This is topic Comparison of Hitler to Ender and the inadvertant suppression of free speech in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.
Please note: this topic is titled "comparison of Hitler to Ender", Not "Ender to Hitler". Therefore, anyone taking offense to any objective statement made here on behalf of Ender or the Cards I will ask not to post here.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Taken from Gabriel's first post:
quote: I did not post this in defence of the horrid women who wrote the article, but I would like to say that I could see how Ender would be mistaken for Hitler in some ways not all.
That, by itself should completely disqualify all derogatory and remarks with regard to this persons argument. Instead there were not only impolite replies, but far worse, a whole bunch of people decided to take this moment to be gang bangers! This Sickens Me. Really Bothers Me. IT IS NOT RIGHT. There is no justification for this. It's all the worse because this person probably would have made a worthy addition to the forum, had he/she been given time to get to know us. The fact that his/her history may not(Hitler did hate and fear the Jews, whether or not there was any reason for him to do so) have been entirely accurate is not grounds for public flogging; we are all going to do that now and again, and though some more than others, nobody's always right. (I do recognize that not everybody that was arguing against Gabriel is a guilty party)
As for a comparison and contrasting of Hitler to Ender:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hitler sought power. Ender did not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a great point.
Horsepuckey. That is so completely and totally not the point I don't think it's even worth discussing save to say this: Peter was by no means Hitler either. Ender Believed he had no choice, and he had a sane reason(I will specify a second time if you wish). Hitler had no sane reason.
That may not have been the only difference in their backgrounds, or their beings, but it was pretty much the only difference between their acts(or, if you want to think about this way, between Hitler's acts and Graff's or whoever's).
Hitler was being insane. Ender was being a man. Hitler was a tyrant. Ender was a hero. The line between tyrant and hero can be so infintesimally small... but it is still there, very definitely there. Correct me if I'm wrong, Uncle Orson, *looks up at sky * but didn't you sort of mean to portray that in Ender's game? Maybe not, but that's one thing I got partly out that great book.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Reading the thread all the way through, I saw that while very few people were bashing Gabriel, the ones who discussed his posts directly were very polite. What rivka did to great effect was show that Gabe's arguments were weak and had no basis in fact whatsoever. When someone tried to congratulate her for 'bashing' Gabe, she prompty said that she meant to do no such thing, only correct Gabe's mistakes. And Gabe hasn't posted in that thread since, or anywhere else that I can really see, without so much as an angry "I hate hatrack" post. Maybe we chased him off. Maybe he just lost interest. I have no clue, seeing as how I'm not him.
I fail to see your point that the actions of a few people contributed to any such "inadvertant suppression of free speech."
[ November 06, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm fairly certain Gabriel hasn't disappeared -- merely took a new screen name.
If I'm wrong, and he has left Hatrack, it makes me a little sad. He seemed nice enough, just not well informed about certain historical facts.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Rivka's absolutly right.
In fact, I've left the persona of Gabriel behind for this one.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Trog
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Or not Trog. Is that a question?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've seen us go over this time and again. Free speech is not protected on this forum. The forum is owned by Orson Scott Card, who continues to offer it as a public service despite the frequent attacks directed at him from it. (Hey, come on everyone, I've got sun's hands pinned, you go for the armpits!) Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Horsepucky yourself, suntranafs. I did not jump on Gabe in defense of the Cards or of a fictional character, so his disclaimer that you quoted is irrelevant to me. I criticized him for posting antisemitic ignorance without bothering to get the facts. If he thinks his reaction was harsh here, he should try posting that load of garbage on the other side.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
And, regardless of whether or not free speech is promised here, nobody suppressed his. Frankly, this is a testimony to the tolerance of the Cards.
The constitution protects your rights to say what you want, but it doesn't force people to listen, to take you seriously, or to treat you with respect if you say something idiotic. Those of us who jumped on Gabe were exercising our own rights to free speech.
Too many people have a completely mistaken impression of what free speech entails. Not being a moderator here, I am incapable of suppressing anybody's speech.
Just as you are incapable of suppressing mine.
[ November 07, 2003, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Megachirops ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hear hear, Mega!
As a matter of fact, I believe I quite nicely thanked the Cards for the tolerance to what was obviously painful, so that folks could discuss it in a reasonable fashion.
And granted, Achilles would be a much more likely candidate for comparison to Hitler-wanna-be's, but I think it's interesting to think about what the reasons are that kept Peter from emulating Hitler or any of the other notorious/evil/makers of-really-poor-choices-conquerers that the adults around him worried about. So, horsepuckey yourself, as Icky said. The seeking if power is a valid comparison point. Ender had it shoved down is throat, repeatedly, because he knew what to do with it, even if only subconsciously. Peter sought power - he was very intentional and planned about.
I also think getting some historical truths regarding WWII pointed out (such as rivka did) is critical in a thread like that which is what many folks tried to do. Bully for them!
(Edited for pre-a.m. coffee blues)
[ November 07, 2003, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by Gabriel (Member # 5865) on :
I did not leave the forum nor did I get a new name. I simply like to argue and I haven't found anything else that I would like to argue on. Rivka got me...I simply couldn't think of anything else to say...So I stopped until now...I have a gift for arguing (well most of the time). I come up with a bunch of crap off the top of my head sometimes I win sometimes I loose this time I lost. I like to play the Devil's Advocate...Defend the defenseless hence why I chose Hitler in the argument. Please take nothing I said to heart, but if you do I don't blame you. I tend to be very convincing at times on my personality if I want you to think something most of the time I can make you and none of you know me personally so you can't really say who I am as an individual. Thats the beauty of it. I would like you all to know though that I was not offended by anything you said I merely lost an arguement. I did not feel as though my freedom of speech was taken away. I just could not think of anything to say in response to Rivka's post. Shes a very good writer. She also did her homework which I did not do before I posted, however I should have, I will not make the same mistake twice. P.S. Thanks Suntranafs for the concern, however, it was not needed.
[ November 07, 2003, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Gabriel ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Gabriel,
Others here will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that people post here at Hatrack just to learn how to manipulate people.
If your purpose for entering into debates is only to hone your manipulative skills, I don't think that the people here are going to keep the "Welcome Mat" out for you for too long.
If you want to present ideas for discussion and debate, then this is a wonderful place to be.
But something you said:
quote:I tend to be very convincing at times on my personality if I want you to think something most of the time I can make you
and
quote:I come up with a bunch of crap off the top of my head sometimes I win sometimes I loose this time I lost
makes me think that you're tending more towards the "likes to manipulate others" side of the scale, as opposed to "likes to present, discuss and debate ideas" side.
Your choice, dude.
--Just Steve
[ November 07, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Gabriel (Member # 5865) on :
I'm sorry if I came off that way but thats not what I meant at all. I did not mean to make you think I came here just to argue and minipulate. I want to post topics I want to debate different things. I just tend to be minipulative at times and when I enter an argument I try to make everyone see things my way. I'm stubborn I can't help it. However I do know how to stop myself after being kicked in the nuts, in reference to Rivka's post, the worst thing that can happen to a person is getting kicked while there down. If I were to respond to her post she would have come back on me maybe worst then she did before. That probably wouldn't have been too pretty. I was in no way trying to make everyone think that I came here to be a pest. To try to argue every point I thought I could win. I'm not trying to sharpen my "munipulative skills". I just tend to be like that in an argument. I think thats why I chose to be a lawyer. That may make me seem like everything I just said I wasn't, but its your call.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: after being kicked in the nuts, in reference to Rivka's post
so now we are comparing Rivka to Ender. Very interesting. We need a "thinker" smiley.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Or you might be comparing rivka to my little sister.
