(January 15, 2015 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No one is putting any conditions on it. I'm certainly not proposing that. I doubt that the Pope is. I've heard his words quoted both ways. I think the fuller transcript is revealing.

"Cannot".

The quote, as I've heard differs slightly in Spanish (I think it was Spanish he was speaking) for this word.

Regardless, the people who use this threat of violence because someone might say something they find offensive, or challenging, is absolutely abhorrent in my eyes and goes against completely the idea of free speech.

Sure, you shouldn't be completely free from repurcussions for saying and upsetting people, but the people who are upset have no right to massacre those they disagree with. That's the bottom line. The very fact the pope is suggesting people should "expect a punch" is fucking disgusting.

It's been quoted plenty of times but it's still the most relevant thing I can think of in this discussion:

Quote:You are free to say what you want. If you insult a person then you have to expect repercussions. People are banned from these forums all of the time purely on the things that they have said. Are their freedoms compromised?

Well, we don't actually have freedom of speech on here, because this website is owned by Adrian. So, moot point.

(January 16, 2015 at 7:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Cthulu, you're going to have to wait until I get to a PC to search. To me this isn't as big a deal as it seems to be to you guys.

Maybe that's because you're not the one standing accused of censorship and bias. Tell me, is this a special service you're extending just for us, or do you often lose teeth in real life?

(January 16, 2015 at 8:21 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No one is putting any conditions on it. I'm certainly not proposing that. I doubt that the Pope is. I've heard his words quoted both ways. I think the fuller transcript is revealing.

"Cannot".

The quote, as I've heard differs slightly in Spanish (I think it was Spanish he was speaking) for this word.

Regardless, the people who use this threat of violence because someone might say something they find offensive, or challenging, is absolutely abhorrent in my eyes and goes against completely the idea of free speech.

Sure, you shouldn't be completely free from repurcussions for saying and upsetting people, but the people who are upset have no right to massacre those they disagree with. That's the bottom line. The very fact the pope is suggesting people should "expect a punch" is fucking disgusting.

It's been quoted plenty of times but it's still the most relevant thing I can think of in this discussion:

Quote:You are free to say what you want. If you insult a person then you have to expect repercussions. People are banned from these forums all of the time purely on the things that they have said. Are their freedoms compromised?

Well, we don't actually have freedom of speech on here, because this website is owned by Adrian. So, moot point.

I hate it when people bitch on privately owned media on pages or websites they don't own. If you get banned no one is stopping you from going to other pages where you are welcome, and or starting your own page.

Freedom of speech refers to government not having you arrested merely what you say. You are not entitled to an audience. You can compete for one yes, by doing the things I said before, but being banned isn't stopping anyone from going other places or starting their own pages.

(January 16, 2015 at 8:21 pm)Napoléon Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No one is putting any conditions on it. I'm certainly not proposing that. I doubt that the Pope is. I've heard his words quoted both ways. I think the fuller transcript is revealing.

"Cannot".

The quote, as I've heard differs slightly in Spanish (I think it was Spanish he was speaking) for this word.

Regardless, the people who use this threat of violence because someone might say something they find offensive, or challenging, is absolutely abhorrent in my eyes and goes against completely the idea of free speech.

Sure, you shouldn't be completely free from repurcussions for saying and upsetting people, but the people who are upset have no right to massacre those they disagree with. That's the bottom line. The very fact the pope is suggesting people should "expect a punch" is fucking disgusting.

It's been quoted plenty of times but it's still the most relevant thing I can think of in this discussion:

Quote:You are free to say what you want. If you insult a person then you have to expect repercussions. People are banned from these forums all of the time purely on the things that they have said. Are their freedoms compromised?

Well, we don't actually have freedom of speech on here, because this website is owned by Adrian. So, moot point.

Interesting. Well said.

It is interesting that he said he'd punch someone for an insult. Radical. Of all of the public figures he would be the last one I'd expect to challenge morality. Makes me think twice before questioning it. I'm putting aside my prejudice to think that. He said "it's natural", and it certainly is. If you had someone in your face winding you up to the extreme , your natural inbuilt reaction would out as a physical action. That's a fact. A result of verbal provocation is a physical reaction. People here fly off the handle verbally at provocation. They have no other choice. I like a good wind up, as you know. I've done it a lot IRL and I've pushed to the limit many times. I've never been punched in the mouth but I've had to back pedal furiously when my victim just didn't get the joke. I'm very anti violence, but I'm not naive enough to deny instinct.

Now you seem to be saying that a physical reaction equates to premeditated murder. No it doesn't. For an act to be unfair and therefore illegal it would have to be unjust. If I deliberately verbally abused you to the extent that I knew you would be driven to retaliate having exhausted all other courses of action, could you then be abused of acting unfairly? What if I killed your family? Abused them? Do you draw the line anywhere? What would redress the balance for you?
Isn't that one reason that we have the justice system? To help prevent vigilantes?
We call these acts terrorism where clearly, to the perpetrators, they feel that they are at war with us. We justify war quite easily. What's the difference here? Is war never justified in your opinion?

