Freedom of speech and the JC

Proof that the races aren't different in any way has been shown through genetic analysis. We have sound ways of analysing it.

Right now, that's what many scientists believe.

Scientists can't even figure out what the panda is related to.

Scientific thought changes, and scientific thought isn't always right.

Either way, are we going to ban someone for saying that '1 plus 1 equals 3!!'? No. Unless it was spam, of course. They would just be silly, but no one would ban them for it.

We're not the Science Police, going around banning everyone who says something that disagrees with science. Maybe this person (the 1+1=3 guy) has a valid point. Maybe we've all been looking at maths wrong.

My point is, just because science says something is true DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN IT IS TRUE.

Please, stop using my one example, and saying that my whole argument doesn't work because you disagree with my example, look at the whole argument, and see whether it is right or wrong. Then we can have an intelligent discussion.


?Eaglet

 

Okay, well I don't think racist comments should be allowed on this board. So I disagree with you.

Remember we're talking about freedom of speech on a privately owned board, not the "real world".

I agree with the adminsitration on this issue.

 

eagle person, this isn't a philosophy class. try to keep your feet on the ground. this is a private board that goes overboard with the "family friendly" policy. and there is no way you can even suggest that the membership as a whole can handle all types of controversial debate in a mature, responsible, and intelligent manner enough to allow the things you have haughtily complained about.

btw, you suck at analogies.

 

there is no way you can even suggest that the membership as a whole can handle all types of controversial debate in a mature, responsible, and intelligent manner enough to allow the things you have haughtily complained about.

Okay, first of all, I wasn't doing any complaining. Farrie was, as I can see it. Things are the way they are, and they won't change just because I made some posts in a thread in Comms. Hell, hardly anything comes out of threads in Comms. I'm just trying to give logical support for what I think about the issue bring brought up.

bte, you suck at analogies

Yes. Yes, I do. I think if I wa good at analogies, I'd be doing something better with them than posting at a Star Wars message board, don't you think?


?Eaglet

 

the owners of this board are very family consciencious, and like GL, everything here will be G rated, due to the ages of the members who post/lurk here. which is from 8-98, and since Yoda is my son, must stretch the age limits to at least 950 years.

 

Okay, first of all, I wasn't doing any complaining.

sounded like it to me. ...does that offend your superior intellect?

Hell, hardly anything comes out of threads in Comms.

garbage in, garbage out.

I'm just trying to give logical support for what I think about the issue bring brought up.

and you've done so with a condescending attitude. and your philosophy overkill is straying from the real issues.

Yes. Yes, I do. I think if I wa good at analogies, I'd be doing something better with them than posting at a Star Wars message board, don't you think?

you suck at witty comebacks.

?Eaglet

you also suck at manual sigs.

 

I sure hope you're joking PiaS. Otherwise, some of your comments are bordering on flaming.

As for my 'condescending attitude,' I'm just talking like I'm speaking to reasonably bright people, I really don't mean to sound like I'm smarter than everyone else, because I'm really not.

I'm jus trying to get my points across in the most reasonable manner possible. All you've been able to do, as far as I can see, is tell me how my arguments 'suck' and that I'm complaining. Well, why don't you tell us what you think about the issue?


?Eaglet

 

Pias - cool it. Consider this a warning. Any more antagonistic remarks will result in your being banned. There's no need to resort to that type of antics. You know better.

Vertical

 

I sure hope you're joking PiaS. Otherwise, some of your comments are bordering on flaming.

borderline flaming? why, because i exercised the freedom of speech you so crave by expressing my opinion of some of your comments? the only thing that could have been offended is your own ego.

looks like that in addition to having trouble differentiating offense from disagreement, now some people are now having trouble telling the difference between offense, disagreement, AND borderline flaming.

As for my 'condescending attitude,' I'm just talking like I'm speaking to reasonably bright people, I really don't mean to sound like I'm smarter than everyone else, because I'm really not.

you didn't sound smarter than anyone else. you just sounded like you want people to think you're smarter than everyone else.

I'm jus trying to get my points across in the most reasonable manner possible. All you've been able to do, as far as I can see, is tell me how my arguments 'suck' and that I'm complaining. Well, why don't you tell us what you think about the issue?

i've already said what i think, a number of times and with my other username, in this thread.



EDIT: vert, that was not my intent. it was all part of making a point.

 

i knew what i was doing all along with those last few posts.

there are two ways you can look at my last few posts- "borderline flaming" and antagonizing. --OR-- proving a point, albeit in a ballsy manner.

i recommend the second choice (seeing as how that was the intent).

--> <--



get off my internet.

 

I think that anybody has a right to their own opinion, as long as it's not racially/religiously biggoted and they're not directly offending anyone(i.e. "You're stupid, xuser!").

As much as I hate to admit it, people should have the right to be idiots, or what some people may consider an idiot.

 

cbjedi,

Chill.

 

obviously, cb completely missed the point.

but then again, he probably ignored it in favor of pointing out what he thinks are mean or condescending comments. *sigh*

 

I rather agree with cbjedi actually.

 

only cuz you don't know anything about me ( either that or you just don't like me), so you are not qualified to suggest what i might have meant.

 

People can only go by what you say when reading your posts on a board like this. And that is what I have done. I am not judging you as a person. Just commenting on your posts, as I see it.

 

if you would have looked at the point being made rather than picking on little statements, which btw are things i say lightheartedly, then you might see things differently. cb was obviously just trying to look for anything he could "get me" with.