Anyway, Gabe, I too am a debate monger. I find the best way to start a debate is not to make something up, but to pick a principle that some people accept (but not the majority), and argue that point. And, of course, you'll come off more convincingly if you argue something you believe in.
Posted by Gabriel (Member # 5865) on :
I don't know what to say.
[ November 07, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Gabriel ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Gabe, I completely know what you mean. Around here, generally, if there's a negative way to take someone's words, that's the way they're going to be taken.
When I'm in arguments with people in real life I'll sometimes make things up that I'm pretty sure are right, here' you'll be callled on it everytime. People here will look things up if they're not sure, and since this is an online discussion, that's much easier than in a real argument. It's really a completely different kind of communication.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Ah, lawyers are OK. They better be--I married one!
Steve's favorite T-Shirt: "Real Men Marry Lawyers" (or is that my wife's favorite T-Shirt?)
--Steve
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I give up. I try to be polite and friendly, and I still get told I'm attacking people. Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Rivka, when I said this:
quote: (I do recognize that not everybody that was arguing against Gabriel is a guilty party)
I was refering to you. Apologies if I you thought I implied otherwise. Whether or not Gabe realizes it, I think it's pretty fair to say that you meant nothing harmful in your posts(on the contrary), as opposed to some other obvious folks, notably the people who applauded you for "smashing Gabriel" and the -insert foul insult here-(that'd be megachirops) who called Gabe an anti-semite because he disagreed with something he said.
[ November 07, 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Free speech? :Laughs: Where do you think you are?
America? Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"I've seen us go over this time and again. Free speech is not protected on this forum."
Yeah it is.
"The forum is owned by Orson Scott Card..."
And I guarantee you, Pooka, that Orson Scott Card will attempt to protect free speech on this forum to a great extent. I that were not the case, I would not post here.
Megachirops said: " Not being a moderator here, I am incapable of suppressing anybody's speech."
That's where you're wrong. If Gabe had been affected, than though that was not your exact intent, you would have been guilty as charged. Believe it or not, but in my State at least, there are laws against saying things with signifigant probability to incite an attack. Calling someone an antisemite could most certainly start a fight. Since there is no equivalent response to an insult except to leave, since another insult says nothing, an insult can effectively oppress free speech. Fortunately, since Gabe is neither sensitive nor weak spirited, no serious harm has been done- but there is a ideal here that should be well observed and cannot be ignored.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I did not call Gabe an anti-semite. I said his post contained anti-semitic statements. I'm perfectly willing to grant that those statements stemmed not from a predisposition against Jews, but from simple ignorance instead (a condition acknowledged by Gabe and denmonstrated by rivka). If you can stop spewing horsepucky long enough to read the thread in question, you will also notice that I did not ever post any sort of applause or celebration of "smashing" Gabriel. These aren't boxing matches. I don't get all excited to see somebody taken down a notch.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and the statements in that post were wrong, and being presented as truths that we were simply not well-read enough to know. Gabe has admitted that he was pulling them out of his rectum; I wonder what's wrong with you that you take such extreme exception to my criticism of somebody who makes such statements with no basis in fact on such a sensitive issue. And you are out of line when you suggest that I insult people when I disagree with them. I sometimes insult people when they are obnoxious, as you frequently are, but over the course of two years and over 5000 posts here, I have earned a reputation as somebody who engages in polite discussion, not as a sport, but in order to understand other people and positions better. On the other side, I am currently engaged in several debates where I have not resorted to name calling or responded with vitriol against individual posters--unlike you, I might add. When I have something to say, I give it a lot of thought if I want to be taken seriously (hence my statement last night which you saw fit to parody). I present evidence or at least justifications for my beliefs. When I present evidence, I get my facts right. I don't make things up for the sake of scoring points in debates. I'm not in high school and this is not Forensics League. People who don't want to take the effort to do likewise insult the rest of us by wasting our time with lies. I welcome them to the fluff threads, but I wish they would stay out of serious threads until they have something to add, whether it agrees with me or not.
There is a real issue on this side with people who want to spew forth in discussions without bothering to read through the rest of the thread or get their facts straight. For instance, in the thread in question, one person "responded" to me without any sort of understanding of what it was I had said to S. Watson--which, you may notice, was respectful and polite and gentle despite my objection his or her intentions. Another person responded to a post made by somebody else--by Gabriel, in fact--calling me out on it!!
And this is to say nothing of your asinine claims that I and people like me have "suppressed" free speech, when in fact both threads are evidence that Hatrack will bend over backward to suffer fools.
Actually, the only person on this thread who has shown any tendency to insult people in you--or is your cowardly "insult foul insult here" not to be scored as an insult?
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Free speech is not protected on this forum. Put in a nice juicy insult to me--instead of a cowardly pretend insult--and maybe you'll get to see. I certainly have seen enough threads locked, deleted, and edited, to know this is true. Actually, you don't have to look too hard on this side to find one.
And I am not being critical. I support the right of the Cards--and their appointed agents--to decide that enough is enough when their guests are rude.
As far as the rest of the natterings in your post . . . frankly, I find it about as incoherent as the article you quoted in the racism thread. Inciting a what? I don't know what country you live in, but in the US it is not illegal anywhere for me to tell somebody that I consider something they have said to be antisemitic, racist, or just plain stupid. (Or for me to tell people to look up the words "effect," "affect," "than," and "then.")
And once again, I did not call Gabe an antisemite, nor did I insult him. I stand by my description of his post, though. You, however, have insulted me.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Heh. I can't begin to tell you how ironic this is!
I know I haven't been here long, but that was the most I have ever seen Mega write. To me he comes off as one of those guys who can make his case with one or two sentences. Oviously he needed more then that this time. For the record I was not insulted by anything he said he was completely right about me. I appologize to everyone for my rude behavior. Also I want to appologize to Rivka I did not mean for everyone to think you attacked me or for me to sound like I thought you attacked me. I am sorry forgive me. Ssywak I beleive I have a similar shirt only it states the best lawyers are women. I don't know where this I am a male came up at. I am a 26 year old female lawyer unmarried, no children...Just alot of animals and a computer. Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I think blacwolve made some good points. This is an entirely different mode of communication. Facial expressions, body language, inflections in your voice, none of that comes through on a message board. So a concious effort needs to be made to communicate that information in your posts, to show that no feelings are hurt, or you're just saying things in the spirit of debate, or whatever the situation is.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Gabriel, where'd you go to law school?
I'd like to avoid any of your fellow graduates in the case that I'm ever in trouble.
I was worried that they wouldn't let me graduate High School if I didn't have a remedial grasp of the English language.
Actually, I don't think anyone believes that you're a "26 year old female lawyer unmarried, no children", so you might start your Hatrack experience by coming clean with us.
We're honest people, I believe, and we expect the same of new members.
Sorry to be gruff, but you didn't exactly impress anyone with your trolling.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm afraid I have to back Frisco on this, Gabriel. You have made numerous spelling, grammar, and logic errors in only a handful of posts. I would be surprised if you have graduated law school or passed the bar. My apologies if this is not the case.
For that matter, S. Watson's original Hitler=Ender thread was suspicious. Who would open up a such contraversial thread, challenging an author on his own forum on their first and only post, and then never post again?? Smells fishy to me.
Don't take my suspicious nature personally--my right hand doesn't trust my left. In fact, my right thumb has it in for my right pinkie. But I was proven right (provisionally) the last time I suspected someone of being a BS artist.
We have plenty of other BS artists here, that's for sure, including me. But I try (sometimes not sucessfully) to confine my BS, pranks, and just making crap up to the fluff threads and try to be as honest as possible on the serious threads.
[ November 08, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"And you are out of line when you suggest that I insult people when I disagree with them."