There's a line that you can cross when you offend people. They can be pushed too far. If I know that what I say will cause a physical reaction in you (assuming that you didn't have the mental capacity to overcome your instinct) then I think I can fully expect that reaction. In all fairness I don't think you could be judged to be acting unreasonably. It would be my fault.
I think a Muslim put it well when he said: everyone has the right to say whatever they like. They should also expect the consequences of what they say.
I'm totally against violence of any sort. I'm against war too.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 7:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Cthulu, you're going to have to wait until I get to a PC to search. To me this isn't as big a deal as it seems to be to you guys.

Maybe that's because you're not the one standing accused of censorship and bias. Tell me, is this a special service you're extending just for us, or do you often lose teeth in real life?

We're all guilty of bias at some point. Censorship can be good. As I said above.. I know my limits, and judge yours.
I hope you weren't promoting violence there stim?

(January 17, 2015 at 1:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If I deliberately verbally abused you to the extent that I knew you would be driven to retaliate having exhausted all other courses of action, could you then be abused of acting unfairly?

Absolutely. At no point am I forced to retaliate to verbal abuse. Sticks and stones.

Quote:There's a line that you can cross when you offend people. They can be pushed too far. If I know that what I say will cause a physical reaction in you (assuming that you didn't have the mental capacity to overcome your instinct) then I think I can fully expect that reaction. In all fairness I don't think you could be judged to be acting unreasonably. It would be my fault.

Quote:I think a Muslim put it well when he said: everyone has the right to say whatever they like. They should also expect the consequences of what they say.
I'm totally against violence of any sort. I'm against war too.

No amount of verbal abuse justifies a violent reaction. If a person can't handle verbal abuse enough to restrain his violent tendencies, that's the problem. Not the free expression of ideas. I would never harm another person in reaction to words, unless those words were a direct and intentional threat to myself or someone else, in which case I have an obligation to take action. A person who insists that respect for faith supersedes the respect we should all have for the right of another to live, is a person deserving of no respect. You encourage more Charlie Hebdos with your approach. You and the Pope are proving that the underlying problem responsible for such murderous fuckery is not merely a Muslim problem.

Quote:We're all guilty of bias at some point. Censorship can be good. As I said above.. I know my limits, and judge yours.

Theists never get it, and that's why superstition will continue to retreat. Censorship can be good, indeed. When we ask questions of you that require you to describe your beliefs and expose them to scrutiny, the more you talk, the more you meet our arguments with evasion and redirection, the more you make the undecided minds of the world see the lunacy and weakness of your beliefs. The louder and more obnoxious you are, the more young people will abandon the churches.

Censoring people like you is the last thing any of us wants.

(January 17, 2015 at 1:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you had someone in your face winding you up to the extreme , your natural inbuilt reaction would out as a physical action. That's a fact. A result of verbal provocation is a physical reaction.

Unlike the terrorists under discussion, my physical reaction to offense that severe would be removing myself form its sphere.

Did someone make them buy Charlie Hebdo? Did someone force their views in an unrelenting manner into their faces (your term, not mine) as a windup?

No.

Most of us understand that verbal provocations don't justify physical attacks. This is why when one is called names or when one's mother is insulted, a physical response is still prosecuted as a crime. This isn't morality we're talking about, this is the social contract.

It's laid plain by their actions that the Paris attackers did not accept the social contract on offer in France. That's fine. That's their right. That doesn't entitle them to attack -- by fist or by bullet -- the people who offend their sensibilities.

Appealing to an instinctive physical reply is in essence appealing to the lower qualities of humans. I've had people, namely drill instructors, insult my lineage, my mother, and myself, without batting my own eyelids -- because I am able to understand that a windup is a windup, words are words, and people are people.

As you've already indicated you've known, I'm no genius. If lil ole me can figure out that punches don't avenge one's offended mother, surely an enlightened pope should be able to see the same.

And if lil ole me can see that gunplay is not an effective answer to ideals, why cannot terrorists see the same?

It seems to me that they use religion as an excuse to let loose their own demons, you'd ought to abjure them, not defend them. That is the problem most folks here will have with Pope Frank's mutterings.

(January 17, 2015 at 4:18 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: At no point am I forced to retaliate to verbal abuse. Sticks and stones.

No one is ever forced to retaliate. However, laws are set out differently to our high morals. There is such a thing as mitigating circumstances where you you can be judged less severely if you are provoked. Do you disagree with this law? How much? Would you like to see it abolished?

I feel exactly the same way about atheism. It's self declared ignorance can only benefit from information. The more exposure theism gets, the less people will be offensive without realising it.

PT, squaddies are trained to be insensitive. If you think as a military weapon then you're not effective. I don't think that's a valid objection to this problem.

