts of followers.The continual rise of populist far right parties in Europe would like a word.
Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:13:52 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:08:25 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:01:30 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."We're not talking about thought here, we're talking about speech and expression. It's only when those Islamic ideas go to far that they need to be addressed, as is the case for any other type of speech.I'm not sure why you think censorship is the appropriate response to addressing radical speech though. Tackling speech through subversive means only galvanizes the idea's being espoused and gives people a victim status to latch on to.History has shown otherwise, though. In theory it sounds perfectly reasonable to assume that any restrictions will just create martyrs and light the fire of the "victims" spirts to fight harder, but that does not really seem to be the case as measures taken often do seem to be effective at preventing certain ideologies from gathering large amounts of followers.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 06:08:25 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:01:30 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."We're not talking about thought here, we're talking about speech and expression. It's only when those Islamic ideas go to far that they need to be addressed, as is the case for any other type of speech.I'm not sure why you think censorship is the appropriate response to addressing radical speech though. Tackling speech through subversive means only galvanizes the idea's being espoused and gives people a victim status to latch on to.
Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 06:01:30 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."We're not talking about thought here, we're talking about speech and expression. It's only when those Islamic ideas go to far that they need to be addressed, as is the case for any other type of speech.
Quote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 05:54:57 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 05:09:56 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 03:58:21 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:25:27 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 01:20:10 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 11:47:24 AMQuote from: challengerX on November 23, 2015, 11:28:33 AMQuote from: Flee on November 23, 2015, 10:51:50 AMPretty sceptical of the outcomes of these surveys as those responses can mean quite a few things.Such as?Pretty big difference between opposing someone's ability to criticise minorities and the harm some of their beliefs and practices might cause for our society on the one hand, and thinking that it should not be legal for people to publicly proclaim that all immigrants are filthy subhuman mudslime niggers who should be round up and eradicated.You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. The only exception should be direct incitement to violence.We've been doing exactly that, though. Picking and choosing what can or can't be said.And that makes it right?For good enough reasons? Sure.I really don't know how you could extrapolate a good enough reason to clamp down on speech.The most common reasons are the protection of people and the values in our society, really.You should probably start with clamping down on Islam then, that is, if we're going down the censorious route of subverting pernicious thought to "protect people and values."
Yeah, if Flee can't convincingly make his argument, I'm inclined to stick to my guns: under no circumstance should speech be limited.
Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 07:33:47 PMITT: ReactionariesOh wise one why don't you enlighten us with your masterful argumentative skills and wisdom like you did in this thread? Please I'm begging you to try and argue your case again and inevitably just stop replying because you're wrong.
ITT: Reactionaries
Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 08:19:46 PMQuote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 07:47:33 PMQuote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 07:33:47 PMITT: ReactionariesOh wise one why don't you enlighten us with your masterful argumentative skills and wisdom like you did in this thread? Please I'm begging you to try and argue your case again and inevitably just stop replying because you're wrong.Lol, yeahThat's why I stopped responding, kiddoBecause I'm wrong, and not because the opposing answer is always "NUH UH UR A DUMMY"Free speech and other slippery slope arguments on this topic are nothing more than fear mongering against some imagined "other side". Hell, this thread is fully of people that use the term 'SJW' unironically, you really think it's worth my time to argue with you people?So come on thenEducate us with your oh so wise and enlightening knowledge.
Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 07:47:33 PMQuote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 07:33:47 PMITT: ReactionariesOh wise one why don't you enlighten us with your masterful argumentative skills and wisdom like you did in this thread? Please I'm begging you to try and argue your case again and inevitably just stop replying because you're wrong.Lol, yeahThat's why I stopped responding, kiddoBecause I'm wrong, and not because the opposing answer is always "NUH UH UR A DUMMY"Free speech and other slippery slope arguments on this topic are nothing more than fear mongering against some imagined "other side". Hell, this thread is fully of people that use the term 'SJW' unironically, you really think it's worth my time to argue with you people?
"MUH FREEZE PEACH" and "ITT: Reactionaries" aren't very convincing arguments, friend.
Still waiting for that compelling argument of the century. Ready to say something actually relevant to the discussion at hand yet?
Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 08:28:04 PMQuote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 08:27:23 PMStill waiting for that compelling argument of the century. Ready to say something actually relevant to the discussion at hand yet?So you don't read, thenApparently neither do you
Quote from: ObamaLover69 on November 23, 2015, 08:27:23 PMStill waiting for that compelling argument of the century. Ready to say something actually relevant to the discussion at hand yet?So you don't read, then
Quote from: Cindo on November 23, 2015, 08:41:37 PM"Hey, places of education putting restrictions on hate speech against minority groups isn't really an infringement of any kind of constitutional rightBut it is
"Hey, places of education putting restrictions on hate speech against minority groups isn't really an infringement of any kind of constitutional right
Quote from: eggsalad on November 23, 2015, 06:01:04 PMQuote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMYou don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. Why? Partially arbitrary social rule is not unprecedented in law, what is a jury of peers.Haven't got a fucking scooby what this is trying to say mate.
Quote from: Mordo on November 23, 2015, 01:08:32 PMYou don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be. Why? Partially arbitrary social rule is not unprecedented in law, what is a jury of peers.
You don't get to arbitrarily pick and choose what can and cannot be said in the dialogue of society. Either everything should be allowed to be said, or none of it should be.
40% of Millenials are cool with censoring speech deemed "offensive"
