Us government's trick to violate civil liberties - Page 39

**Mal** · 02-09-2012, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

This would be true if I ever actually had been debating any of this with you, but since you don't know half of my philosophy (since I won't tell it to you), and I stated from the getgo that it wasn't up for debate, That makes you all assumptive and rude, not me close-minded. I have stated more than once that I believe the consideration of the validity of possibilities a private thing. You all were off-topic.

Do you consider murder to be morally wrong?

almightywood · 02-09-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

I wouldn't consider throwing people out of some place for the things they say as an exercise of freedom of speech. Mostly because it's not.

It' due to freedom of speech that they have the right to hold such a rally to begin with.

Quote:

However, if you think it is and that such a thing is justified then I could use the same train of thought to say me banning you from the forum would also be just as justified and okay.

Well since it depends on the rules of the organizer, that would be equivalent to the thread starter in this case, so if you say so.

Quote:

Fancy that, because I think everyone here has learned how to show other people respect as well. Especially people that deserve it. And I'm fairly certain no one called you an idiot in here until after you directly insulted Numinous.

Could have fooled me about the showing of respect in general.

Quote:

In fact, if anyone called you an idiot or whatever before you started posting things that can justifiably be seen as idiotic, then I would condemn such actions.

I would condemn anyone calling someone an idiot who didn't start off insulting the person who's calling them an idiot.

Quote:

Again, not that any of this matters. You failed to address my statement. Would you say holding ridiculous grudges that result in you directly insulting people in threads where that person isn't directly insulting you as something a mature individual would do? Do you really think it's not childish to tell people they're wrong about things they're blatantly right about purely because you are holding some grudge against them? You have literally stated that you would disagree with someone saying that grass is green because he didn't show you the respect you feel entitled to. That's beyond ridiculous, and only makes you seem like an immature idiot.

I would say that using past associations with a person as a basis for how future interactions with that person are likely to go is not only justified but reasonable as well.

Quote:

Seriously, just put your petty grudges aside for a moment and picture some 38 year old guy standing in a field of green grass telling some guy the grass isn't green purely because that guy didn't do what 38 year old lunatic wanted him to do. That's idiotic. You're an idiot if you think that's not childish and moronic. I mean, honestly, dude. Come on.

Why should I treat anyone as an adult that acts like a child in my opinion. If people set the tone of our relationship as childish, I will not change it, that's just me giving someone what they obviously want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACt

I thought you weren't in the business of calling people wrong?

When did I call you wrong? I just asked you to be sure in what you were saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

Do you consider murder to be morally wrong?

Depends on the circumstances.

ACt · 02-09-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

When did I call you wrong? I just asked you to be sure in what you were saying.

After I had said that I did. So, if you question if I truly understand something that I said I understood, what are you implying?

You know, never mind; I think our definitions of wrong are different.

ACt · 02-09-2012, 06:13 PM

My definition is the correct one, by the way.

**Mal** · 02-09-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

Depends on the circumstances.

Suppose I just felt like doing some straight-up murdering for my own amusement and knifed some homeless black guy in the ghetto.

**Miburo** · 02-09-2012, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

It' due to freedom of speech that they have the right to hold such a rally to begin with.

I actually think that's called the right to assembly. They exercise their freedom of speech there though. Yeah. You kinda don't get how the whole freedom of speech thing works, I take it. Can't say that I'm in the least bit surprised.

Quote:

Well since it depends on the rules of the organizer, that would be equivalent to the thread starter in this case, so if you say so.

See, no, that's not how that shit works. Not even close. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I can't go to a church and make a scene by saying it's all a bunch of bullshit because a church is private property. They don't have to let me in there. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

An internet forum works in a similar way. The forum is private property. You have no authority over anything here. If you make a thread it's not your thread, it's a thread on the forum. If you are given freedom of speech it's because we here at the forum allow you to have it. It's not a right that you are entitled to here.

Don't believe me, go to some other forums and insult and threaten to kill the moderators there and see how long you last. My guess is not very long. They can do that because it's their forum. Same thing here. You making a thread doesn't mean you get to make any rules. Period. It's not even up for discussion.

Quote:

Could have fooled me about the showing of respect in general.

I'm respectful to people that deserve it. I don't give respect to everyone, because everyone doesn't deserve it. You operate the same goddamn way, only difference is the criteria we use to determine who deserves respect.

If you have a problem with the criteria I use then address that. If you're just going to give us shit because we don't respect everyone then you're a goddamn hypocrite.

Quote:

Why should I treat anyone as an adult that acts like a child in my opinion. If people set the tone of our relationship as childish, I will not change it, that's just me giving someone what they obviously want.

That's ridiculous. Grow up. I call HR an idiot whenever he posts something dumb. I wouldn't call him an idiot if he posts something that's correct. Because I'm not a spiteful little baby. No one here operates like that. So you're not just doing what people do to you, or treating people like how they treat you like you're implying here. Because no one acts like a spiteful little toddler except you here.

And even if people were acting like that, which no one here has done, then you'd still be a childish little brat. Because seriously? That's how you deal with people acting like babies? Be a huge sniveling child yourself? Way to take the moral high-ground, champ. Seriously, you're the oldest dude here. Grow the fuck up already.

almightywood · 02-10-2012, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

Suppose I just felt like doing some straight-up murdering for my own amusement and knifed some homeless black guy in the ghetto.

Is this before or after you get done raping your sister?

Seriously?
What the fuck kind of question is that.

I just told you that I think the determination of the validity of possibilities is a private thing.
What is right and wrong would be at the core of that matter, so to ask me at all is to purposefully attempt to get me to go against what I just said.

On top of that you throw out the most asinine trollbait I have ever seen, go fuck yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

I actually think that's called the right to assembly. They exercise their freedom of speech there though. Yeah. You kinda don't get how the whole freedom of speech thing works, I take it. Can't say that I'm in the least bit surprised.

I'm basically telling you that the freedom of speech allows you to have the freedom to have any type of discussion. Yours, or mine. you are interfering with my freedom of speech by not allowing me to discourse in the manner in which I would prefer.

Quote:

See, no, that's not how that shit works. Not even close. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I can't go to a church and make a scene by saying it's all a bunch of bullshit because a church is private property. They don't have to let me in there. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn't solely apply to just public places. In places where they don't have freedom of speech they can't speak freely in their own homes without risking being subject to some form of backlash.
An old albanian I used to know liked to say:
In Russia you can't talk about the government, but you can drink in the streets.
In America you can talk about the government, but you can't drink in the streets.
Basically over there you can do whatever you want, but can't say shit, even in your own home. Over here you can say whatever you want, but you can't do shit anywhere but your own home.

Quote:

An internet forum works in a similar way. The forum is private property. You have no authority over anything here. If you make a thread it's not your thread, it's a thread on the forum. If you are given freedom of speech it's because we here at the forum allow you to have it. It's not a right that you are entitled to here.

You are the one who said you should treat this like a political rally.

The forum owner would be like the guy who owned the plot being used to hold the convention, The one who was leading the discussion ie. the thread starter would be the one who would be setting the topic (see the correlation there?).

I'm not in any way implying that I have power over anyone here, and I never really was. I was stating what you were now relegated to in my eyes. Either way, by the analogy (once finished) that you proposed the rules would have fallen under my jurisdiction.

Quote:

Don't believe me, go to some other forums and insult and threaten to kill the moderators there and see how long you last. My guess is not very long. They can do that because it's their forum. Same thing here. You making a thread doesn't mean you get to make any rules. Period. It's not even up for discussion.

It never would have reached that point in another forum, since I don't have to worry about the moderators insulting people's stories about how their friends died in other forums either. At least I wouldn't have to worry about moderators that still had their jobs doing that.

Quote:

I'm respectful to people that deserve it. I don't give respect to everyone, because everyone doesn't deserve it. You operate the same goddamn way, only difference is the criteria we use to determine who deserves respect.

If you have a problem with the criteria I use then address that. If you're just going to give us shit because we don't respect everyone then you're a goddamn hypocrite.

I'm giving you shit because you don't START OFF being respectful to everyone, so no, I'm not being a hypocrite.

Quote:

That's ridiculous. Grow up. I call HR an idiot whenever he posts something dumb. I wouldn't call him an idiot if he posts something that's correct. Because I'm not a spiteful little baby. No one here operates like that. So you're not just doing what people do to you, or treating people like how they treat you like you're implying here. Because no one acts like a spiteful little toddler except you here.

I think that randomly throwing insults around because you think you know better is acting like a spoiled brat, so I guess we both view each other as immature.

Quote:

And even if people were acting like that, which no one here has done, then you'd still be a childish little brat. Because seriously? That's how you deal with people acting like babies? Be a huge sniveling child yourself? Way to take the moral high-ground, champ. Seriously, you're the oldest dude here. Grow the fuck up already.

Why do people talk in baby speech to babies?
Because they like it.
If you can't get them to leave you alone, might as well throw the golden rule in reverse.

OG · 02-10-2012, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

Is this before or after you get done raping your sister?
After im done raping your sister yes.

Seriously? yes

i hope you know freedom of speech does not protect everything you say.

pretty tired of people thinking it gives them the "right" to say anything they want

//also, muro is right, its freedom of assembly that lets u gather with other folks for a discussion, but its freedom of speech that allows u to talk about things, unless u are just having a discussion with urself. but i think your focus was on discussion with other people, so its assembly.

stubborn_d0nkey · 02-10-2012, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

I'm basically telling you that the freedom of speech allows you to have the freedom to have any type of discussion. Yours, or mine.you are interfering with my freedom of speech by not allowing me to discourse in the manner in which I would prefer.

I dont think I see this, could you please elaborate on what you mean by this?

Is the problem with them somehow restricting you from writing what you want? If so, how? Are they deleting/altering your posts, or is it something else?

Is the problem with what/how they are posting? Did you mean that they are interfering with your freedom of speech by not discussing the way you want?

If so, that is not a breach of your freedom of speech. A person's freedom of speech gives them the right to say what they want. It does not give them the right to dictate what/how others should speak. Dictating how/what others should speak would restrict the others right to say what they want.

P.S. @OG I understand that freedom of speech doesn't protect you no matter what you say however for ease of asserting what exactly freedom of speech is, it can be helpful to simplify and say that it gives you the right to say what you want.

**Mal** · 02-10-2012, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

Is this before or after you get done raping your sister?

Seriously?
What the fuck kind of question is that.

I just told you that I think the determination of the validity of possibilities is a private thing.
What is right and wrong would be at the core of that matter, so to ask me at all is to purposefully attempt to get me to go against what I just said.

On top of that you throw out the most asinine trollbait I have ever seen, go fuck yourself.

If you were consistent in your philosophy then you could have given a simple yes or no answer. The fact that you can't actually answer my question, and have to talk yourself around it, makes the flaws in your reasoning obvious. If determining validity is private, then who are you to decide for me what is right or wrong?

Of course I'm trying to get you to go against what you said, it's one of many perfectly acceptable ways to show inconsistency and error in your claims.

OG · 02-10-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stubborn_d0nkey

P.S. @OG I understand that freedom of speech doesn't protect you no matter what you say however for ease of asserting what exactly freedom of speech is, it can be helpful to simplify and say that it gives you the right to say what you want.

but it doesnt, its would be like saying the right to bear arms means anyone can have a gun, so a 5 year old has the right to have a gun on them when they go to school for self defense because u know, some kids get bullied.

simplifying it would only give people the impression that oh yea youre right, it means you can say anything you want. this guy being a clear example of one of those people.

stubborn_d0nkey · 02-10-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OG

but it doesnt, its would be like saying the right to bear arms means anyone can have a gun, so a 5 year old has the right to have a gun on them when they go to school for self defense because u know, some kids get bullied.

simplifying it would only give people the impression that oh yea youre right, it means you can say anything you want. this guy being a clear example of one of those people.

He (sometimes) seems to be implying that freedom of speech grants him the right to have a discussion the way he wants, not just what freedom of speech grants a person. If he really does think that, the simplification is a step in the right direction, a stepping stone to him understanding what freedom of religion really is.

In such circumstances, when somebody might have such an exaggerated notion of what freedom of speech really is, the simplification is, imo, an acceptable evil on the path to enlightenment, since its easier to grasp and even if the person doesn't come to realize what freedom of speech really is and gets stuck at the simplification they at least have a much better grasp of what freedom of speech is.

Though. if the other person's notion is closer to what freedom of speech really is than the simplification definitely becomes an unacceptable evil and I wouldn't use it in such circumstances.

**Miburo** · 02-10-2012, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

I'm basically telling you that the freedom of speech allows you to have the freedom to have any type of discussion. Yours, or mine. you are interfering with my freedom of speech by not allowing me to discourse in the manner in which I would prefer.

No, it doesn't. It lets you personally say whatever you want, within reason. That's it. It doesn't grant you the ability to have other people discuss things with you in the way you desire. Like SD said, that would limit our ability to say whatever we want; limit our freedom of speech.

Quote:

Freedom of speech doesn't solely apply to just public places. In places where they don't have freedom of speech they can't speak freely in their own homes without risking being subject to some form of backlash.
An old albanian I used to know liked to say:
In Russia you can't talk about the government, but you can drink in the streets.
In America you can talk about the government, but you can't drink in the streets.
Basically over there you can do whatever you want, but can't say shit, even in your own home. Over here you can say whatever you want, but you can't do shit anywhere but your own home.

No shit, which is why I said people throwing you out of their private property has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Quote:

You are the one who said you should treat this like a political rally.

No I didn't. Where did I say that?

Quote:

I'm giving you shit because you don't START OFF being respectful to everyone, so no, I'm not being a hypocrite.

I don't start off disrespecting everyone either. Again, our 'respect is earned' way of things isn't really much different than your way.

When I first came into this thread I wasn't even addressing you. You didn't treat me any different than I would have treated someone who wasn't being an idiot. You didn't express your respect for me before I started disrespecting you or anything. The way I treat people I neither respect nor think poorly of is basically the same way you treat people that you supposedly respect.

Again, the only difference between the way we operate and the way you operate is the criteria we use to determine who deserves respect. Oh, and our way doesn't grant us an unjustified sense of entitlement or involve other people following our personal rules regarding respect. If you weren't such a close-minded immature douche it would be pretty easy to see that our way of doing things is far from being without merit.

Quote:

I think that randomly throwing insults around because you think you know better is acting like a spoiled brat, so I guess we both view each other as immature.

Except I don't randomly throw insults around. So I guess not.

Oh, and the "U TOO" defense isn't the best way to demonstrate that you're not an immature man-child...

Quote:

Why do people talk in baby speech to babies?
Because they like it.
If you can't get them to leave you alone, might as well throw the golden rule in reverse.

Yes. The golden rule in reverse. What would be the opposite of what Jesus would do. Very moral and mature of you.

ACt · 02-10-2012, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Why do people talk in baby speech to babies?
Because they like it.
If you can't get them to leave you alone, might as well throw the golden rule in reverse.

Quote:

Yes. The golden rule in reverse. What would be the opposite of what Jesus would do. Very moral and mature of you.

Shit, if Jesus was being bothered by an annoying baby, he'd probably just hand it off to one of his 12 followers and got of to have sex with his ex-prostitute wife to relieve his stress.

**Miburo** · 02-10-2012, 12:10 PM

02-09-2012, 06:13 PM	#574
ACt Heart Wizard Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,257 Thanks: 5,327 Thanked 18,708 Times in 4,854 Posts	Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties My definition is the correct one, by the way. __________________ It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

02-10-2012, 12:10 PM	#585
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)