Lt. Gen. Boykin Fired for Free Speech

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

How do you oppose Islamism if not with your words and if you use words aren't you just being an "SJW"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you punch a man for saying a joke about your mother, is that the consequence of his speech, or the consequence of you being unable to take a joke?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are many exceptions to that ... slander, incitement to violence, etc.

So there are direct consequences. Hmmm...

I'd like to see some folks test out their pet theories in the laboratory of real life.

Often, I find, something that makes sense on virtual paper is utterly meaningless when it confronts actual reality.

Don't you?

Exactly. I feel my statement that it could only exist in a sterile environment outside of reality is most fitting. It has little to no application in the real world, and the argument can only be used to detract from the reality that words and speech can have consequences.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It depends on the ideology. As of now, in western societies, it is the right that is upholding the values of the enlightenment.

Says you. But, that would be an interesting thread...

Still not an answer to my question: Why do you never condemn the right?

a reply to: Kali74

I don't like the term SJW. One would first have to know what social justice is, and they are undeserved of the term.

No, debate and disputation doesn't make one an SJW.

Evolve or die.

Evolution.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are many exceptions to that ... slander, incitement to violence, etc.

So there are direct consequences. Hmmm...

I'd like to see some folks test out their pet theories in the laboratory of real life.

Often, I find, something that makes sense on virtual paper is utterly meaningless when it confronts actual reality.

Don't you?

Exactly. I feel my statement that it could only exist in a sterile environment outside of reality is most fitting. It has little to no application in the real world, and the argument can only be used to detract from the reality that words and speech can have consequences.

An argument you could never prove, but I bet you would keep promoting no less.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you punch a man for saying a joke about your mother, is that the consequence of his speech, or the consequence of you being unable to take a joke?

If a person is found to be unfit to be a parent because they verbally abuse their children, is that the consequence of their speech, or the consequences of the child being too much of a pansy to take it?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It depends on the ideology. As of now, in western societies, it is the right that is upholding the values of the enlightenment.

Says you. But, that would be an interesting thread...

Still not an answer to my question: Why do you never condemn the right?

I already answered that question. There is an OP to this thread and I am no where in it, for further reference.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are many exceptions to that ... slander, incitement to violence, etc.

So there are direct consequences. Hmmm...

I'd like to see some folks test out their pet theories in the laboratory of real life.

Often, I find, something that makes sense on virtual paper is utterly meaningless when it confronts actual reality.

Don't you?

Exactly. I feel my statement that it could only exist in a sterile environment outside of reality is most fitting. It has little to no application in the real world, and the argument can only be used to detract from the reality that words and speech can have consequences.

An argument you could never prove, but I bet you would keep promoting no less.

Your entire argument is one you cannot prove. Words have consequences under rule of law, but you claim there are no consequences.

a reply to: introvert

Accept responsibility for what you say.

There are a lot of variables though.

I am one person and If I say something to one person, it is only to them. That person alone can either get offended or not.

That person can take what I said directly to them and now tell others. Does that induce more responsibility when I had no control over if that one person I spoke to decided to go off and tell others what I said?

When speaking to a group, it's different. The chance of more than one person being offended rises and for me to be responsible, it would've helped to know in advance just how many that would be. Why should I be responsible for free speech when you never know who and how many will be offended?

If someone insulted me, it is MY responsibility to keep it from offending me, not those who said it, as free speech allows them to say anything, anytime, anywhere to anyone. What we have is a bunch of softies who allow themselves to become offended and then retaliate by making sure you can't say or do that again, stifling free speech.

The responsibility lies on the offended to keep their emotions from getting the best of them and until it gets physical, this whole victim mentality is breeding an environment where people coil up like snake until some rat comes by and says something that will initiate emotions that allow themselves to become offended.

People are so freaking sensitive and it's killing free speech, which has now forced everyone to be responsible for words that only mean as much as the person they’re directed to allows them to mean. When speaking to a crowd, it's almost impossible to be responsible for the reactions of so many different personalities and emotional thresholds that the responsibility should be on those who put themselves in what only they would consider harms way.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you punch a man for saying a joke about your mother, is that the consequence of his speech, or the consequence of you being unable to take a joke?

If a person is found to be unfit to be a parent because they verbally abuse their children, is that the consequence of their speech, or the consequences of the child being too much of a pansy to take it?

For one, I'm not sure you know what a consequence is. There is a causal sequence with causal links, like a chain. What is the causal link between speech and consequences? Does the words fly through the air and hit a consequence button?

I don't know why you guys are debating the most obtuse player of Devil's Advocate on ATS on a topic in which you know you are right.



Oh, "in western society, the right who are upholding the values of Enlightenment"...




Seriously, it's like talking to a sentient brick wall who deep down knows you're right.

a reply to: introvert

Your entire argument is one you cannot prove. Words have consequences under rule of law, but you claim there are no consequenc

The punishments of laws are the consequences of those laws. This is getting ridiculous.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you punch a man for saying a joke about your mother, is that the consequence of his speech, or the consequence of you being unable to take a joke?

If a person is found to be unfit to be a parent because they verbally abuse their children, is that the consequence of their speech, or the consequences of the child being too much of a pansy to take it?

For one, I'm not sure you know what a consequence is. There is a causal sequence with causal links, like a chain. What is the causal link between speech and consequences? Does the words fly through the air and hit a consequence button?

Ok, you're stepping back in to nutter philosophy land. We need you to come back to reality before we can continue.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Come on, Charlie. Was it the Islamist comment?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Your entire argument is one you cannot prove. Words have consequences under rule of law, but you claim there are no consequenc

The punishments of laws are the consequences of those laws. This is getting ridiculous.

No they are consequences of the actions that violated the law. The laws didn't violate themselves.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you punch a man for saying a joke about your mother, is that the consequence of his speech, or the consequence of you being unable to take a joke?

If a person is found to be unfit to be a parent because they verbally abuse their children, is that the consequence of their speech, or the consequences of the child being too much of a pansy to take it?

For one, I'm not sure you know what a consequence is. There is a causal sequence with causal links, like a chain. What is the causal link between speech and consequences? Does the words fly through the air and hit a consequence button?

Ok, you're stepping back in to nutter philosophy land. We need you to come back to reality before we can continue.

Better than nutter socialist land. I'll be here when you get back.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Come on, Charlie. Was it the Islamist comment?

Please, I have thicker skin than that LesMiserables

No, if anything it was what I put into quotations.



You're arguing for arguments sake, as you do often.


You've already conceded that Introvert can indeed fire an employee for being foul mouthed.

How is that sacking anything but a consequence of someone's free speech?

"Enlighten" me.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Your entire argument is one you cannot prove. Words have consequences under rule of law, but you claim there are no consequenc

The punishments of laws are the consequences of those laws. This is getting ridiculous.

No they are consequences of the actions that violated the law. The laws didn't violate themselves.

Once again. An effect follows a cause. What is the causal link between speaking and their consequences?