User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 96

  1. #51
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Good for you, now all you need is intelligence to know how to use it.

    For you I can see this being a little bit more of a challenge than blindly asserting your manliness.

    Which I also doubt.
    Now come on....it's absolutely possible. Don't be a douche. They make braille keyboards these days.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?
    Likes Jaguar liked this post

  2. #52
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Good for you.
    Yes, it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That's why you question whether a thing is representative or not, there's odd balls and people who're unusually sensitive or sensitive as a consequence of some unique experience or politics or outlook but you couldnt consider that representative of anything other than that one individual or instance.
    I'll repeat the obvious part of my post since it eludes you: "Different people call things abuse, just as different people call things offensive." It doesn't require analysis, Larky.

    Sincerely,

    Real Man

  3. #53
    Pubic Enemy #1 Crabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    1,252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    @pixie sticks

    My point is if you try to stop protesters from blocking roads, they can do a lot worse than block roads.
    they can do a lot worse than blocking roads anyway. that doesn't mean we should tolerate people blocking roads because they might do something worse if we don't. it's usually illegal for a person to jaywalk in the middle of the road, but if a group of people do it because they're mad about something, we call that "protesting" and it's acceptable? if someone has a permit that allows a certain area to be blocked off for protesting purposes, so be it. but i don't think people should be allowed to block roads, which taxpayers pay for, at their own leisure to complain about whatever it is they're unhappy about. it doesn't even have to be a reasonable complaint; people can literally protest anything they want.

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    If the goal is to protect businesses and keep the peace yet cops need riot gear, to me that is defeating the purpose and causing the opposite to happen by making the situation worse than if it'd been left alone.
    i don't understand how police wearing riot gear is incitement for protestors to become violent. that just sounds like an excuse that protestors who want to become violent would use to justify their actions. why shouldn't the police have the right to wear protective gear for crowd control? we've seen what an angry mob can accomplish when they have no resistance.

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    It's like when cops chase a fleeing suspect through the city and the chase causes all kinds of damage and risks the lives of citizens, causing many accidents and the suspects might even start shooting at the cops and hit bystanders. This is counter productive if the proposed mission is supposed to be to protect people.
    if cops didn't chase suspects who are fleeing, then criminals would have no logical reason to stop when approached by police. it defeats the purpose of law-enforcement. at what point does it become acceptable for cops to chase a suspect? if it's a rapist? a murderer? a child abductor? the police are protecting the public by apprehending these individuals and getting them off the streets. if a suspect chooses to run or shoot at officers, you can't blame the cops for that. laws exist for a reason. without them, we would have anarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    One problem, the whole point of having the right to protest should mean that you don't have to pay someone else or use someone else's possessions to do it. If you made people have to comply with this then if you opposed their point of view, all you'd have to do is block their access to these things and their voices would never be heard.

    For all the inconveniences, the only vestige left of proper inclusion of the common man in how the big shots set things up is the right to gather and protest.
    i don't think a private business or venue should be obligated to give a platform to anyone simply because they have something to say. take the westboro baptist church for example. they often protest various funerals and blame homosexuality for the death of people's loved ones. should they be allowed to protest at funerals? i don't have a problem with the government banning this practice; nor do i think doing so would impede their freedom of speech. they can spread their hate online if they want to. there are many other ways to protest than disrespecting someone's funeral. we don't allow them to vandalize gravesites, but they can troll the family and loved ones during their time of mourning?

    regarding the religious freedom debate that has been in the media as of late, a news anchor made a good point: should a company who makes signs be legally obligated to print "God Hates Fags" on them because a customer requests it, if the company is opposed to the message being printed? i don't think they should be forced to. sure, it's a form of discrimination, but i think people should be able to discriminate against something that violates their values. it's a form of protesting in itself; just like boycotting. if customers don't like it, they can shop elsewhere. if one can't find a shop that will print their bigoted signs, they have the freedom to make their own.
    Likes Hard liked this post