 

eagle says we should be able to post whatever we want, whether it's racist or whatever. if we do, it'll show the user themselves to be dumb, bigoted, etc.

Either way, squelching opinions just because they are different from the 'norm' does no good at all.

but then, when porkins makes his posts, he gets the ol':


All you've been able to do, as far as I can see, is tell me how my arguments 'suck' and that I'm complaining.

yet, according to eagle's point, shouldn't porkins be able to post whatever he feels?

is saying black people are inferior to white people any different to saying that a certain user sucks at comebacks, or sigs? the black person remark is worse, yet according to eagle, that should stay, and anything against him should go.

as far as the other discussion: there's a big difference in someone giving their opinions on the causes of 9/11 or, for example, the reasons for the war on iraq (as long as they aren't blanket statements without any credence) than claiming that black people are inferior to white people, or something else that is scientifically, and universally proven to be invalid. Vert pretty much sums up the issue.

 

I agree with epic on this issue.

 

porkins interesting... cuz I saw antagonistic remarks... and a warning from Verical. But I guess I am just nitpicking.

To keep this post on topic, I will simply conclude by saying freedom of speech on private boards is never going to happen. The only freedom you have is to go somewhere else if you don't like the restrictions on a private board.

 

porkins interesting... cuz I saw antagonistic remarks... and a warning from Verical. But I guess I am just nitpicking.

sorry, but you can't tell someone what their intent was. one man's antagonistic remark is another man's joke. it just depends on what you *want* to see it as.

oh, and, you also didn't see the PMs that vertical and i exchanged in which i explained myself to him and he said he understood.

 

I think people might have jumped on Porkins for personal reasons without reading the post where he explained himself. Not saying that was you Strilo

Or maybe they looked at the post and decided to do it anyway in a poor effort to be funny or tweak him.

In any case it was out of line.

 

Perhaps if he had explained himself to us as well as he did in private to Vertical, we might all understand.

 

this is becoming a joke. give it up already. it doesn't take a genius to see the point i was making. when you pull little bits out and try to make them stand up on there own, then you will see faults in almost anything.

either you just don't get it or you just don't want to get it.

 

I find it absolutely HORRIFIC that anyone would contemplate censorship of a person's viewpoint a right in my mind, we are all - especially in a community such as this - allowed.

As has been said, the TOS is meant to prevent deliberate attacks on a PERSON.

For example, if I hypothetically were to say "Farraday whinges too much and is sucky", I would obviously be a)stupid and b)deliberately provoking another, and insulting another.

If I were to say "I disagree with what Farraday says" I would be in no breach of any "common sense" rule. I don't even really need to post any reasons why I disagree, because it is simply my opinion, and I may defend it or leave it to be torn apart as I please. It is an opinion that is civil and politely spoken: it is not of ill-intent, and simply "expresses a personal belief".


Personally - and I know for a fact this would not be an opinion shared by many - I believe ANY opinion is subject to this same rationale.

Your above example has someone citing his belief that a bar room bet lead to the 9-11 destruction by plane of the World Trade Centre. Fair enough, that's your opinion, as valid an opinion as the belief that terrorists were involved. You may be quite wrong - profoundly wrong - but that is irrelevant to that being your belief.

What would you expect him to say? A lie? Should he present a differing viewpoint to sate your sensibilities? I hope not.

I could if I wished, present any belief I wished, if we are to be SERIOUS about allowing sensible conduct and common sense to prevail.

I could say (for record, NOT my opinion) "I believe Women should be confined to a particular role that is best suited to there capabilities, and not continually try and take over the roles of Men."

This is of course, an arguement "for" borderline mysogyny: but perhaps this is a belief that his family has held to all of his life? What if he was taught as such? What if in his culture, such an opinion is common place?

It is the height of arrogance to assume that the Westernised World knows best, and that our opinions are the ONLY valid ones to be had. Furthermore, suggesting that all alterior opinions - extreme or otherwise - are STUPID, is further elitism and snobbery.

A poster may be young, he may be ignorant of certain facts, he may come from a far-removed culture to our own, he may believe strongly in aliens, be outwardly pro-communist, worship Baal and laud the S11 attacks as a vital evolutionary step in the worlds political environment.

I say GOOD for him, because if he is able to form and present an arguement of any sort, he is doing better then most people these days.

I might ask, how is it harming you? Does it make you sad perhaps, that your opinion isn't always universally accepted? Do you believe, that anyone that doesn't believe in opinion X is in league with evil Y?

If I was to tommorrow, open a thread in the Senate Floor explaining in detail the benefits of a Nazi reigeme and extolling the virtues of Mein Kempf: would I be flamming?

Or would I simply be presenting an opinion - NO different to one defaming Hitler and Nazi Germany - that should be afforded the same respect as any other?

You can choose to respond to someone's ideas, such as your example above. If you believe you can logically defeat it in reasoned debate, by all means do so: provided you are in the proper forum to do so, otherwise I find PMs to be a handy function.

If you don't wish to acknowledge his opinion, that is ALSO fine. Don't reply to it, don't PM him, perhaps you can simply lower your estimation of his intelligence privately and to yourself.

The Administration has no responsibility to shield you from differing viewpoints. If anyone on these boards is unable to "cope" with the real world, the issues therein and the opinions that are spawned thereof, then perhaps they need to take a GHLAY.

The TOS is meant to protect users from being offended by other users, with intent to slur, villify or insult another.

To use your example, to say "I would agre