Freedom of speech and the JC

Thank you POT, a wonderfully cogent and well reasoned post.

Unfortunately it compeltely ignores that freedom of speech is already abriged here.


Also, to turn this into a debate on freedom of speech, how can you at the same time say It is the height of arrogance to assume that the Westernised World knows best... but at the same time assume that freedom of speech is best?

If someone thinks there are no basic freedoms, wouldn't your own views force you to recognize their belief is just as valid as yours and that you could be completely wrong on it?

I encourage you to continue your empassioned arguements throughout your tenure.

 

"If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky

 

Well, as farraday said, and is correct in his statement, 'freedom of speech' is already abridged here on this board.

While I do see what he is getting at, I disagree with his particular beef in this instance. That's not to say that tomorrow if something similar is posted, yet with a slightly different tone or insinuation, it won't get edited or the poster receive a warning.

Our jobs here as moderators are to make sure people have a good time - part of that being not condoning remarks that are antagonistic or offensive.

However, in this case, it would seem that it's more people's 'sensibilities' that are being offended as opposed to their person. People seem to be confusing being astounded that such a viewpoint could exist with being offended by an (imagined) antagonistic insinuation in the remark.

Vertical

 

"A fair point. However the idea that the attacks on September 11th weren't terrorism goes beyond cause to definition. When you define something as something or another you deny it's other meaning which is similar to saying it the event never happened."

Then all agnostics should not be allowed to post in the thread about agnosticism, they say God doesn't exist!
However God believers, believe so, none of these views are substantiated, by any proof, only by hearsay.

Both views are then extreme, depending from where you look at it.

I can say that (holding tight here, btw not my own opinion) negroids are inferior, you have no proof either way, and this should then be allowed to be expressed, because proof is lacking, at least conclusive proof.


for the record I believe all are equal, I have no grief towards black people, except when they.....

Edit: I'd also like to add that P-O-T has presented a strong argument, that I agree with, wholeheartedly.



DD - Proof Spliff

 

epic, if someone comes in and says 'btw, you suck because you're black,' I'd be all for banning them.

What we're dealing with is people who can make logical arguments for what they believe, even if that thing is 'offensive.'

There is a clear line between flaming, and giving a logical argument. Using flammitory ajectives like 'suck' do not give your arguements any sort of legitiment air.

Oh, and I agree with what P-o-T said.

?Eaglet

 

Are we limiting freedom of speech by asking to keep everything at a PG-rating on the boards?

 

yes, of course. that's what censorship does- limits free speech.

and you can't have total free speech if you want to maintain a PG rated, "family friendly" board.

edits- typos

 

A logical argument for why blacks are inferior is not a problem in my opinion.

Know why? Because it is just as easy to make a logical argument for every other race.

The idea of a debate is not to shout at the top of your lungs, "I disagree!" It is to offer a counter-argument.

You say blacks are inferior. Fine, give me five minutes and I'll come with an argument why whites are inferior and refute yours in the process.

It's a terrible thing to open minded . . .

 

Using flammitory ajectives like 'suck' do not give your arguements any sort of legitiment air.

i hardly see how you can judge the intent and legitimacy of a persons argument simply because of a word like "suck." don't try and tell me that using a word like "suck" as an adjective is inherently inflammatory and indicative of antagonism at all times. and to suggest that it also fails to "give your arguments any sort of legitiment air" is either quite disdainful or means your skin is way too thin. to suggest that my choice of a word or two (and words that are fairly mild and versatile in their use, at that) erases any legitimacy, is pretty stupid, imo. whoops, i just used the word "stupid". i guess that means my argument is not legitimate.

you were the one who earlier kept asking sparky to focus on your entire argument rather than just selected pieces that are open to completely different interpretations on their own. now i ask why you yourself cannot do the same.

DISCLAIMER: i am trying to have an intelligent discussion, NOT antagonize. plz don't call down the thunder on me. thx.

 

"Suck" is one of those words that people use when they don't like something, but don't have the time, education, inclination or desire to really say why not.

I oppose the use of the word "suck" simply because it's an easy out most of the time.

 

so, if i say "inadequate" rather than "suck", for example, does that make me more intelligent? i don't need to go around validating my intelligence to people. judging someone because of a non-profane and common word or two used is sickeningly arrogant.

 

I don't care if you say, "This film sucked because of the cardboard nature of the characters, a philosophy based in the "woman as emasculater" psychology, which has no been debunked and a racist message."

That's great. But, most often, don't people just say, "It sucked" as if that was the be all end all of the debate? I find that they do.

I'd be just as insulted if you simply said something was indadequate and stopped there, but, let's be honest, most people don't.

I only oppose the use of "sucks" because all too often it doesn't provide any meat for discussion.

 

I only oppose the use of "sucks" because all too often it doesn't provide any meat for discussion.

so, just for clarification, are you basically referring to when someone says something like "this film sucks" and nothing else, or are you also referring to when someone has presented a valid arguement that includes the use of the word "suck" or statements alluding to the sentiment?

this sucks.

 

yes, of course. that's what censorship does- limits free speech.

But as long as you agreed to the Terms of Service, which clearly lay out the rules of the forums, you can't claim censorship. You're not being censored, you're being held to an agreement made by two parties; yourself and the JC Forum.

and you can't have total free speech if you want to maintain a PG rated, "family friendly" board.

We don't have "total freedom of speech" here. That's the point, a point you agreed to when you signed up for this forum. This is, for all intents and purposes, a "private organization" with rules which will be enforced. If your views cannot be expressed without using certain words, there are other forums out there with different rules. Personally, I'm here because of the
"family friendly" environment. I'm no fan of censorship at all, but that doesn't mean I have to subject myself to language I find useless and without merit in civilized discussion.