  4. #54
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pixie sticks View Post
    they can do a lot worse than blocking roads anyway. that doesn't mean we should tolerate people blocking roads because they might do something worse if we don't. it's usually illegal for a person to jaywalk in the middle of the road, but if a group of people do it because they're mad about something, we call that "protesting" and it's acceptable? if someone has a permit that allows a certain area to be blocked off for protesting purposes, so be it. but i don't think people should be allowed to block roads, which taxpayers pay for, at their own leisure to complain about whatever it is they're unhappy about. it doesn't even have to be a reasonable complaint; people can literally protest anything they want.
    So who validates what's a reasonable concern? Who says if it's important enough to disrupt the daily routine (which, by the way, is half the point of a protest).

    It's like unions, it's not much of a protest unless you seriously impinge upon the company's ability to make money.
    i don't understand how police wearing riot gear is incitement for protestors to become violent. that just sounds like an excuse that protestors who want to become violent would use to justify their actions. why shouldn't the police have the right to wear protective gear for crowd control? we've seen what an angry mob can accomplish when they have no resistance.
    It kind of says how the cops are expecting things to go if they turn up in riot gear.

    Like posturing for a fight.

    Surely it would be better to keep riot police in reserve in case they are needed rather than put it in front of people's faces like a challenge.
    if cops didn't chase suspects who are fleeing, then criminals would have no logical reason to stop when approached by police. it defeats the purpose of law-enforcement. at what point does it become acceptable for cops to chase a suspect? if it's a rapist? a murderer? a child abductor? the police are protecting the public by apprehending these individuals and getting them off the streets. if a suspect chooses to run or shoot at officers, you can't blame the cops for that. laws exist for a reason. without them, we would have anarchy.
    If a policeman causes damage in pursuit of a suspect then they are guilty of vandalism or driving without due care an attention. Ideally they should be like doctors "first do no harm". As for catching criminals, isn't that what the helicopters and evidence gathering is for, so you can find them when they're not expecting it and grab them with forward planning?

    Of course in extenuating circumstances they do need to give chase but are they reserving it for these situations or using it more often than they perhaps should?

    i don't think a private business or venue should be obligated to give a platform to anyone simply because they have something to say. take the westboro baptist church for example. they often protest various funerals and blame homosexuality for the death of people's loved ones. should they be allowed to protest at funerals? i don't have a problem with the government banning this practice; nor do i think doing so would impede their freedom of speech. they can spread their hate online if they want to. there are many other ways to protest than disrespecting someone's funeral. we don't allow them to vandalize gravesites, but they can troll the family and loved ones during their time of mourning?

    regarding the religious freedom debate that has been in the media as of late, a news anchor made a good point: should a company who makes signs be legally obligated to print "God Hates Fags" on them because a customer requests it, if the company is opposed to the message being printed? i don't think they should be forced to. sure, it's a form of discrimination, but i think people should be able to discriminate against something that violates their values. it's a form of protesting in itself; just like boycotting. if customers don't like it, they can shop elsewhere. if one can't find a shop that will print their bigoted signs, they have the freedom to make their own.
    A person should always have the right to ask in the same vein the company should have the right to decline. Otherwise you'd get messages like "these cigarettes taste like ass" which had been requested by a competitor.

    However in a democracy it is essential that you don't sideline or undermine the right to protest. Of course it shouldn't be done at a funeral because that is a person's service and you cannot protest a person per se. Voiding that though if you want to protest then any public ground should be fair game.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #55
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @pixie sticks

    People who expect to meet resistance will prepare to fight by default. If cops always show up in riot gear at protests, would be protesters will be prepared for it because that'll be the norm. They are left no other options if they want to protest.

