The cancer of intolerance and how to fight it

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by nancyallen, Jul 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SWBob Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2003
    star 4
    I havent seen anyone do this though. All he was saying was that you are makeing some of the same comemnts that hitler did when conserned with percecuting people for their beliefs. And claiming that can be concidered as a natural extension of percecuting people for their beliefs.

    And doesnt godwins law not make any claims on whether the person was right in refrencing Hitler, so how can someone end an argument with it.
  2. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Short version: we're disagreeing with her and we're meanies and she wants to take her ball and go home.

    As to the topic, why has no one pointed out that the US Constitution has no bearing here? I mean, you kind of have, but lay it out clearly.

    TFN is a private site with private rules on a private server. Point blank, You have no freedom of speech here, because it is not a federal right that you be allowed to post here. You have the privilege of posting as long as you post within the allowable guidelines.

    So being a mod here and having to enforce the rules is not contradictory with supporting freedom of speech, as they are two totally distinct situations.
  3. SWBob Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 2003
    star 4
    WE Know this. But some dont.
  4. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    Actually it's none of those reasons. The main reason for requesting this thread closed was to disprove the accusation that I don't have to have everything revolve around me. The other one, and this is quickly becoming old, is that the thread has gone beyond tolerance and beyond rights and has degenerated into tit for tat.
  5. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Lets please keep this about the ideas, not about the people involved with personal comments. That said, I don't think that this has reached a situation that has thoroughly derailed the topic, especially given not 3 posts previous to this is a post that does mostly address the topic specifically. I'd like to keep this with that focus rather than personal elements.

    DorkmanScott, I'm not sure if explicitly mentioning the U.S. Constitution is neccessary, as the concept of free speech should cover it. I do think expecting something such as an internet site to be forced to allow anything is to, in effect, expect the site to support any message someone chooses to put on it, and I think that then that is removing their freedom of speech, and their freedom to not support particular messages.
  6. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    nancy we actually discussed the whole "Hitler" thing in the atheism thread, together with Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao et al. When a dictator embarks upon a cultural, social and political revolution all the institutions of society are targeted, not just religion. Religion is rarely, if ever, singled out for special treatment to the exlusion of all other social institutions.

    That is true interference!

    So Hitler is not a good example of "historical evidence of what happens when people's right to religion is infringed upon" ,rather, Hitler is a good example of what happens when a racist madman commits a nation to total war. A better example might be the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, particularly, the Inquisition and events leading to the Reformation.

    The day I see a mob of government issue brownshirts frogmarching my Catholic and Jewish neighbours down the street for interogation I will truly share your fear of intolerence. Until then, you are free to exercise your right to religion and I can exercise my right to live free from religion.
  7. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    This is interesting. Because in this world of biased media, it's not necessarily always a good thing... I know it comes with the territory - free speech all the way -but I can't help but think there's a concept more advanced, a concept we haven't come up with yet, that will tackle the excesses and problems that appear with the noble but perhaps a bit simplistic concept of 'free speech'.
  8. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, media always has a bias, however I think the key is that anyone should be able to get their views out there. I don't think anyone should be forced to promote messages they don't support.
  9. henchman24 Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2008
    star 2
    Great Stuff =)

  10. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    But a company isn't somebody. I know, according to the law, it is - but it really isn't. And this is where the law differs from reality.

    Take Fox News, selling the war against Iraq as part of the 'War on terror'. That wasn't very true, or very helpful. Now, witnesses in court have to take an oath that they're telling the truth. Very important that they tell the truth. Even when it's just neighbours fighting about the height of the hedge; the witnesses have to tell the truth. Ain't no free speech in the courtroom! So why does nobody care to look into the fact that it's fairly easy to broadcast lies to millions?
  11. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Hold on a moment.

    I could go out and start a company that is wholly owned by me, and has all of one employee: me. Legally it would be a separate entity from me (depending on how it's set up). If a company should be able to be forced to promote messages that they don't support, should my hypothetical company be forced to do so? Or would that be infringing my personal rights?

    How about if I make it a full partnership with a friend? With two friends? Three? A dozen?

    How big does it have to get before you should be able to force it to promote those things they don't support?

    Even in a publicly traded company, it is no different than the partnership with a dozen friends. Stock only helps indicate how much of an interest you hold in a company. The more stock you own, the more interest you have in the company. In my first example, I owned 100% of the stock, in the second, 50%, and so forth.

    At what point in the growth of a company do you, someone without a controlling interest, get to decide what rights the owners of the company can or cannot exercise?

    Your courtroom example is extremely faulty.

    For one thing, when you take an oath in a court of law, you are in effect making a contract to tell the truth, and you are made aware of the penalties associated with breaking that contract. Corporations are not placed under such an oath or contract.

    And actually, witnesses don't have to tell the truth. They only have to tell the truth if they choose to testify and accept the conditions associated with that (telling the truth).

    For another thing, the Constitution (as one example) specifically grants the power for the accused to compel witnesses to testify in their defense (while also offering the right against self incrimination). No such power is granted to compel a broadcasting company to broadcast anything.

    In short, a court of law has very specific rules that are different from elsewhere. It is in no way analogous.

    Kimball Kinnison
  12. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    [face_plain]

    I shoulda known I couldn't just throw a tentative idea around here, without somebody picking it apart without trying to see the point and add to it :p

    Do you see the point I was trying to make at all, KK? Would you acknowledge the problems I observe, or do you dismiss them?
  13. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    The problem is that the problems that you mention are part and parcel with Free Speech. Any steps you take to try and curtail them would also be usable as weapons against "legitimate" Free Speech.

    Kimball Kinnison
  14. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    With the Fox example, are we talking about the news service, or the commentators on Fox News? O'Rilley, Hannity, whoeverelsetheyhavethatdoesthis.... they're all just giving their commentary on events.

    Now, also, who decides what counts as a lie? At a certain point, it gets very subjective. And at what point, then, do opinions count as lies? For example, saying that Saddam had ties to Al Queda (which I seem to recall he did) versus saying that he had significant ties to Al Queda (which I'd say he didn't)
  15. SuperWatto Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 19, 2000
    star 5
    I know... You're both right. You're right. You're right.

    So it has to come from the other direction. The ones taking offense at what's said. People need to grow thicker skins, and see through the lies. :cool:
  16. LostOnHoth Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2000
    star 5
    Exactly. Unfortunately, a downside to freedom of speech is the freedom to lie, embellish, omit, amend and spin. This is the challenge for news agencies (and plaintiffs) as they often walk the line between spin and actual defamation/libel.
  17. nancyallen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2007
    star 4
    Problem is there is always attempts to prevent freedom of speech. Regardless of how much people cling to the idea there can be no freedom of speech if people continually impose on it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.