Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

This is a farce.  You are essentially arguing that being a supporter of absolute free speech requires me to personally espouse concepts that I find abhorrent.  That is a ludicrous position to take.

Yes it is a ludicrous position to take.  So why are you applying this standard to others?

I mean the first thing I did in this thread was say that free speech doesn't mean people are obligated to support your views.  You immediately said that was censorship.  If you are going to accuse me of censorship, why is it ludicrous to apply that same standard to your statements?

[Bortness]

Probably because it's irrelevant to the discussion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So to recap:
People dont express what I want = oppression
People dont express what I dont want = pragmatism

The best sacred, inviolable standards are those that are completely subjective.

Care to explain?  What in the world is wrong with you?  It's because I don't believe in those viewpoints.  Others who do believe in those viewpoints say that kind of stuff quite regularly.

You just accused people of censorship for not promoting views they disagree with.

There is a big difference between promoting a view, and forcing a person expressing that view to shut up.

Grrrrr, why are you promoting censorship 

Look, dude, I am not accusing anyone of "censorship".  I am accusing them of hypocrisy.  They claim to be an institution of debate and learning who only allows one side of a debate to be spoken.  That is hypocrisy.

[nullBolt]

Care to explain?  What in the world is wrong with you?  It's because I don't believe in those viewpoints.  Others who do believe in those viewpoints say that kind of stuff quite regularly.

It's a standard strawman viewpoint of, "Your reasoning of freedom of speech should as many major relevant opposing sides as possible must mean that it should include all sides, including irrelevant ones."

It's an attempt at suggesting that if you don't include stuff like "all people should be killed" in a debate on genetically modified foodstuffs, then you are a censor and therefore a hypocrite.

So to recap:
People dont express what I want = oppression
People dont express what I dont want = pragmatism

The best sacred, inviolable standards are those that are completely subjective.

Thanks for conceding your point on censorship, by the way! I really appreciate you avoiding the meat of my post!

[Bortness]

This is a farce.  You are essentially arguing that being a supporter of absolute free speech requires me to personally espouse concepts that I find abhorrent.  That is a ludicrous position to take.

Yes it is a ludicrous position to take.  So why are you applying this standard to others?

You are either intentionally missing the point in order to obfuscate and try to make it look like I'm saying thing that I am not saying, or you genuinely do not have the intellectual power to understand the discussion.

Either way is pathetic.

[Bortness]

Care to explain?  What in the world is wrong with you?  It's because I don't believe in those viewpoints.  Others who do believe in those viewpoints say that kind of stuff quite regularly.

It's a standard strawman viewpoint of, "Your reasoning of freedom of speech should as many major relevant opposing sides as possible must mean that it should include all sides, including irrelevant ones."

It's an attempt at suggesting that if you don't include stuff like "all people should be killed" in a debate on genetically modified foodstuffs, then you are a censor and therefore a hypocrite.

Precisely, it is a common debate technique used by people who know that their position holds no logical merit.  It is akin to simply throwing feces around the room until everyone else leaves, then declaring yourself the victor.

[NullForceOmega]

Guys, please stop now, or the Toad will arrive with the locks and the warnings.

[Bortness]

Guys, please stop now, or the Toad will arrive with the locks and the warnings.

We're not allowed to have a political discussion on this board?

[mainiac]

You are either intentionally missing the point in order to obfuscate

Or y'know, I'm saying something you disagree with.

[NullForceOmega]

You're not allowed to scream at each other and sling insults.  Tarn frowns on that heavily, and frankly that is the direction the thread is currently headed in.

[Bortness]

You are either intentionally missing the point in order to obfuscate

Or y'know, I'm saying something you disagree with.

You're saying something with no objective logical basis.

[Egan_BW]

I take offence at that XKCD edit, because it appears to disagree with the original point, and anyone who disagrees with Randall Munroe must be the scum of the earth.

[mainiac]

You're not allowed to scream at each other and sling insults.  Tarn frowns on that heavily, and frankly that is the direction the thread is currently headed in.

I do not believe I made any insults.  Please, if there is anything insulting tell me immediately so I can apologize.

[Bortness]

You're not allowed to scream at each other and sling insults.  Tarn frowns on that heavily, and frankly that is the direction the thread is currently headed in.

And you are the police force of the forum?  I see no screaming nor do I see name calling anywhere.

[nullBolt]

Guys, please stop now, or the Toad will arrive with the locks and the warnings.

Sadly, I feel that is someone's plan. Looking through their posts, they seem to have a history of ruining threads just so people can't express their viewpoints.

Which is, hilariously, at least partially what this thread is about.

It is censorship if you pull the fire alarm to shut the debate down. It is censorship if you shit in a hall so they can't debate in there. It is censorship if you derail a thread by shitposting so it gets locked.

You are either intentionally missing the point in order to obfuscate

Or y'know, I'm saying something you disagree with.

But you're not. There should, of course, be some limitation on the bounds of a debate. But limiting the bounds of a debate and limiting the viewpoints in a debate are two separate things.

I take offence at that XKCD edit, because it appears to disagree with the original point, and anyone who disagrees with Randall Munroe must be the scum of the earth.

Sadly his comic completely missed the mark on that one. He's almost always great, but damn he has no idea about censorship.

[mainiac]

But you're not. There should, of course, be some limitation on the bounds of a debate. But limiting the bounds of a debate and limiting the viewpoints in a debate are two separate things.

So to recap, there is a completely subjective standard and anyone who violates that standard has broken a principle you claim to be universal.