    This means that when there are protests, protesters will more likely come prepared to fight because that's what they can expect automatically. This pretty much ensures skipping over peaceful resolutions and causes a jump straight to more violent protests because there's no point in attempting anything less if they'll get pushed out or arrested anyway.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    2w5 sx
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    I believe that in order to have true freedom of speech, yes offending people should be a right of everybody. But I believe as a country, we really have less freedom of speech than we think. If someone were to say something that is misconstrued or possibly threatening sounding to those higher up in the government, surely bad things will happen to them. You are as free to say as you wsh long as you are willing to agree to the consequences of saying it. And there always will be consequences, maybe they wont be legal ramifications, but lost relationships, lost promotions, and lost opportunities can result in offending the wrong person. So while of course without it freedom of speech isnt as absolute as it could be, and it is the individuals right to say as they will, it could be seen as both a bad or good thing.

  7. #57
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Wouldn't it be nice if for once we could say this of a politician in play right now?
    "People don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ~ Nietzsche

    Imagine for a moment this famous scene and replace wall with congress/parliament and Colonel Jesop is a congressman:





    "Principled" politicians will only rarely be be elected imo. There is something we innately fear about someone in power who has a 'fixed' opinion on something. It is highly unlikely that any given candidate will mirror our views in politics 100% and since the vast majority of people have neither the time nor inclination to research their candidates body of work we 'err' on the side of caution and subconsciously choose candidates who will either change their minds on those issues we disagree with them on or are 'open minded' enough to factor in new 'evidence' and/or are likely to change their mind given enough dissent. 'We' want a pragmatist, but reserve the 'right' to complain when the wind isn't blowing our way.

    Take Obama's 2008 campaign promises to close down Guantanamo. Restore habeas corpus my ass.


    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #58
    Senior Member Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    2w5 sx
    Posts
    5,767

    Default

    I think that you definately have the right to offend however I don't believe that it is generally in your best interest to do so.

    If it comes down to it and you are in a situation where nothing else will work, go for it, but at the end of the day if you offend needlessly you are doing yourself and everyone around you no favors.

    It might not always be easy to supress that instinct to immediately criticize, patronize, or belittle (it isn't easy for me), but the end of the day people appreciate solutions or compassion more than they do the tearing down of their character

    And while it should be your right to say whatever you would like
    Pick battles worth fighting and don't be the cause of new ones.

  9. #59

    Default

    Democracy has its limits. The number one rule of democracy is percieving your own freedom, while not directly attacking the freedom of anyone else. Offending someone is attacking someone else's freedom.

  10. #60
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kephalos View Post
    Even when protests are unregulated they escalate. In Mexico it went from blocking roads and making grafitti everywhere they went to burning government buildings and cars, stealing trucks to move their people and now protesters will block elections in two provinces. Protestors need to be controlled and punished if they destroy either private or public property.
    Nobody ever said to let people get away with anything they want.

    Yes protests can escalate on their own, and when there is actual rioting would be the time for police to show up in riot gear (I mean seriously, it's called riot gear for a reason isn't it?)

    If the cops show up before anyone even gets out of hand that'll ensure that things do get out of hand.

    Do you recall Prohibition in the United States? When the government made alcohol illegal? Look what happened there. The people rebelled and the crackdowns and raids on illegal alcohol only drove things underground and into the hands of the mafia and it turned into a bloodbath in the streets which cost many lives and loads of taxpayer dollars, and even the police started to become corrupt, and the situation became so untenable that they had to repeal the prohibition laws because the fight against illegal alcohol was far worse than any evils of legal alcohol.

Similar Threads

  1. Should freedom of speech on the forum be tolerated?
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-29-2013, 11:30 PM
  2. The end of freedom of speech?
    By Sahara in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:45 PM
  3. Do we have the right to manipulate and destory nature?
    By Nyx in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 08:16 AM
  4. [MBTItm] Freedom of speech and all?
    By Mayflow in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-05-2009, 07:51 PM
  5. [MBTItm] The goal of T vs the goal of F
    By murkrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO