In Defense of Insulting People and Ideas...

[Sunstone]

You said:

''Please point out where I argued for unlimited free speech''

and the OP said:



Like I say, that's the impression I got

The fact you formed an impression is no guarantee that the impression you formed is warranted. In this case, it was not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You don't much like being respected, now do you? You have quite a level of skill at devaluing your own words.

Why thankyou. I will take that as a backhanded compliment

Lie.



Lie.

To insult me by saying I am lying, you would have to prove I meant to say it and was not mistaken. Either way, your words are insulting. Further to that:

Religion:
beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, maybe you should. Insults, I have come to learn, are necessary. They fill a needed - sometimes badly needed - role of making emphasis and passion clear, marking a contrast from simple disagreements..

Hogwash! This argument is naught but an attempt to remove responsibility for making the choice to insult. It's to give in to a desire....there's nothing "necessary" about it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are you pretending to be this dense? I'm honestly not sure whether I want to believe that you are, or that you are not.

Another insult. So now I can start, right? You are dense! Politics of ideas is about government and that is about rule, acquiring land power wealth etc. Religion is about belief in God. Okay oh dense one?

 

[Robert.Evans]

The fact you formed an impression is no guarantee that the impression you formed is warranted. In this case, it was not.

Formed by the words you gave!

 

[LuisDantas]

Another insult. So now I can start, right? You are dense! Politics of ideas is about government and that is about rule, acquiring land power wealth etc. Religion is about belief in God. Okay oh dense one?

I can't very well value your words over your own apparent intent. I will not trouble myself needlessly attempting to.

It is really that simple.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hogwash! This argument is naught but an attempt to remove responsibility for making the choice to insult. It's to give in to a desire....there's nothing "necessary" about it.

Making feelings clear is often necessary. One would expect you to fully understand that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lie.

Lie.

How do you know he's lying, & not merely mistaken?

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you know he's lying, & not merely mistaken?

His mistakes have been pointed out, yet he refuses to learn or claims not to have learned. At this point the doubt is whether the lies are intentional, not whether they exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Making feelings clear is often necessary. One would expect you to fully understand that.

I understand that to wield insults is a choice. If I insult someone, I don't blame it on necessity....I choose it simply because I want to. "Necessary" would mean to me that something is so compelling that there is no alternative. What great loss is avoided by insulting people? What good is achieved by insulting people?

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand that to wield insults is a choice. If I insult someone, I don't blame it on necessity....I choose it simply because I want to.

I wish that were true.

I don't think it is, unless you are talking about fairly selected or controlled environments only.

"Necessary" would mean to me that something is so compelling that there is no alternative. What great loss is avoided by insulting people? What good is achieved by insulting people?

I explained that a few posts ago. There is often no other choice to clearly express passion, fear, confusion or panic.

 

[Revoltingest]

His mistakes have been pointed out, yet he refuses to learn or claims not to have learned. At this point the doubt is whether the lies are intentional, not whether they exist.

To accuse someone of lying is all about intentional misrepresentation.

But let's consider your rationale for this use of "lie" about something not intended. Since I've pointed this out to you, if you continued claiming he's lying, would it mean that you'd be telling a lie about his lying?

 

[LuisDantas]

To accuse someone of lying is all about intentional misrepresentation. Since I've pointed this out to you, if you continued claiming he's lying, would it mean that you'd be telling a lie about his lying?

It would, if you were correct.

 

[Robert.Evans]

His mistakes have been pointed out, yet he refuses to learn or claims not to have learned. At this point the doubt is whether the lies are intentional, not whether they exist.

Your mistakes have been pointed out as well, o dense one, why don't you listen. Are you thick? It's okay to insult to get a message across is it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Your mistakes have been pointed out as well, o dense one, why don't you listen. Are you thick? It's okay to insult to get a message across is it?

It is not my fault that there is nothing to what you say, now is it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

It would, if you were correct.

Well you're certainly not, o dense one who does not listen, but likes insults, so have some, thicko! haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is not my fault that there is nothing to what you say, now is it?

perhaps you have nothing to say

 

[Revoltingest]

I wish that were true.
I don't think it is, unless you are talking about fairly selected or controlled environments only.
I explained that a few posts ago. There is often no other choice to clearly express passion, fear, confusion or panic.

This post seems to argue that you're an automaton, inexorably acting out whims & passions, with no ability to consciously limit abusive speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would, if you were correct.

But I am correct. And you refuse to accept that I'm right, even after I've pointed it out to you. By your own reasoning, you are lying. (Of course, by my use of the word, you aren't lying.)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It seems to me that censorship is one of the most common and dangerous ways in which governments and other institutions repress humans. It is dangerous not only because it can prevent people from finding out the truth, but also because freedom of speech and press are cornerstone freedoms: Other freedoms are meaningless without them. For instance, freedom of religion, without freedom of speech, is virtually a hollow and meaningless farce.

So far as I can see, one of the key ways in which anti-social politicians, pundits, and preachers attack freedom of speech is to say it is justified when someone's speech offends or insults others.

As it happens, that's pure BS.

It's BS because, among other reasons, there will always be someone who is insulted by anyone or anything that disagrees with him or her. Often enough, that person will not say, "I am insulted because you have told me something I disagree with." They will lie and say instead, "You said something just to insult me."

Again, it is BS to attack free speech on the basis of whether or not it insults anyone because we are a species that all too often finds the truth insulting. In fact, though it is common to claim to be insulted by lies, we tend to be insulted at least as often by truths. Thus to attack free speech on the basis of whether it insults people is, in effect, to promote the suppression of the truth.

For those and other reasons, we should drop this nonsense about free speech ending where insults begin. That is so childish and thin-skinned. A free humanity is not possible with such views.

You have to look at it from both ways.

For example is it okay for me to say to a Christian or a Muslim that they believe in fairy tales and are totally deluded? Then should I be allowed to make a mocking drawing of Muhammad and post it on the internet? Maybe I'll include Muhammad and Jesus.

But then on the contrast is it okay for a Christian to walk up to a homosexual and say they are the scum of the earth and will burn in hell for their actions?

So if we are going to limit freedom of speech for any reason we need to make sure it is for a good reason as it goes both ways. If I were to limit freedom of speech then it would be only on an attacking personal level. Something that could be considered a threat but keeping that it wouldn't be discriminatory for things such as jobs and what not. Though even then it becomes a muddy cloud of mess.