Religion is an excuse. You said it. We in no way condone acts of violence, the Pope and I

Freudo, I thought you'd ignored me -- couldn't stay away, eh?

Anyway, are you asserting that the attackers were part of a military organization? That's what it reads like. Perhaps you should state plainly what you think, rather than rely on interpolation? I'll be the first to admit I'm no supragenius, maybe you could simplify it so that even a Texan such as myself could understand it?

(January 17, 2015 at 1:28 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 8:21 pm)Napoléon Wrote: "Cannot".

The quote, as I've heard differs slightly in Spanish (I think it was Spanish he was speaking) for this word.

Regardless, the people who use this threat of violence because someone might say something they find offensive, or challenging, is absolutely abhorrent in my eyes and goes against completely the idea of free speech.

Sure, you shouldn't be completely free from repurcussions for saying and upsetting people, but the people who are upset have no right to massacre those they disagree with. That's the bottom line. The very fact the pope is suggesting people should "expect a punch" is fucking disgusting.

It's been quoted plenty of times but it's still the most relevant thing I can think of in this discussion:



Well, we don't actually have freedom of speech on here, because this website is owned by Adrian. So, moot point.

Interesting. Well said.

It is interesting that he said he'd punch someone for an insult. Radical. Of all of the public figures he would be the last one I'd expect to challenge morality. Makes me think twice before questioning it. I'm putting aside my prejudice to think that. He said "it's natural", and it certainly is. If you had someone in your face winding you up to the extreme , your natural inbuilt reaction would out as a physical action. That's a fact. A result of verbal provocation is a physical reaction. People here fly off the handle verbally at provocation. They have no other choice. I like a good wind up, as you know. I've done it a lot IRL and I've pushed to the limit many times. I've never been punched in the mouth but I've had to back pedal furiously when my victim just didn't get the joke. I'm very anti violence, but I'm not naive enough to deny instinct.

Now you seem to be saying that a physical reaction equates to premeditated murder. No it doesn't. For an act to be unfair and therefore illegal it would have to be unjust. If I deliberately verbally abused you to the extent that I knew you would be driven to retaliate having exhausted all other courses of action, could you then be abused of acting unfairly? What if I killed your family? Abused them? Do you draw the line anywhere? What would redress the balance for you?
Isn't that one reason that we have the justice system? To help prevent vigilantes?
We call these acts terrorism where clearly, to the perpetrators, they feel that they are at war with us. We justify war quite easily. What's the difference here? Is war never justified in your opinion?

There's a line that you can cross when you offend people. They can be pushed too far. If I know that what I say will cause a physical reaction in you (assuming that you didn't have the mental capacity to overcome your instinct) then I think I can fully expect that reaction. In all fairness I don't think you could be judged to be acting unreasonably. It would be my fault.
I think a Muslim put it well when he said: everyone has the right to say whatever they like. They should also expect the consequences of what they say.
I'm totally against violence of any sort. I'm against war too.

---

(January 16, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Maybe that's because you're not the one standing accused of censorship and bias. Tell me, is this a special service you're extending just for us, or do you often lose teeth in real life?

We're all guilty of bias at some point. Censorship can be good. As I said above.. I know my limits, and judge yours.
I hope you weren't promoting violence there stim?

What the fuck? No shit, you picked on my mother yes, it would piss me off, but rape is natural too, doesn't make it right or good. Cancer is natural too, but that doesn't mean we want it affecting us.

It is understandable with children in schools that cant defend themselves to stand up for the smaller and more sensitive kids. But when you are an adult and even punch someone because they call you names, you are a moron.

Please stop using the word "censorship". You give me a fucking lip twitch.

REGULATION is fine, like you cant yell fire in a theater. "Censorship" is a bullshit word and is nothing more than a call to coddle the insecurities of assholes who cant handle blasphemy.

Once you are an adult, there is no excuse for even punching someone because you got pissed at what they said.

You only have the right to say "fuck you" back, or be polite about it and explain to them why they shouldn't do that, or walk away, or protest what they do. If it is a neighbor and they are giving you a hard time by not turning down their music, or their dog shitting on your lawn, or their kids being too noisy, and they wont listen, then you call the police.

WHAT YOU DO NOT DO AS AN ADULT is demand that no one ever piss you off. If I got to silence theists every time they pissed me off there would be tons of theists in prison or dead.

FUCK CENSORSHIP! The regulation on free speech is time place and context, not "NEVER". "Never" is not a tactic, it is the demand of a bully.

---

Seriously froodo, if getting pissed at your kid or your spouse does not allow you to beat the crap out of them by law, why should it be ok to beat the crap our of a complete stranger because they called you a name?

It's a common observation PT that these disparate groups self identify with a unified cause. We bomb, sanction and invade them and when they fight back we call it "terrorism". That feeds the need of our wealthy to control us with fear, and use that to their own purpose in controlling oil supply.