Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Using metaphor is a way to describe something figuratively, not literally.

Who said it was a metaphor?

a reply to: daskakik

Who said it was a metaphor?

I did.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You do seem to think only you can say what is what.

It's been months and you still can't grasp that people don't actually mean that words have power, caloric or otherwise.

a reply to: icanteven

I spoke to the social contract earlier in this thread, so I understand what you are saying, but it appears you want to equate consequences of acting or not acting on the word to be the same as the word having power. I am not saying that there wont be any consequences or lack of consequences for running the stop sign (I assume we are talking about a purposeful act) I'm just saying that the person running the stop sign doesn't care or doesn't even take into account the consequences of running the stop sign, because the word stop in and of itself has no power over this person. The only way the 'power' of this word could manifest is if there is enforcement/consequences.

a reply to: daskakik

You do seem to think only you can say what is what.

It's been months and you still can't grasp that people don't actually mean that words have power, caloric or otherwise.

That's not true. That's why we submit what we say to scrutiny.

Then what do they mean?

a reply to: daskakik

Is nature making life to struggle? Or are outside forces acting upon nature to make life have to struggle?

2nd

Notes / other notes / this topic
Arbitration via a controller's feelings / ie :professionals reports /mental wellness
feeling is not fact , therefore maleable concept open to progression and actual change or cessation / alternatves
other applied approaches to actionability
forgiveness for having 'feelings' / the roles womem & feminizers / childrens and advocates
justifiable decisions / the report /duties
psychological tools and remaining in control / victimiszation / victim support
actions louder than words / words in action / word of big G
responses louder than words
the mods
consequentialism justice and sins :preaching : the non-freedom of consequences / from consequences /
greedomsto dish consequence /gaslighting
facts are not feelings / the non-disconnect from right and wrong in any case
decisions on guilt / other outcomes / judiciaries & jurisdictions / the public & private jurisdictions
the naturally offensive / the keen to offend
rivalry and abuse
admissions and unadmissions
the seen unseen and the heard unheard the done undone and the made unmade
the said unsaid
the offence of loudness / foul atmospheres
the commonality of 'shut up'
the original/ jokes
the 'so what' of 'so what'
physicalities and fear / promises / processional controls
intentions and back up / internet logs / phone programmes / offender mgt / pre crime prevention
the ownership of control /power redaction
the excusing of inadvertentness

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If someone con convince others through words/ideas then he can control them. That gives him power.

a reply to: LockNLoad

I don't think either way shows that "life is important because nature thinks it's important" and even less so because "of the struggles that life in nature goes through to live".

a reply to: daskakik

If someone con convince others through words/ideas then he can control them. That gives him power.

Control him. With a remote control? How does that work?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You missed the key word "convince".

a reply to: Deaf Alien

You missed the key word "convince".

I did not.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

See, you seem to be deliberately obtuse.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think we all can agree that it is not OK to shout "fire" in a crowded theater as a prank. We can agree on that harassment is wrong. We may even agree on not condoning the use of explicit language in the presence of minor. What we can't agree on is the speeches that may trigger others, and the action against the speakers.

As I see it, some people get too bent out of shape by words and ideas they don't agree with. In a civilized society, one should be able to express his or her legitimate feelings without suffering from harassment and violent responses. It is wrong for somebody to go out of his or her way trying to shut down free speech simply because he or she does not agree.

For example, I should be able to say "I hate the color green" without worrying about losing my job or my customers. If you have a mental issue with that, feel free to stop talking to me, and stop doing business with me. However, if you go around and harass my employer and my customers, that would be harassment. You may hold signs walking down the street and protest me being a green hater. Just don't disturb the peace. Don't block traffic. Don't harass my neighbors. It is also not OK to defame me with lies. It is a poor excuse to justify your hateful actions against me in the name of love of the green lovers.

The irony is that the ones who think they are the loving and tolerant ones are usually the hateful ones harassing other people.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then you misunderstood his point.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

See, you seem to be deliberately obtuse.

I'm trying to show that you cannot explain what you mean without using metaphor. And here I thought we were describing things, not imagining them.

Is he controlled or is he not controlled?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Then you misunderstood his point.

I understood it perfectly well.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Then answer properly.

a reply to: nospam2014

Those who claim they are without prejudice tend to be the most prejudice. I forgot who said that. I think it was Karl Popper.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Then answer properly.

Answer what? There was no question.