Freedom of Speech

Options
2»

Replies

  • Jan72002
    Jan72002 Posts: 37
    Options
    You are probably right. He should probably have my vote in the bag by now and he doesn't.

    But people who pay no or very little in federal tax calling to see his tax returns seems insane to me. Also, I'd he paid $2.3M in taxes I don't care what his income was, he did his part.
  • 126siany
    126siany Posts: 1,386 Member
    Options
    Your premise is that people only object to hate speech that makes them, personally, feel inferior. Can't say I agree with that.
    The phrase "hate speech" nor the word "hate" appear anywhere in that article.

    You become amazingly literal when you can't fashion a reasonable response to someone else's point. I suppose such distraction techniques must work on some people, or you wouldn't employ the so frequently.
    Yes. It's called debate, negotiations, conversations, discussions and trial. I excel at all of the aforementioned.

    Apparently not.
    You attempted to derail the point with emotional cannon fodder and the buzzword "hate." You either purposely, or erroneously, read an emotional element into the topic, that simply wasn't there.

    Your point, regardless of the delivery, is also flawed. "Happy-lovie-super-smiley-time" speech doesn't need to be protected. Unpopular speech does.

    I don't care if you're offended. I'm offended by the endless, mindless, empty, superficial elements many people find offensive.

    I didn't attempt to derail anything. You attempted to draw a parallel between clear hate speech like the Islam-bashing film and forum comments, saying that people object to free speech and seek to control the conversation when they are offended. Paraphrasing you is neither "derailing the conversation" nor supplying "emotional canon fodder".

    I'm not offended.
  • CharityPearce
    CharityPearce Posts: 215
    Options
    Do you think this will impact our election?
    Slightly. I think those who vote are so polarized, it wouldn't matter if their "guy" was caught on tape, humping a grapefruit... they'd still vote for him.


    LOL - I blew my protein shake out my nose a little. I think this might make me more likely to vote for one or the other. Ugh!

    And btw, I couldn't agree more with your post. To both parts. I don't know what's wrong with people. That crap video wouldn't have gotten a few hundred hits if it hadn't been for the violence associated with it. I hate to admit I sat through the entire video (hating every single second of it) just out of morbid curiosity. Afterward I thought to myself... "seriously??? Why would you even give this piece of crap a second thought???"

    Have a fabulous day!
  • recriger
    recriger Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    first I will say that I agree with you. The problem with the video riots specifically is that freedom of speach is not a globally recognized right. In Islamic countries the Imam's make the rules for the most part because the religion is basically the government. In america the government is supposed to protect and enforce our "Rights". In many countries the government grants "permissions". totally different way to see the world, and those that grew up there don't understand us any more than we understand them.

    Many of these countries have state controlled media as well. If it goes out over the waves it is approved by the state, so they believe that if it came from America it must be approved by America. The assumption is that everyone here believes it since it was allowed to be viewed by the public. That's the way their world is, they don't see it as simply a couple of nuts in California.

    Beyond that many of the countries currently protesting are very poor. So no, they probably have never seen Utube. Most have probably never seen a computer. Many of the states mentioned above also restrict the internet even for the ones that can afford it. Censorship is the rule of law. You aren't allowed to view both sides and then make up your own mind, the Imam knows what is best for you and that is all you will see. If anyone heard the NPR interviews (not a fan myself, but it's the only station that recieves clearly on my commute) with a few of the protesters, many hadn't even seen this video. They were told that the prophet was offended, and they were told that their natural reaction should be to protest.

    Many of the protesters probably don't care much about a video. They will continue to react though; they are being watched by their neighbors as well as their religious leaders. What do you think will happen if they don't respond "appropriately"? remember when Kim-Jong-Il died? The state required that the people morn, and they were being watched to make sure they did just that.
  • Deedee0075
    Deedee0075 Posts: 78 Member
    Options
    Hate goes both ways. Why would Sam Bacile create such a hateful, disrespectful film? Answer - He is a Zionist and they hate everyone but their own. I am absolutely disgusted by the film and Zionist America for supporting it. I am really disheartened by the double standard in this country.

    Freedom of speech? There is no freedom of speech in the US. Wake up.
  • Jonesingmucho
    Jonesingmucho Posts: 4,902 Member
    Options
    Your premise is that people only object to hate speech that makes them, personally, feel inferior. Can't say I agree with that.
    The phrase "hate speech" nor the word "hate" appear anywhere in that article.

    You become amazingly literal when you can't fashion a reasonable response to someone else's point. I suppose such distraction techniques must work on some people, or you wouldn't employ the so frequently.

    I think that being literal is important in a debate. The connotations of words used can be influencial. For example, using the word hate to discuss the OP's premise gives me a different impression than the words the OP actually used to describe control.

    I am also amused when one side of a debate ignores the content and launches a personal attack. Suddenly, because of my own opinions regarding personal attacks in a debate format, I no longer am able to listen to that side of the debate with an unbiased open mind. In effect, your attack on the OP proved his point to me.

    I applaud the OP's insight and bow to his brilliance.
  • GorillaEsq
    GorillaEsq Posts: 2,198 Member
    Options
    Just so we're clear "Freedom of Speech" does not apply to forums, etc...we're aware, right?
    "Freedom of Speech" literally doesn't apply to the forums, as the term itself is a Constitutional provision that prohibits our government from silencing its citizens.

    Logistically speaking, the moderators of any website can oppress and alienate as many of their members as they wish. It's their site, and people don't have to visit it.

    Legally speaking, heavily moderated forums put a website owner in a position of exponentially higher liability, even though most don't realize it. By heavily moderating a forum, a website owner is legally accepting responsibility for its content... regardless of what the "TOS" may say.
  • 126siany
    126siany Posts: 1,386 Member
    Options
    Your premise is that people only object to hate speech that makes them, personally, feel inferior. Can't say I agree with that.
    The phrase "hate speech" nor the word "hate" appear anywhere in that article.

    You become amazingly literal when you can't fashion a reasonable response to someone else's point. I suppose such distraction techniques must work on some people, or you wouldn't employ the so frequently.

    I think that being literal is important in a debate. The connotations of words used can be influencial. For example, using the word hate to discuss the OP's premise gives me a different impression than the words the OP actually used to describe control.

    I am also amused when one side of a debate ignores the content and launches a personal attack. Suddenly, because of my own opinions regarding personal attacks in a debate format, I no longer am able to listen to that side of the debate with an unbiased open mind. In effect, your attack on the OP proved his point to me.

    I applaud the OP's insight and bow to his brilliance.

    I disagree that he did not raise the idea of hate speech himself. He specifically chose hate speech as his leading example. A rose by any other name... And look at the words he chose to describe his own reactions to other videos, such as saying video producers should be "shot in the face" . Somehow, I don't believe that I am the confused party in this conversation.

    I've watched a few of OPs threads and he does tend to dodge and distract more than argue the premises he put forth. It's an observation, not an attack.
  • samichip
    samichip Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    When I was about 13 I was understandably very naive. I was also a hippy, a vegetarian and opinionated.

    My school friend and I decided to troll a forum for American hunters and in the process made wild, immature accusations which just made us look like idiots. But I enjoyed watching the ant nest boil with a kind of outraged testosterone American men are notorious for and got a sick pleasure out of eventually being blocked.

    But one of the hunters was intrigued and emailed me an invitation to take the argument offline. Over the years we argued and debated and I found myself maturing in my ideas.

    Over a decade later we still email each other. I've learnt a lot from him and I'm sure he was entertained by my youthful ramblings, once upon a time.

    Gorilla, I think my point is that you should take all the entertainment you can out of them. Enjoy their immaturity and hope that as it did for me, they find that they become educated and enlightened too.

    Although, it may take a while ;)
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    Options
    Legally speaking, heavily moderated forums put a website owner in a position of exponentially higher liability, even though most don't realize it. By heavily moderating a forum, a website owner is legally accepting responsibility for its content... regardless of what the "TOS" may say.

    total nonsense
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    For the Muslims in other countries: "Freedom of Speech" doesn't exist everywhere. If you were Chinese, and you tried to protest the government, you would be silenced in one form or another, and no one will ever hear about it...