I'll allow that it's possible you did not intend to insult, but to say "I criticized him for posting antisemitic ignorance"
is to insult, because ignorance is not antisemitic, people are. If you didn't want a statement like that, and whatever was on the other thread, taken as an insult, then you should said so.
"Free speech is not protected on this forum. Put in a nice juicy insult to me--instead of a cowardly pretend insult--and maybe you'll get to see. I certainly have seen enough threads locked, deleted, and edited, to know this is true"
That's because one person's rights stop where another's begins. Which is more or less what I started out trying to say- if you don't have something nice to say, try keepin' it halfway polite.
"...over the course of two years and over 5000 posts here, I have earned a reputation as somebody who engages in polite discussion, not as a sport, but in order to understand other people and positions better. On the other side, I am currently engaged in several debates where I have not resorted to name calling or responded with vitriol against individual posters...--"
Bully for you, but reputation means nothing.
"I don't know what country you live in, but in the US it is not illegal anywhere for me to tell somebody that I consider something they have said to be antisemitic, racist, or just plain stupid."
I live the USA. If you say that you consider something someone says to be one of those things, and state it without proper qualification in the right way, and they attack you, then you are partly to blame in the eyes of the law. Neither the fact that there is no juridiction of that law here, nor the fact that Gabriel did not take offense should have any affect on your moral outlook.
"Actually, the only person on this thread who has shown any tendency to insult people in you--or is your cowardly "insult foul insult here" not to be scored as an insult?"
hmm, well the emotional response to that, since it's not currently possible to attack you would be to say you're a ------- ------- (if you want to know the insult just send me an e-mail) But since I rather pride myself to not go only on my emotions- though I really don't like being called a coward- I'll just say this: I thought about givng you a real insult, but I realized that 1. it would be Ad Hominum, and therefore not logical and 2. considering the ingrained lack of communication on an internet forum, I realized that therewas no 'juicy' insult that I could say for certain was true, and therefore it was not worth being illogical over. I really think this is getting out of hand between us, and therefore I'm going to request that you send me an e-mail(since I can't get your address) telling me what all you're pissed at me for. I posted this on the forum instead of sending e-mails because I wanted to fight a case for an ideal, and we are apparently now in a personal argument, one that I would prefer not to be in, specially considering the fact that I don't really have a good idea of whether I am arguing with an _________<insert real bad insult, or whether you're a great guy and we just have a mis-communication problem. Either way, I'd prefer not to burden the forum with this. If you don't want to give me your address because you think I'll do something evil and cowardly with it, which I won't, then just make a new one, it's not hard to do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Gabriel (interesting sn for a woman to choose, btw) said:
quote: I am a 26 year old female lawyer unmarried, no children...Just alot of animals and a computer.
and yet his -- oops, sorry, her -- profile says:
quote: Occupation: Student
Gabriel has also admitted to making "facts" up off the top of his/her head. At least this time, the falsehoods aren't a defense of one of the vilest people in recent history.
[ November 09, 2003, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Whether or not Icarus was being insulting, sun, Gabriel has already admitted that he was spewing BS with the intent of riling people up.
He deserves whatever he got. What I don't understand is what you're all worked up about. I've read both threads, and can see no reason why your panties should be in such a wad.
Keep trying to turn this molehill into a mountain, but if I know Icarus, this is probably water under the bridge to him already.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
suntranafs:
quote:If you say that you consider something someone says to be one of those things, and state it without proper qualification in the right way, and they attack you, then you are partly to blame in the eyes of the law. Neither the fact that there is no juridiction of that law here, nor the fact that Gabriel did not take offense should have any affect on your moral outlook.
This does not make sense. The fact that the law does not apply here does not make a difference? Am I missing something here, or are you?
Look, Gabriel has admitted that he was essentially making stuff up, yet you continue to attack Icarus for calling him on his BS. Why? It isn't as if these were innocuous little details that he was making up. Look:
quote:Most of them were in office or what not...They were an influence despite popular beleif that is why they were so hated. They were taking from the Germans and Hitlers only way to gain there power was to have the Germans turn against them once and for all.
That is an anti-Semitic viewpoint, and it would make Gabriel an anti-Semite if not for the fact that he supposedly doesn't actually believe it. Icarus was merely calling a shitheap a shitheap.
[ November 09, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm mostly curious how long sun will continue insulting other people for criticizing Gabriel for his utterly made-up BS and anti-Semitic statements.
Gabriel isn't a lawyer. That's another lie.
Free speech cannot be "suppressed" by people who never even see each other and have no way at all of exacting punishment. If someone stopped spewing obvious BS, they CHOSE to do so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's where you're wrong. If Gabe had been affected, than though that was not your exact intent, you would have been guilty as charged. Believe it or not, but in my State at least, there are laws against saying things with signifigant probability to incite an attack. Calling someone an antisemite could most certainly start a fight. Since there is no equivalent response to an insult except to leave, since another insult says nothing, an insult can effectively oppress (suppress)free speech. Fortunately, since Gabe is neither sensitive nor weak spirited, no serious harm has been done- but there is a ideal here that should be well observed and cannot be ignored.
You're referring to what's known as "fighting words". For instance, I could not, in some states, get in your face, insult the dignity of your mother, swear at you, and otherwise profanely insult you and be blameless if a fight ensued. I'm not sure what the law is where you are, but sometimes that even lays the blame for a fight at the insulter's feet.
As to the rest of this quote, you're way out there. "Guilty as charged"? Charged with what? By whom? You?
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Point out to me where in there is anything pertaining to privately owned and operated Internet forums, much less comments without threats from one private citizen to another?
There are certainly more responses than simply leaving. You could rebutt their criticism, you could simply ignore it and continue as if they hadn't said anything, you could email them privately, you could get into a loud fight, you could reach an agreement, etc.
Frankly Gabriel wouldn't make a worthy addition to the forum as s/he exists now because, as s/he's said, it was all completely made-up BS designed to get a reaction. You might consider that worthwhile, but fortunately most Jatraqueros disagree.
What's the moral of the story? Quit your whining and read the Bill of Rights sometime, you lackwit. All of our freedoms are worthless if they're so poorly understood as you understand the First Amendmant. You understand the law about as much as the "lawyer" Gabriel.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"Quit your whining and read the Bill of Rights sometime, you lackwit. All of our freedoms are worthless if they're so poorly understood as you understand the First Amendmant."
Temper, temper Mon Capitan.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point out to me where in there is anything pertaining to privately owned and operated Internet forums,"
There seems to be a misunderstanding. I was never refering to the constitutional law, but rather to the moral on which it is based. I also pointed out that to a great extent, the moderators of this forum would support that moral. Clear now?
"You're referring to what's known as "fighting words". For instance, I could not, in some states, get in your face, insult the dignity of your mother, swear at you, and otherwise profanely insult you and be blameless if a fight ensued. I'm not sure what the law is where you are, but sometimes that even lays the blame for a fight at the insulter's feet."
That is correct. Also, I'm sure that calling someone a liar and anti-semite could easily fall under that law. So I'm not sure where you disagree unless you somehow think that the absence of the enforcement of the law, and therefore the absence of the law itself, means the absence of the moral behind it.
This discussion is becoming more and more interesting. Posted by X12 (Member # 5867) on :
Now, i have watched a couple of trials deplicting the rights of the first ammendment. As it is that each person that reads a book will take something from it that the next person will not. Similar, the ammendments COULD be understood differently, and they have. Oh, gee... ive forgotten my point... help, someone... pick up...!! Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
I'm not sure what the heck it has to do with the topic, but I'm fairly sure your point is that the ammendments are subjective? Or Not.
Posted by X12 (Member # 5867) on :
Sure (i guess)
Posted by X12 (Member # 5867) on :
You're pressuring me into a commitment that I'm not ready for!!!
