The right to offend and the right to be offended

a reply to: daskakik

Uh, okay.

So you disagree.

*shrugs*

a reply to: DBCowboy

I didn't say I disagree. I said that you made your motives and motivations clear and that it wasn't just me making things up.

originally posted by: Lucius Driftwood
Don't know if anyone's seen this, but thought it was funny, true and worth a share.

www.youtube.com...

Yes, very funny.

www.youtube.com...

No-one has a "right" to offend or rnot be offended.

But we do have a responsibilty not to deliberately and knowingly do/say something we know will cause offence, and a responsibilty to take comments that were not intended to be offensive in the manner in which they were intended.

Until humans understand the difference between rights and responsibilities they cannot be consider an intelligent species

There are NO rights. Only responsibilities.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
No-one has a "right" to offend or rnot be offended.

But we do have a responsibilty not to deliberately and knowingly do/say something we know will cause offence, and a responsibilty to take comments that were not intended to be offensive in the manner in which they were intended.

Until humans understand the difference between rights and responsibilities they cannot be consider an intelligent species

There are NO rights. Only responsibilities.

Ridicule and mockery is a very effective means of fighting ridiculous and toxic beliefs like cults, creationsits, etc.

And it does offend, when you mock a religious figure, or a religious teaching, it does offend people. But eventually when they do realize how ridiculous what they believe is, they abandon it, at least some do.

a reply to: Xenogears

Also a good way to end up dead.

I think the point was, if you do it's on you.

a reply to: Xenogears

Ridicule and mockery is a very effective means of fighting ridiculous and toxic beliefs like cults, creationsits, etc.

And it does offend, when you mock a religious figure, or a religious teaching, it does offend people. But eventually when they do realize how ridiculous what they believe is, the abandon it, at least some do.

Not to mention that societies with a tradition of free speech, and thus allowing criticism, are the ones most likely to learn from their past mistakes.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It doesn't matter what I feel.

My "feelings" are immaterial.

You are trying to find ways to justify censorship.

I'm trying to find ways to keep freedoms of expression, free.

Are they? Ultimately, the body of laws that govern us are made up of popular ideas with good arguments behind them. That's the basis of the Bill of Rights. It's not something passed down to us by divine wisdom. It's a work of people who debated these ideas and found them to be beneficial. They aren't meant to be taken as absolutes or as religious dogma. They're meant to be guidelines for our principles. Every single right has various restrictions placed on it in terms of scope and times when it doesn't apply.

We have decided as a society for example that the right of free association takes a backseat to being truthful in your products and (generally) making them non harmful. We have decided that freedom of speech sometimes prevents a person from telling lies, either in libel/slander against specific entities or with truth in advertising laws that for example prevent Pepsi from being sold as a health food.

If physical products that are packaged and sold are subject to these limitations, then why shouldn't non physical products like information also be subject to them?

a reply to: InTheLight
Thank you. And I enjoyed your retort, by the way
Maybe I should take this a step further.
No offence intended.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xenogears

Also a good way to end up dead.

I think the point was, if you do it's on you.

The problem is it should be the government itself that brings an end to harmful beliefs and superstitions. Education is a start, but mocking ridicule and offending would also help.

As I said an anonymous network, for the most offensive speech, with military backing for protection, would be a very good start.

Just like if you argued for an abolition of slavery or equal rights and someone murdered you it's on you? There are those who're right and those who're wrong.

An irrational beast that murders over words, is in the wrong.

a reply to: Xenogears

Maybe it is the government itself that should bring an end to the belief that people should be able to speak freely?

Besides, you are not really addressing the content of my post. No matter who you think should be doing what the fact remains that it is on you if your mouth gets you into trouble.

ETA: As for your addition, I'm not arguing who is right or wrong. I'm saying that even if you are right you can end up paying for what you say.

I don't think a disproportionate response can be considered legitimate "blow back"

If you flip someone off and they punch you in the face, that is not a legitimate consequence for you flipping them off. That person is using physical coercion, a power that is meant to be reserved exclusively for the government.

However, if you flip someone off and they flip you off back, or insult your mother back, or otherwise do something equal and opposite to what you did to them, that is to be expected. Or if you insult someone at work and get fired, that is fine too, because firing you is within their rights.

However, punching you in the face is NEVER EVER within anyone's rights unless they are defending them self from a PHYSICAL threat.

If I do something harmful (but within my rights) to someone else, then I might expect that they will retaliate by doing something harmful (but within their rights) back.

I shouldn't expect that they will do something harmful that would not otherwise be within their rights, however.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Maybe in utopia but in the real world if you flip someone off they may very well strike you, apply a piece of cold steel to your soft tissues or even send a bit of lead your way.

They may be wrong and society might even let them know that it is wrong but that isn't going to help you after the fact.

a reply to: olaru12

You can insult me all you want.... I don't care if you are an old man! You insult my wife in any manner; it's just something I will not tolerate. Words have consequences that you might not like.

You wrote this earlier, and now you talk of depersonalization. You are also in the movie fantasy/business.
You can sit there with a straight face and say you don't mind being insulted and yet words from a random stranger about your wife will bring out your violent side? Do you know how to distinguish between Hollywood and real life? Or do you wish for a bygone era of John Wayne macho.
What would you wife say about your over reaction to a strangers random words?

I see this type of thinking many times from our American posters.
If a stranger insulted my wife we would both shake our heads and laugh and wonder what drugs they were on.

We have no relationships with strangers that would affect us in some random word-pissing contest.

The psychological dynamics of internet chat environments lends it self to depersonalization and fantasy

a reply to: Azureblue

There is only answer to this that is because legsiatiing against people saying hurtfull things is just the start, the door has been unlocked. In the fullness of time, the door will get opended more and more unitl its completly flung open.

And that is the sad truth that most miss - they don't realize we are allowing chains to be placed upon us, we even pay for the chains our of our tax dollars.

a reply to: Aazadan

Does free speech mean we should be able to tell people reptilian shapeshifters have secretly taken over the planet, and the only defense is to buy 30 years of food dehydrated food?

"A fool and his money are soon parted"

The US populace were sold lies about 911 - they are paying billions for the quagmire that is the Middle East. Where is your outrage; or is Alex Jones dehydrated food more of a ethical issue for you?

a reply to: kibric

some guy got killed over it

Which guy and which pedophiles...any sources?

a reply to: Aazadan

So its only your brand of truth that should see the light of day?

a reply to: intrptr

So the cop misrepresents himself - he's a big marine, bigger than a soldier who lodged the complaint - who's in who's face. The fake cop (marine) could have handled that better. Is this why people don't trust cops in the States?