    Also, it's not Muslims in general that are doing this. I'm sure 90% of the Muslims around the world don't give a crap. It's the small portion who are acting out of control. It's like saying all Americans are red-necks who drive beat up old **** box trucks, don't speak English coherently, and hate the rest of the world, if they even know what exists outside of their farmland.

    I don't see every American in North America going around attacking every Muslim they see, or creating acts of racism and hate. Only a select few are doing that.

    The thing I find interesting about all the events that are currently taking place is that, what has been happening over the last decade has built up to this. The Middle Eastern vs America conflict has just been a pressure cooker, waiting to explode. That video just caused it to explode. The thing I would like to ask is, what if a European or Asian guy posted the video on YouTube and not an American? What would have happened then? I don't think they would be attacking embassies over it, if that were the case.

    Anyway...

    For the forums: Grow a pair. This thread comes up at least three times a week. You just elaborated on it more than the average post that comes up. So people are going to hate on every thread that comes up! What's the big deal? It's called the internet. If you can't ignore the idiots that are on here, then leave. It's a colourful world on here, and it's going to be full of people with nothing better to do but to hate on other people. They may have an emotional or mental reason to do so, who knows. All I know is that posting a thread like this isn't going to help anyone at all.

    Oh, and for this forum in particular: It needs some REAL rules and REAL moderators. If it did, then the people/moderators would be responding to this thread by telling you to use the search function for the hundreds of similar threads, or by taking one and sticky-ing it to the mean page.

    Heck, the same would go for the thousands of copy threads that appear every day.
  • GorillaEsq
    GorillaEsq Posts: 2,198 Member
    Options
    Legally speaking, heavily moderated forums put a website owner in a position of exponentially higher liability, even though most don't realize it. By heavily moderating a forum, a website owner is legally accepting responsibility for its content... regardless of what the "TOS" may say.

    total nonsense
    Sometimes, I actually get tired of always being right. One has to wonder if this poster, using a fake avatar of Mickey Rourke, will now go back, actually read the entire original post and spend the rest of the day reflecting inward.

    Probably not.
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    Options
    Legally speaking, heavily moderated forums put a website owner in a position of exponentially higher liability, even though most don't realize it. By heavily moderating a forum, a website owner is legally accepting responsibility for its content... regardless of what the "TOS" may say.

    total nonsense
    Sometimes, I actually get tired of always being right. One has to wonder if this poster, using a fake avatar of Mickey Rourke, will now go back, actually read the entire original post and spend the rest of the day reflecting inward.

    Probably not.

    get over yourself dude. moderating a forum does not increase the site owners liability
  • belladonna786
    belladonna786 Posts: 1,165 Member
    Options
    you're awesome :)
  • GorillaEsq
    GorillaEsq Posts: 2,198 Member
    Options
    I disagree that he did not raise the idea of hate speech himself. He specifically chose hate speech as his leading example. A rose by any other name... And look at the words he chose to describe his own reactions, such as saying video producers should be "shot in the face" although in the first paragraph he said no violence should be provoked by the Islam-bashing video. Somehow, I don't believe that I am the confused party in this conversation.

    I've watched a few of OPs threads and he does tend to dodge and distract more than argue the premises he put forth. It's an observation, not an attack.
    Again, either by error or ignorance, you are completely wrong.

    I said, "By the same logic [as wishing the producers of the Mohomed film dead]... [All producers of terrible films and media should be] shot in the face."

    Go read it again.
  • catcrazy
    catcrazy Posts: 1,740 Member
    Options
    I understand that the OP may not have deliberately intended it to be a political post but that is what it has largely become so....

    Dear Posters,

    I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.

    The forum guidelines include this item:

    16. No Political Topics in the Main Forums

    Political content is not allowed on the Main Forums. This includes images. Please form or join a Group if you would like to engage in political debate on MyFitnessPal. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups


    If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines

    At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.

    With respect,
    CatCrazy
    MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator
This discussion has been closed.

Categories