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Good now I'll twist your words and make them part of my evil plot Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So getting back to the thread title, what about "inadvertent suppression"? You seem to be complaining that my expression of my opinions is impinging on someone else's freedom?
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Yeah, so you should stop expressing your opinions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sez you! Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Yeah, I'm not sure you're a guilty party, pook, but if you express your opinion in an insulting manner you can shout people down.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But your statement that I will be suppressing someone’s free speech based on what I say has made me reticent to say what I really want to say for fear that it will stop someone else from saying what they really want to say and therefore, as you say, suppress their free speech.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
suntranafs:
quote:There seems to be a misunderstanding. I was never refering to the constitutional law, but rather to the moral on which it is based. I also pointed out that to a great extent, the moderators of this forum would support that moral. Clear now?
The "moral" behind that part of the consitution isn't that it's wrong for individuals to tell other individuals to shut up, but that it's wrong for the government to force them to shut up.
quote:That is correct. Also, I'm sure that calling someone a liar and anti-semite could easily fall under that law.
So could saying anti-semitic things, no? For example, telling a Jew that Hitler only killed the Jews because they were stealing from the Germans, so they deserved it anyway.
And if there's no possibility of a fight occurring in the first place, the law is irrelevant. It has as much bearing on what is said on this forum as seatbelt laws have on bicyclists.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
quote: The "moral" behind that part of the consitution isn't that it's wrong for individuals to tell other individuals to shut up
Oh, dear ae, how do I think you're full of crap, let me count the ways... Except under rare circumstances, it is wrong to tell others shut up, and it is neither respected by any I respect, nor will it neccessarily be tolerated by the moderators on this forum. *diggity diggity diggity dig la-de-dum-de-doo-de-day*
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I wonder why they put that in there... they couldn't have had a reason, could they have?
"For example, telling a Jew that Hitler only killed the Jews because they were stealing from the Germans, so they deserved it anyway."
Yeah, I'd agree that that's a bit on the antisemitic side, to put it very mildly. One minor detail comes to mind though- GABRIEL DID NOT SAY THAT! Go back and re-read, she did not say that or any logical equivalent. The only offense- use of the word stealing. She used the word to refer to jobs and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a metaphor. An insensitive one perhaps, but pardonable, for after all, she was trying to write from the German perspective. And no, I'm afraid writing from that, or any other perspective is rarely a crime, and even if it was, the German people circa 1932-1945 were no better or worse or less or more than any other people, just their leadership was horrible, and they made the mistake of supporting it.
"And if there's no possibility of a fight occurring in the first place, the law is irrelevant. It has as much bearing on what is said on this forum as seatbelt laws have on bicyclists."
Will you look at what you're writing? You're saying that because you can't be attacked, its not immoral to make someone want to attack you. That's like saying let's nuke Japan off the map cause they won't fight back.
Edit: Change wording
[ November 14, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"But your statement that I will be suppressing someone’s free speech based on what I say has made me reticent to say what I really want to say for fear that it will stop someone else from saying what they really want to say and therefore, as you say, suppress their free speech."
Took me a minute to figure out what you were saying there, Dagonee, and when I did... Oooooo, he turning it around on me. And you do have a good point, but I still have to maintain that you should remain reticent unless you have something to say other than an insult. I realize that I may have been coming on a little strong. Although insulting a group is markedly different from insulting an individual, I apologize if I did not try hard enough to refrain from insulting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think you were insulting, suntranafs. I just would prefer to have people err on the side of speech rather than remaining silent.
You know that old saw about it being better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and confirm it?
I want to know who the fools are. Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"It is better to speak and be thought a fool than to be silent and remove all doubt that you want to stay one." -suntranafs Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
suntranafs:
quote:Except under rare circumstances, it is wrong to tell others shut up
Substantiate this claim. Define your terms.
quote:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I wonder why they put that in there... they couldn't have had a reason, could they have?
So what do you think their reason was?
quote:Yeah, I'd agree that that's a bit on the antisemitic side, to put it very mildly. One minor detail comes to mind though- GABRIEL DID NOT SAY THAT!
The only part of that which he (I do not believe Gabriel is a she) didn't say was the "they deserved it" bit.
quote:The only offense- use of the word stealing. She used the word to refer to jobs and correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a metaphor.
That doesn't make one whit of difference. "They're stealing our jobs" is the rallying cry of bigots and xenophobes everywhere.
quote:An insensitive one perhaps, but pardonable, for after all, she was trying to write from the German perspective.
Oh really? I quote, once more:
quote:Most of them were in office or what not...They were an influence despite popular beleif that is why they were so hated. They were taking from the Germans and Hitlers only way to gain there power was to have the Germans turn against them once and for all.
The bit in bold there indicates that Gabriel was not merely trying to portray the German perspective of the time. He was making a factual claim, one which he himself later admitted he pulled out of his arse!
quote:And no, I'm afraid writing from that, or any other perspective is rarely a crime
Well, I'm just trying to write from the perspective of someone who thinks Gabriel's an anti-Semitic idiot and you're just a common or garden-variety idiot. Nothing wrong with that, right, according to you?
quote:Will you look at what you're writing? You're saying that because you can't be attacked, its not immoral to make someone want to attack you.
I'm saying that because a fight is impossible, laws which apply to fights are irrelevant here. You know, just as laws which apply to governments are irrelevant to individuals.
Seriously, are you really unable to grasp this concept?
quote:That's like saying let's nuke Japan off the map cause they won't fight back.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"Well, I'm just trying to write from the perspective of someone who thinks Gabriel's an anti-Semitic idiot and you're just a common or garden-variety idiot. Nothing wrong with that, right, according to you?"
Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying general perspective. Shouldn't have been neccessary, though- you're twisting my words. However, strictly speaking, I do not have a problem with your current perspective, I just disagree with your argument.
quote: The only part of that which he (I do not believe Gabriel is a she) didn't say was the "they deserved it" bit.
Again you twist words. You can't pick bits here and there out of someone's post and say that's what they meant, it doesn't work that way.
"quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Except under rare circumstances, it is wrong to tell others shut up --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantiate this claim. Define your terms."
That is not neccessary. I am not willing to give you the time of day on this one because civilized society agrees with me.
quote: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I wonder why they put that in there... they couldn't have had a reason, could they have? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what do you think their reason was?
Now look, I know there are no stupid questions and that there are only stupid answers, but that one is so close to being a stupid question... but here: It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most of them were in office or what not...They were an influence despite popular beleif that is why they were so hated. They were taking from the Germans and Hitlers only way to gain there power was to have the Germans turn against them once and for all. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bit in bold there indicates that Gabriel was not merely trying to portray the German perspective of the time. He was making a factual claim, one which he himself later admitted he pulled out of his arse!
Hoh Hum. For some stupid reason I seem to be thinking that that came from not just a different part of a post but an entirely different post than the passage about 'stealing jobs'.
"Seriously, are you really unable to grasp this concept?"
I have a concept for you to try and grasp, its called the simple truth. And your own self.
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
Why doesn't it give me the right to insult you?-or tell you to shut up? You never explained that.
Gabriel was speaking from an idiotic anti-semitic perspective without telling us it wasn't her own. Thus. . .
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted.
Sun, if I may ask, is that your own interpretation, or did you hear it somewhere or from someone else? I'd never heard it interpreted that way. Not even close, in fact. That isn't to say that you're wrong -- though that's not what I think it means -- but I don't think it's a stupid question, because it can certainly have different answers, none of which are necessarily proven accurate. Determining motivation is always uncertain.
--Pop
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
suntranafs:
quote:Perhaps I should have qualified that by saying general perspective. Shouldn't have been neccessary, though- you're twisting my words.