-Otis

 

But as long as you agreed to the Terms of Service, which clearly lay out the rules of the forums, you can't claim censorship. You're not being censored, you're being held to an agreement made by two parties; yourself and the JC Forum.

We don't have "total freedom of speech" here. That's the point, a point you agreed to when you signed up for this forum. This is, for all intents and purposes, a "private organization" with rules which will be enforced. If your views cannot be expressed without using certain words, there are other forums out there with different rules. Personally, I'm here because of the
"family friendly" environment. I'm no fan of censorship at all, but that doesn't mean I have to subject myself to language I find useless and without merit in civilized discussion.

BINGO! i completely agree, in fact, it's exactly what i was thinking. and you could also say- you also made the choice to be here. if you don't like the rules then you are free to leave at any time. nothing is being taken away from you. your freedoms are not infringed when you CHOOSE to be here, and thus agree to follow the rules.


as for the use of certain words and it's "merit in civilized discussion", that all depends on the situation, what was said, the intent, the context, and different interpretations.

but when the crux of the issue is the freedom to express any view, no, you do not have total freedom of speech and none of your rights are being taken away here.

EDIT: decided to put it all in one post rather than 2 or 3 seperate ones.

 

Ok, for the sake of playing devil's advocate, if a user were to say, "the attack on 9/11 was a justified act by Freedom Fighters who genuinely have good reason to be at war with the West."

That's not my opinion. But there are in this world people who feel that way. Would they be allowed to voice that opinion, or would they be banned?

 

My personal opinion (which is all that's relevant, since I don't moderate the Senate) is tha the statement, by itself, would have to be moderated -- aas by itself it's nothing more than trying to provoke a reaction. But if the argument was presented in a logicl fashion, with coherent (even if biased) facts -- it'd probably be okay.

But again -- everything is dependent on context and without specific examples (rather than the hypothetical ones presented here) this can go on forever...

 

Then all agnostics should not be allowed to post in the thread about agnosticism, they say God doesn't exist!
However God believers, believe so, none of these views are substantiated, by any proof, only by hearsay.


Agnostics don't say God doesn't exist, that's atheism. Agnostics claim it is unknowable whether God exists or not.

I was trying to outline a philosophical point, I don't quite follow your response.

 

BINGO! i completely agree, in fact, it's exactly what i was thinking. and you could also say- you also made the choice to be here. if you don't like the rules then you are free to leave at any time. nothing is being taken away from you. your freedoms are not infringed when you CHOOSE to be here, and thus agree to follow the rules.


as for the use of certain words and it's "merit in civilized discussion", that all depends on the situation, what was said, the intent, the context, and different interpretations.

but when the crux of the issue is the freedom to express any view, no, you do not have total freedom of speech and none of your rights are being taken away here.

See now this I completely agree with. I knew you were sensible, PiaS, I was just trying to understand what you were saying before and wanted all the information. No hard feelings?

*offers hand to shake*


As for atheists vs. agnostics, I always was under the impression that agnostics believed in a higher power of some sort but did not believe it was possible to comprehend it.

 

From my own experience here and the experience of my friends, you can post your opinions, that is the extent of free speech. Debating in any type of heated way over real life issues is highly restricted. Anything that is controversial or even nearing controversial is treated like the black plague. You are expected to keep your conversation on a child's level because someone might get offended or some impressionable young kid might wander in and cry about it.


I come to the JC for kicks, but for serious debating ( I'm not talking about Who shot first Greedo or Han) I go to stardestroyer. It's not worth the bother here. Doesn't matter if you can tear someone's arguement apart, we don't want them to feel like the idiots they are.

 

Edit: Double Post.
Blimey.
That really evil.

 

Farraday, I can assure you that I'm not going to "moderate" my opinions (hits self for such a pathetic pun) just so I look reasonable to the majority.

Freedom of Speech IS a right on these boards, and as I have said, it is in no way directly obstructed by the TOS.
Insofar as, positive uses of Freedom of Speech is encouraged, whilst negative Freedom of Speech is rightly censored.

For example, stating an opinion or belief is - no matter the beliefs subject matter or content (within reason of course) - is fine.
Yet, stating a base assessment of another's belief/personality/appearance/manner or worth, is not fine.

You can say "I support the Nazi party" because - shock, horror - you just well might; and it IS your right.
Yet, you can obviously not say "You are a Nazi", as such a comment is directed AT someone with NEGATIVE intent.

I for one, would allow anyone to present an opinion, as long as in MY opinion, it was presented not to incite trouble or to subtly flame another, but rather to simple voice a thought, belief or possibility.

As an aside, I find it easiest to keep track of the Religious stratification this way:

Atheism: "I KNOW there is no God(s)!!"
Religious Person: "I KNOW there is a God(s)!!"
Agnostic: "I have no idea. Ask him."

 

"Agnostics don't say God doesn't exist, that's atheism. Agnostics claim it is unknowable whether God exists or not."

Whoops, my bad I meant atheism....

"I was trying to outline a philosophical point, I don't quite follow your response."

One of the points being made was a statement with arguments that held some shred of proof as to why your aforementioned view is valid. My point is that "proof" is subjective.

Just like POT-head's words:

Atheism: "I KNOW there is no God(s)!!"
Religious Person: "I KNOW there is a God(s)!!"
Agnostic: "I have no idea. Ask him."


Where is the proof?




DD - Proofless Spliff

 

The best way to approach anything on these boards as in life, is to use rational and responsible judgment. It's alright to hold an opposing view. Just present yourself in a manner that is not derogatory, demeaning, or hurtful to others.

 

My point is that "proof" is subjective.

Well, reality itself is subjective. How do I know I'm seeing the same world you are?