I am doing no such thing. If claiming—after the fact!—that one was merely trying to convey a perspective other than one's own is sufficient justification for spouting anti-Semitic crap, it's sufficient justification for anything. It's the logical consequence of your stand; no twisting is required.
quote:Again you twist words. You can't pick bits here and there out of someone's post and say that's what they meant, it doesn't work that way.
You want I should quote everything Gabriel's ever said? Nonsense. I and other people have pointed out specific occurrences of anti-Semitic sentiment and just plain crap; that is sufficient.
quote:That is not neccessary. I am not willing to give you the time of day on this one because civilized society agrees with me.
What an excellent justification! "Society agrees with me, so I don't need to explain my reasoning to anybody." I hardly need to point out the flaws in this line of reasoning; suffice it to say that it would involve Godwin's Rule.
quote:Now look, I know there are no stupid questions and that there are only stupid answers, but that one is so close to being a stupid question...
Practice what you preach, compadre. If I'm not allowed to insult people, you aren't, either.
quote:It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted.
Bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. Far from meaning that I'm not allowed to insult other people or tell them to shut up, that part of the Constitution would—if I were in fact an American citizen—actually guarantees me the right to insult them and tell them to shut up. On the other hand, they have the right to do the same thing to me, and also the right to decline to shut up when I tell them to. Perhaps you need a lawyer like Gabriel to explain this concept to you?
quote:Hoh Hum. For some stupid reason I seem to be thinking that that came from not just a different part of a post but an entirely different post than the passage about 'stealing jobs'.
That is immaterial. Barring multiple-personality disorder, statements like "They were an influence despite popular beleif" are sufficient evidence that Gabriel was not merely role-playing the German perspective of the time, but actually making factual claims. They do not all need to occur in the same post for this to be clear.
And by the way, I'm still not going to let you get away with this—I'm going to put it in bold so you can't claim to have missed it—Gabriel himself has admitted to making up evidence ("a bunch of crap off the top of my head") in order to quote-unquote manipulate people into "see[ing] things [his] way! LYING! Why on EARTH do you feel that we owe him politeness or even, of all things, an apology? Please, explain this to me. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I haven't followed this whole thread, so maybe this has been said already, but ...
How does telling someone to shut up actually prevent them from speaking their mind? If someone wants to be heard, particularly on a forum like this, no amount of "Shut up! Shut up! I'm not listening! La la la!" can actually shut them up.
Personally, I think it's a good thing when one person is being a giant jerk, and the horrified reactions he gets from other people actually encourage him to rethink his behavior. Now, this can be a fine line to walk, because Political Correctness operates on the same principle, and that can be pretty counterproductive. Still, though, disapproval of someone's opinion is certainly a valid response, and worthy of protection as the original idea. How far would we get if every time anyone expressed an idiotic, counterproductive opinion, the only allowable response was, "Ooh, good point!" At some point, we need to be able to call a spade a spade and say, "Shut up, you're doing more harm than good."
And I think you could probably find a much better test case than this to saddle your hobby-horse with. I mean, come on. Look at the quotes you're defending. There's got to be something else you can use.
Posted by X12 (Member # 5867) on :
Amen.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Screw political correctness
'nuff said!
Um, Geoff; you really aren't allowed to call spades spades anymore, anyhow. They are trowel-like garden implements. To call them anything else is completely morally reprehensible.
[ November 16, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"if I were in fact an American citizen—actually guarantees me the right to insult them and tell them to shut up."
Actually, the only country that you have a definite inalienable right to do either of those things is Asshole country- that's fact, not fiction. Just as your right to free expression does not give you the right to punch someone, your right to free speech does not give you the right to insult someone.
"Gabriel himself has admitted to making up evidence ("a bunch of crap off the top of my head") in order to quote-unquote manipulate people into "see[ing] things [his] way! LYING! Why on EARTH do you feel that we owe him politeness or even, of all things, an apology? Please, explain this to me."
Perhaps I will when Gabriel him/her self posts that confession, in exactly so many words. But until then, it is you I will consider, not Gabriel, to be misrepresenting the facts. I will grant, however, that it is quite annoying, and, yes, perhaps even dishonest, to post or say something that you know you cannot verify and that you know is at best speculation. Again, though, this does not mean those people cussing out Gabriel are justified in any sense, because they had no way of knowing that he/she was not giving an honest (non anti-semetic, I might add) opinion.
[ November 18, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
None so blind as will not see.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
It means that one person's rights stop where another's begin. It means that my right to free speech does not give me the right to tell you to shut-up under most circumstances, and it never gives me the right to insult you under any circumstances unless you somehow don't mind being insulted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun, if I may ask, is that your own interpretation, or did you hear it somewhere or from someone else? I'd never heard it interpreted that way. Not even close, in fact. That isn't to say that you're wrong -- though that's not what I think it means -- but I don't think it's a stupid question, because it can certainly have different answers, none of which are necessarily proven accurate. Determining motivation is always uncertain
Yep, its my own interpretation- which I happen to believe is close enough to the truth to post as fact. You are correct, it was -clearly- not a stupid question, because there are no stupid questions among honest questions. I am well aware that there is more than one answer, and that there are people who devote their entire lives to the study of the constitution. So the fact that you haven't heard that interpretation before doesn't really surprise me, but that is one of the definite, very important reasons why it is there.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The other main obvious side to this is that there are other rights in addition to the ones in the constitution because those rights haven't been stuck in there yet, thus the term "deny"[through ommision].(Such as my right to want to beat the crap out of someone for insulting me but to sue them for $5+ of emotional damage instead) I am fairly certain that this ammendment (9th, I think?), is at least one of the reasons they call the constitution a "living document." What I was talking about might be best fitted to "disparage" [through override].
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
In an amazing act of doublespeak, suntranafs interprets the first ammendment as a denial of free speech.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Tru-speak right? That wouldn't be the first ammendment, anyway, it'd be the 9th, if you weren't wrong. *shakes head* What can yah do. What can yah do. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:What can yah do. What can yah do.
You can only go on living...one day at a time, trying to convince yourself that you're not a moron.
Best of luck.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I know I just proposed to run off with Zal, but now I want to run off with ae.
STOP TEARING ME APART. Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I thought I was your hizzo.
*sniff*
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Amendment
one "m"
not two
sorry, couldn't help myself -
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I'm sure there's enough of you to go around. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Enough Ralphie, or enough Luv?
Answer carefully.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Oh, but they're practically indistinguishable. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"You can only go on living...one day at a time, trying to convince yourself that you're not a moron."
Oh boy Oh boy! I Can??? *looks around for 'finger' emoticon* *doesn't find* Oh, well kiss and make up
Posted by Spektyr (Member # 5954) on :
Alrighty, after reading this I simply couldn't resist registering if for no other reason than to put in my 2 cents worth. But since I have a healthy amount of self-knowledge I will undoubtedly compose a response verbose enough to carry a little more postage than that.
First Point: There is a commonly held opinion among those capable of properly using the English language that those who do not (either by choice or inability) are not as intelligent as those who do. I have no interest in arguing whether or not this opinion is valid. The point is that if you compose replies that are poor examples of English, are poorly organized, or otherwise not competant, many people are likely to dismiss them out of hand. While I'm sure there are many intelligent people out there who can aquit themselves admirably in intellectual conversation but lack a basic command of the native language of that conversation, general opinion of those arguments will not be as good. I'll leave it at that - no targets, no names. Just a little tidbit for everyone to think about.
Second Point: Gabriel is almost certainly not a lawyer. Yes, this has been said before, but I'll expand on it a little anyway. First, the poor use of English. I have a good personal friend who is a lawyer. He's young and certainly a bright guy, but he is not what you'd call a brilliant mind. Don't get me wrong - the guy is smart. It's just that I'd place him in the "average lawyer" category. He has an impressive command of the English language. Lawyers have to, or they can't draw up contracts and other legal documents with the requisite skill of the profession. They may not get all the literary aspects of the language that say, a writer would, but they do know how to write. (For instance, things like using "it's" instead of "its". A writer should most definitely not make that mistake, but it doesn't hurt a lawyer who undoubtedly has a paralegal or someone to proofread for him or her.) Second, Gabriel's complete lack of formatting is a definite indication of "non-lawyerness". (Yes, I know that isn't a word.) I've seen more than a few contracts and other legal documents in my days and they are arguably one of the most organized compositions you're likely to come across outside the realm of professional writers. Gabriel has a habit of smashing all his post into a single cumbersome paragraph. This is common among people have only the most basic English skills and have never composed documents for public consumption. I am not trying to make any kind of value judgements here - there's nothing wrong with not being able to write at a professional level, just as there's nothing wrong with not being able to calculate the force required to put a specific payload into Earth orbit. Certain jobs require certain knowledge. Unfortunately for Gabriel, he is not displaying knowledge that is known to be required of a lawyer. I suspect however, that he wants to be a lawyer and is not one because he is not yet old enough to have completed highschool. (This is just my personal assessment and is not necessarily true.)
Third Point: The constitutional right of freedom of speech does protect the rights of citizens to be rude or even downright insulting to one another. You do have the right to tell someone to shut up or even call them a retard or whatever. They then have the right to believe you or not. The only times that this freedom is limited are situations where it would infringe on the rights of others, which you so like to point out Sun. Which exact rights are it that calling someone a bad name infringes on? Their right to say something back? No, sorry that doesn't work. They still have the right. Even saying something so nasty that they lose the will to speak back is not in and of itself illegal. They have the right, but not the desire to exercise it. Frankly, someone so timid and easily controlled is a little pathetic in my view, but I also understand that such a value judgement is inappropriate and wrong. Read a little bit of Card's work: we often have opinions or jump to judgements that we ourselves intellectually disagree with. Heart and mind - two separate motivations that sometimes, but not always, are reconciled easily. The kinds of things that I suspect you have stuck in your mind Sun are situations where the freedom of speech is limited but you're personal moral code is over-extending them. For instance: shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Doing that can cause a panic that puts another person's right to life at risk. Shouting "Shut up!" to someone's face may provoke them, and a court of law may decide that your actions were a contributing factor if a fight were to break out but the reason behind that is that in those cases you were displaying sufficient aggression that the other party felt threatened. Making direct threats is similarly illegal because if they are taken seriously (which they must for safety's sake) again infringe on a person's right to life, liberty, and so on. The final situation where making statements is illegal is in the case of slander/libel. (Which incidentally doesn't always mean the statements themselves are false, but can also apply to true statements made in a particularly vicious way.)
Now to apply this to the issues at hand here, it is not illegal for someone to say that someone's statements are anti-semitic ignorance. You're just as free to call someone a moron as they are to say something moronic.
I can tell you to shut up, but that doesn't mean you have to. I can say you are impersonating a human being without a license and are guilty of criminal stupidity, but it doesn't mean that you are.
All it means is that I'm choosing to voice my opinions in inflammatory and (in my opinion) inapproprate ways. But there's no law against being inappropriate. It's just not polite.
If there was a law against saying things that hurt people's feelings or were impolite, we might as well just call Earth a penal colony.
As for the forum, there is no constitutional protection here for your freedom to speak. To be completely frank the administrators have every right to ban people because they were born on a Thursday. They don't, but they could. The only way that might not be true is if the server owners themselves have some sort of non-discrimination rule that the website owners had to agree to. But again, that has nothing to do with the US constitution and everything to do with the server owners.
Yeah, I knew this was going to get wordy. My writer's blood I suppose.
[edit: spelling]
[ November 23, 2003, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Spektyr ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Spektyr! That was quite a first post. I love newbies who jump in feet-first.
Be sure to check out the other side. I think you'll fit in nicely over there. Posted by Spektyr (Member # 5954) on :
Well if you'll pardon my "french" I don't do anything half-assed.
I'm pretty much a complete ass. Hehe.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"To be completely frank the administrators have every right to ban people because they were born on a Thursday. They don't, but they could. The only way that might not be true is if the server owners themselves have some sort of non-discrimination rule that the website owners had to agree to. But again, that has nothing to do with the US constitution and everything to do with the server owners."
Whether they have every right to do so is debateable, whether they are acting within the law is not, and I'm well aware that you're right with regard to this, and have stated as much.
Other than that, I'd have to agree with Rivka; that was a hell of a first post. While I may not agree with you assumptions and consequently your conclusions, I applaud your logic. As to our disagreements, perhaps I am actually in the minority(not that that neccessarily matters) in my interpretaion of the constitution, but I have a different view. I am glad that you at least are willing to accept my premise that one person's legal rights stop where another's begin. From this base we should be able to have a logical discussion. Before I start any such thing, I need to admit clearly a couple things:
1. First and foremost, I am building a castle on air, cause Gabriel simply doesn't give a rat's arse. Thus I am arguing the case, not the person, and so there is no case, because the person in question was not affronted, which is an initial assumption in the case.
2. Because of #1, my argument is theoretical rather than objective, and this rules out the possibility of a logical discussion with people, who in my humble opinion, are unable to use their imagination to see what might have been. This opinion is based on the fact that if people are not given one little thing, then government will end, anarchy will reign, civilization will crumble, and the human race may not survive, and that one little thing is the benefit of the doubt.
If either of these things are not clear, ask and I will try to explain. Otherwise I will continue.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Oh and another one 3. With some selection, I often insult people I know in daily life, and sometimes even tell them to shut-up, and I would be plenty pissed off if the cops showed up one day and arrested or fined me for it! I would, in fact, think that my constitutional right to privacy and free speech had been violated. If, however, I went up to a complete stranger whom I had had little or no contact with (and btw, I tend not to treat strangers formally as such) and dealt such an insult to them, then I know damned well that I had better be ready to fight, because they are very nearly within their rights to physically attack me, because a verbal attack can be a physical attack, and is nearly treated that way legally. On forums, therefore, I refrain from insulting this way when I can contain myself, because doing so is cowardly and unjust, irregardless of the fact that we are outside the jurisdiction of the law.
Posted by Spektyr (Member # 5954) on :
Excellent. It wasn't readily obvious that you were aware of all these things. It seemed likely that someone with the brains to formulate an argument as well as you did would also be intelligent to recognize the, shall we say "less than rock-solid" basis for it. Unfortunately there are a lot of half-educated morons running about, and most of them seem to have figure out how to post on forums.
Intellectual debate, whether simply for the purpose of exercising the mental muscles or for trying to expand one's understanding is a dying sport it seems. Too much "I'm right, you're wrong na-na-na-na-na-I'm-not-listening"... it's enough to make even the most reserved individuals want to start revoking breathing licenses.
Obviously no rights given by the Bill of Rights can be overwritten by another's individual rights - the only way an individual can be denied these rights is through due process. Otherwise you end up with certain people having "more important" rights than others, and it's an overt class system like Feudal England was many years ago. (Some would say we have that now with capitalism's "haves" and "have nots", but that's a different argument.)
The line between one person's rights and another person's rights is really where most of the laws in this nation come from. What is the reasonable boundary between your right to drive a car however you like, and everyone else's right to not get run over by you? We have demonstrated time and time again that as a people, "let your conscious be your guide" does not seem to work for Americans. Thus we've got a billion laws and lawyers.
We've got laws to interpret the Bill of Rights, we've got laws to define the boundaries, we've got laws to define other laws... it's a nightmarish system but it is - at least for the most part - stable.
The biggest problem I have is when people start interpreting "happiness" as an inalienable right. It's not. The pursuit of happiness is. You can't just whip out your certificate of citizenship, march into the capitol, and say "Where's my happiness?"
Other people are allowed to do things you disagree with, don't like, or even actively hate until the law is changed to say differently. That's the coolest part. If you don't like the way things are, you can at least try to change them. Pursuit anyone?
So with everyone pursuing their own happiness, which sometimes butts heads with other people's pursuit the net effect (hopefully) is that most everyone is moderately happy most of the time and everyone is at least a little unhappy some of the time.
Oh, one other thing I wanted to say: I personally view the term "fighting words" as a crutch for people that can't control their temper. Losing your temper is no one's fault but your own, regardless of what is said.
In all my years I've only responded to words with violence one time, and that was when a man (and I use the term loosely) confessed that the only reason he'd taken liberties with my girlfriend was that he thought she was asleep. Thankfully my roommate was present to restrain me and advise this pile of dung in human skin to begin running lest I become unrestrainable.
The difference, as I see it, was that my rage was born of action - the slime's action taken against someone I loved - not his words directly.
To answer words with physical violence is to give control of yourself to your enemy. Yes, they do bear a responsibility for their words, but never so much as you bear for your actions.
Besides, why should you care even in the smallest degree what such a person would say? By taking an action based on their words you give merit to those words that would not otherwise exist.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Besides, why should you care even in the smallest degree what such a person would say?"
You must admit that words do in fact have power, at least in an "arena" like this one in which an audience is present to hear. If, for example, I can convince the people of Hatrack that you are a deceitful, cowardly plagiarist -- even if it's untrue, and even if I have done you no physical harm -- I can make any visits here unpleasant and/or even intolerable for you, thus ultimately removing this section of cyberspace from your life.
This doesn't only apply to Internet forums, of course, but that's the most obvious example of an environment in which words not only have consequences but are consequences in and of themselves.
Posted by Spektyr (Member # 5954) on :
Obviously words have power. We're all here which is plenty of evidence that certain people have a way with words that transcends normal communication. If it weren't for the literary talents of OSC, this discusion, if it was ever to happen with the same participants, would have to happen elsewhere.
The issue here is that you've changed the context. One person talking to another person is what I'd discussed. What you're talking about is slander and/or libel. That is illegal because it infringes upon the rights of the victim. By damaging someone's reputation you are stomping on their personal rights.
In that situation violence is still not an effective solution, a legal suit will accomplish the goal far more effectively.
My point wasn't that words don't have consequence. The point was that reaction to words is what gives them weight. In my example, taking offense at someone's statements will in some ways actually lend credence to those statements. If someone made disparaging remarks about your sexual orientation and you got angry, it seems as though that's a soft point. Does that mean that they were right and you're trying to keep it secret? Perhaps you're insecure about your own orientation? No one knows, but the questions are still raised. On the other hand if you just let the insults slide off you with no more reaction than if they'd asked you the time of the day, you are the undisputed victor.
In your example it is the third parties, the "other people" who take the words to heart and give them weight. That's a much stickier situation to deal with. Again, however, the more loudly you protest the more believable the charges become. There are many more "high roads" to deal with this kind of thing, but unfortunately none of them will completely erase the public memory of the slander.
Two different situations that both illustrate how words can, and can not have weight.
Posted by Jestak (Member # 5952) on :
Sun--I'm sorry, this is just my opinion and a question and I'll make it very short. I've kept up to date on this post and haven't replied even though some of your thoughts on freedoms, I've found wrong. But now, I'm kinda curious. It seems now your are backing off on your argument and I want to know why. I think it could be 1 (or more) of 3 reasons:
1) You started this whole argument on the basis of starting an argument that you were sure wouldn't get any intelligent responses. When you did, you had to scramble for some ideas to support your side and you made some up that seemed feasible.
2) Throughout this argument you have carefully read and understood others' points and have changed your way of thinking. In other words they convinced you that your wrong.
3) You changed your mind, not because you think the others are correct, but because it is the popular point of view, and it's better to be accepted then to be correct.
I'm not posting this to mock you, or make you angry. I've been in this situation, not just through forums, but real life situations, and I'd have to admit that more times then not I change my mind because of #3. I look back at these times and I vow that I will never do that again, but...
Posted by Spektyr (Member # 5954) on :
A little Devil's advocate here:
There is an option four.
4. Due to an effective discussion his views "mellowed" somewhat. Certain aspects were re-evaluated, or perhaps certain ideas found words to describe them that he hadn't fully realized before. While the counter arguments to his points didn't "win" in his mind, they did manage to cast a new light on his thinking.
I can't count the number of times I've had this happen in my own head. Debating various things with intelligent people that weren't able to convince me that I was wrong or they were right, but did suceed in making me re-evaluate my own opinions and see them in a new way.
[ November 27, 2003, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Spektyr ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:It seemed likely that someone with the brains to formulate an argument as well as you did...
If by "brains", you mean "cojones" and by "formulate", you mean "fabricate", I totally agree.
quote:This opinion is based on the fact that if people are not given one little thing, then government will end, anarchy will reign, civilization will crumble, and the human race may not survive, and that one little thing is the benefit of the doubt.
So you're saying that, what, we should've given Gabriel the benefit of the doubt? Even as he spewed facts which we knew were positively false--facts he admitted to making up off the top of his head? I think you're crazy go nuts.
quote:Unfortunately there are a lot of half-educated morons running about, and most of them seem to have figure out how to post on forums.
I doubt this statement applies much to Hatrack, aside from the occasional troll.
quote:Intellectual debate, whether simply for the purpose of exercising the mental muscles or for trying to expand one's understanding is a dying sport it seems.
Ditto. I doubt there's a single subject that doesn't get debated regularly at Hatrack. Most recently being the civil union debate, which spanned half-a-dozen threads and the better part of a week (and actually spread to another furum). But if you're trying to imply that sun took his stance in the name of sport and was trying to get us to fine-tune our ideas by contrasting them with his (which range from making little to no sense), I think you're wrong. I think his insulting response to ae proved that he's not really trying to see the other side. I think he really does think he's right. It's fine to play devil's advocate sometimes, but one should really know when the devil's argument has failed, rather than let the discussion degrade into hypocrasy.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
suntranafs:
quote:If, however, I went up to a complete stranger whom I had had little or no contact with (and btw, I tend not to treat strangers formally as such) and dealt such an insult to them, then I know damned well that I had better be ready to fight, because they are very nearly within their rights to physically attack me, because a verbal attack can be a physical attack, and is nearly treated that way legally.
I promised myself I wouldn't spend any more time butting my head against your peculiar wall, but this statement is too stupid to ignore. Do you know anything about the law at all, really? And then there's this:
quote:I am glad that you at least are willing to accept my premise that one person's legal rights stop where another's begin.
Yeah, y'know, I think everyone here accepts this premise. What you don't seem to understand is that people don't have a legal right not to be insulted! In fact, other people have a legal right to insult them! What will it take for me to get this concept through your ludicrously thick skull?
quote:First and foremost, I am building a castle on air, cause Gabriel simply doesn't give a rat's arse.
I hardly think it's because Gabriel doesn't give a rat's arse. More likely he, unlike you, has the basic common sense to realise that what he did is more or less indefensible.
quote:On forums, therefore, I refrain from insulting this way when I can contain myself, because doing so is cowardly and unjust, irregardless of the fact that we are outside the jurisdiction of the law.
Why the hell is it cowardly and unjust? Because the victim can't respond in kind? Oh, wait: he can. What he can't do is retaliate physically to a verbal insult. This is somehow unjust. . . ?
I'm with Frisco. You're crazy go nuts.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"Why the hell is it cowardly and unjust? Because the victim can't respond in kind? Oh, wait: he can."
Ok, let me try to put this verrry simple for you. Words affect different people different ways. For example, if I am me, and if you are a human being with black skin and you have had a very painful history of being discriminated against for it, and I maliciously(sp?) call you a 'nigger', and you are sensitive to that particular term, then it is very unlikely that there are any equivalent insults that you can come up with.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
*Sob* I wrote a big long post trying to give an argument to the people who weren't calling me stupid and crazy(not that I mind the latter one bit ) and the stupid library computer kicked me off an killed it and now I have no more time. Sorry, later I guess.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
suntranafs:
quote:Ok, let me try to put this verrry simple for you. Words affect different people different ways. For example, if I am me, and if you are a human being with black skin and you have had a very painful history of being discriminated against for it, and I maliciously(sp?) call you a 'nigger', and you are sensitive to that particular term, then it is very unlikely that there are any equivalent insults that you can come up with.
He said, apropos of nothing.
Relevance, please?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Much like death takes the form of the grim reaper, suntranafs seems to be the embodiment of the non-sequiter.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"He said, apropos of nothing."
I responded directly to your statement, if you want to interpret it as nothing, that's your call.
...Again, I find myself without any time.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Ok, I'm back, well sort of. Finally I have time(I think) to write something and I am so tired and worn out that it will probably crappy and fragmented.
First to respond to Jestak "
quote: Sun--I'm sorry, this is just my opinion and a question and I'll make it very short. I've kept up to date on this post and haven't replied even though some of your thoughts on freedoms, I've found wrong. But now, I'm kinda curious. It seems now your are backing off on your argument and I want to know why. I think it could be 1 (or more) of 3 reasons:
1) You started this whole argument on the basis of starting an argument that you were sure wouldn't get any intelligent responses. When you did, you had to scramble for some ideas to support your side and you made some up that seemed feasible.
2) Throughout this argument you have carefully read and understood others' points and have changed your way of thinking. In other words they convinced you that your wrong.
3) You changed your mind, not because you think the others are correct, but because it is the popular point of view, and it's better to be accepted then to be correct.
I'm not posting this to mock you, or make you angry. I've been in this situation, not just through forums, but real life situations, and I'd have to admit that more times then not I change my mind because of #3. I look back at these times and I vow that I will never do that again, but...
I'm gonna say that I may be too tired to do this question justice, but here: I don't really think any of the choices apply. If you knew me well, you would know that number 3. is not really a possible reaction for me, my personality is more like 'say what you think, right or wrong, and hell with the critics'. That's just the way I am. Which is not to say that I don't mind people hating me and looking down on me any more than the next guy, and is not to say that I didn't try to soften my approach a little when I realized I'd possibly been a bit excessively violent in my speech. 2. isn't correct cause I definitely haven't changed my way of thinking- and I seldom do. 1. isn't correct because I still think my argument was lacking feasible ideas and I didn't purposefully get no inteligent responses, albeit that was the effect So I guess one applies the most, and two the least, but none are descriptive of my situation. Which is, actually, still wanting to argue this point in a logical manner with logical people. And omg I'm gonna get booted. bye for now.
Posted by callmecordelia (Member # 6021) on :
Forgive me, but haven't we strayed from the topic just a little? Personally, I don't see how a comparison between Hitler and Ender relates at all to the inadvertant suppression of free speech, unless it was meant that such a comparison would provoke people to be defensive of their own free speech, which it obviously has.
Anyway, the only possible relation I see between Hitler and Ender would be their instinct to completely crush an enemy when it stands in their way, rather than simply disabling it. Their motives for doing so are completely different, of course- with Hitler I suppose it would be power and world domination and with Ender it would simply be survival or accomplishing a goal...
But anyway, I know no one knows me yet really, but hey guys, whoa! Don't lets be nasty!
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
You don't know the background, indeed I can see how the topics, as stated, are not 'in the same argument'.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
But what about all the Good things Hitler did?
I saw that on a T-Shirt and could not resist.
However I find it interesting that the claim is made that Hitler was insane and Ender was not. Frankly this is a pretty fine point.
In the end we learn that Ender was just as "wrong" in his assumptions as Hitler and both were proceeding from what they considered to be fact to logical conclusions.
Hitlers facts ammounted to "Jews Bad" so he did what he had to do to correct it. Most of the Germans involved saw it as a messy job but a needful one. They believed they were cleaning up a mess that the future would thank them for. They were the heroes that were doing the dirty job so nobody would have to do it again. (Except Stalin)
Ender was the hero cleaning up the Formic's mess his logic was based from the fact "Formic's Bad" and he proved to be wrong in the end.
Perhaps the lesson that can be taken from these cases is that tarring broadly with a brush called "Bad" is likely to lead one astray.
Therefore "Hitler Bad" might be a as mistaken. Better to say he was wrong or bigotted or some more specific adjetives. He was nice to his girlfriend and probably kind to dogs. Though he never struck me as a cat person.
BC
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Man, talk about a topic going full circle. But at least it gives me an excuse to quote myself. (From the thread to which THIS thread was a response:
quote: There is no evidence that Hitler actually considered the Jews a real threat. Rather, his writings make it quite clear that they were a useful scapegoat. Uniting a country by creating a common enemy is an old tactic -- and often a very effective one. At least temporarily.
quote: There is quite a bit of evidence that Mein Kampf was not a true expression of Hitler's beliefs, but an excuse for them. He knew Jews personally -- served under a Jewish commander in WWI, his childhood doctor was a Jew -- viewing Jews as animals was certainly not evidenced in his earlier life.
Posted by Adolph Hitler (Member # 5669) on :
I'd just like to applaud Rivka on her smashing of Bean Counter. Posted by Adolph Hitler (Member # 5669) on :
That Bean Counter is really anti semitic! Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Hey! That's an unjustified attack! Blah blah blah, didn't mean rivka, blah blah, suppression of free speech blah blah. Blah blah blah!
Make that two full circles.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Smashed me? How? The fact that Hitler used the Jews as a Scapegoat dies not change the fact that he did not create the Jews as a scapegoat.
They were a traditional scapegoat going back to Egypt! If Hitler was a product of an anti-sematic society and he further amplified that hate, then it is certain that it was there to work with ahead of time.
I could not be less anti sematic, however I have no fear of words and no fear of those who cannot keep up with them.
Still it is a thread about free speech neh? Let us see how free speech is in a free society.
BC
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sigh*
BC, AH was trying to be cute. He was referring back to this post in the original thread. You just had the good luck to be his target.
[ December 23, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Hitler used the scapegoating tactic to solidify his leadership through his will and charisma. Hitler wanted power. He wanted control.
Ender did not scapegoat--those who controlled him did. Ender did not want to be a leader. Ender did not want to be in power. But he ended up having to take up power to free himself from oppression, perceived or otherwise.
And...telling someone to shut up isn't a violation of free speech. The other person is as able to tell you to shut up even more loudly. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
How about three full circles plus a loop?
Hitler SOUGHT power.
Ender did NOT.
Nyahh.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Additionally, there's quite a difference between Hitler's targets -- Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, disabled people; and Ender's (or more accurately, the targets he was aimed at) -- aliens who could not be reasoned with, who had twice attacked Earth. The first was scapegoating groups with little or no power, who were not an actual threat. In the case of the buggers, "scapegoating" was far from the entire truth.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
* but didn't you sort of mean to portray that in Ender's game? Maybe not, but that's one thing I got partly out that great book.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Trog
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't know what to say.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm not sure what the heck it has to do with the topic, but I'm fairly sure your point is that the ammendments are subjective?![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
That was quite a first post. I love newbies who jump in feet-first.![[Mad]](mad.gif)