Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

My Revised Thoughts on the Latest Controversy

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 6:59:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Originally I had not intended to involve myself in the discussion swirling around Wylted's latest debate. But somehow that became unavoidable, and here I am reconsidering the arguments I initially gave. To sum up my original assertion, it was something along the lines of "(1) what Wylted said was inappropriate but (2) he has every right to say it and (3) we shouldn't call him out for it because that could lead to a free speech-limiting slippery slope." I think it will pay to examine more close points (2) and (3).

Firstly, does Wylted indeed have the right to say what he said? Free speech, on face, does not discriminate between vulgar or inappropriate speech and less controversial speech--if people could not say things that offend others, we, as a society, have lost something of critical value. Surely, a free flow of ideas is the corner stone of a healthy democracy and a healthy society--one that promotes freedom of expression, intellectual vigor, political engagement, and human dignity. But, despite these benefits, humanity has seen fit to impose certain restrictions on the doctrine of free speech.

One notable restriction is encapsulated by the "shouting 'fire' in the crowded theatre" example. The goal of this limitation is to ensure the safety of others; humans can, in a society such as the U.S., exercise their rights to the extent that such exercise does not violate the rights of others. Personally, I feel like hate speech that is likely to incite violence or encourages the oppression of others violates the rights of those others, and is thus impermissible. Another example of this same principle can be found in the right of the state or law enforcement to maintain secrets, perhaps about on-going operations, where the revelation of such secrets would jeopardize lives or public safety. While, though, we can debate the extent to which exceptions like this apply or ought to apply, the vast majority can concede that they exists, and that they exist for good reason.

Conceptually, does Wylted's debate fall under the umbrella of this exception; in other words, does his debate violate the rights of others? Certainly, I have no right not to be offended, so merely posting offensive content would not be sufficient to violate my right. However, posting content designed to promote rape and incite rape can be considered impermissible for the same reason hate speech is wrong and impermissible. Does Wylted's debate actually reach the threshold of inciting and promoting rape? It definitely does not incite rape, but the question as to whether it promotes rape is, perhaps, open to debate. I think some would argue that his debate, by trivializing the impact rape has on victims and by seeming to glorify the rape act by positing which rape was "best" that it does promote rape. On the other hand, if we interpret that too harshly, the exception in question could be used to make impermissible anti-rape satire cloaked in the guise of a pro-rape stance. When I first saw Wylted's debate, I did believe it was satirical--though only he can speak to his own intentions.

Ultimately, I think the question here is fuzzy, and depending on how broadly you wished it to be applied, you could reasonably say that Wylted had no right to say what he said. I wouldn't go that far--I think that he still had a right to say what he said, only because the line between permitted speech and impermissible speech is blurry enough that we should afford Wylted the benefit of the doubt. So, now we can examine (3) under the assumption that he had a right to say what he said.

Should we have called Wylted out for what he said? The easy retort here is that the caller-out is protect by freedom of speech just as much as Wylted is--but I want to explore the issue of "should" Wylted have been called out, vice "can" he be called out. I think, as I've said before, there are real risks to calling people out--eventually it could stifle freedom of speech. If I am afraid that if I say controversial things I will be harassed publically, I won't say controversial things. Thus, calling out people has a suppressive effect on all of our freedom. It also fosters enmity via confrontation. Simultaneously, calling people out is just like a parent chastising a child--if someone does something that shocks our collectively conscience, should we not be able to reprimand them?

Here is the dilemma I am facing--there is value in both sides of this issue, and I am honestly not sure which has more value. On the one hand, enforcing norms of good behavior is important socially, but so is freedom of speech and communication. I think at first, I erred on the side of caution, and defended freedom of speech. I am no longer sure that is the right approach.

Why this doubt? Because I never considered in my original question: should Wylted have said what he said. I asked descriptive questions when I should've asked some prescriptive questions as well. Wylted should not have said what he said for all the reasons that have already been present, among those reasons are that it trivializes and desensitizes us to the harms of rape, it injures rape victims by seeming to mock their experiences, and so forth. If we conclude that what Wylted said was inappropriate, which I think is a very reasonable conclusion, then we can perhaps examine the early question of whether we should have called Wylted out on what he said.

We should prioritizes the interests of those least well off--in this case, rape victims--because they are most vulnerable and most prone to be injured. Wylted's free speech protects what he said, but it doesn't justify what he said either. Calling people out, *sometimes* is necessary to protect the group being harmed/targeted, and in this case I think it is necessary. If someone does something to harm someone else, they should be penalized--if not by the law, then by some other actor. Since there is no legal issue at stake, the duty of penalizing falls to the community. While the risks to free speech are present and real, they do not outweigh the potential harm cause by allowing people to engage in destructive discourse (e.g. promoting rape, hate speech, etc.)

There does have to be a line somewhere where we say "enough calling out" just to protect free speech--but I am honestly not sure where that line is. But, intuitively, I know that line isn't here and now.

What are your thoughts? Please keep the discussion civil.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 6:59:20 PM, bsh1 wrote:

What are your thoughts? Please keep the discussion civil.

I believe that Wylted surely deserves catching a little hell for what he did like anyone else surely would have, but that kbub's proposition that DDO take a grand stand against anything and everything similar to it is a very bad idea, especially since Wylted isnt apathetic to victims of sexual assault in the first place.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:12:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We should just lynch Wylted, Ihave my pikes and KKK outfit ready too.

It will be an excellent team-building exercise and bonding activity, let's rally together have have ourselves a blast.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:12:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If it were entitled, 'saddest rape story,' it might have been less, if not completely drama-free. However, since the point was to post the 'best' or 'funniest' rape- it, in my opinion anyway, is making light of a *very* serious matter.

That said, people are entitled to their opinions- as stupid as Hell as they may be. With me, I *try* to be as empathetic and considering of others as possible- but I have my breaking moments when I say sh!t as well. Sometimes, we need to learn to walk away, or think about our actions and the effects before we do it. While we reserve the right to say what we wish- sometimes we have to be the bigger person and stfu.

That's my opinion anyways. So feel free to disagree.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:15:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
TL;DR

Vindicating the rights of victims trumps vindicating the rights of non-victims.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:16:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:13:22 PM, YYW wrote:
My thoughts:

Post 75

http://www.debate.org...

fix'd link
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:23:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:12:27 PM, Envisage wrote:
We should just lynch Wylted, Ihave my pikes and KKK outfit ready too.

It will be an excellent team-building exercise and bonding activity, let's rally together have have ourselves a blast.

Lol...not quite what I had in mind.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just realized that might be the longest post I've ever typed.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:30:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are some circumstances where freedom of speech may be rightfully called into question:

Suppose that Airmax decided that, because he hates Libertarians, he was going to ban all libertarians. WSA, gone -first among them. Suppose that the Arimax was devious about this, and started inventing false charges for why WSA was banned. Perhaps Airmax alleged that WSA was trafficking magic mushrooms to various DDO users through the latest incarnation of The Silk Road, and used that as 'justification', although the real reason that Airmax banned WSA was because he just hates libertarians. There, we have a clear freedom of speech issue.

But, where one member is saying "I find content [x] objectionable for A, B and C." Is not the same kind of situation. To put that in less abstract terms, suppose that there is a member, who we will refer to as ADOX who is a pedophile. Suppose that this user posts certain 'fan fics' that involve the sexual abuse of children. Suppose that another user finds this objectionable, and points out that ADOX's post is contextually inappropriate and ADOX should be banned on the basis of his posting what appears to be pedophilloic fantasies. Suppose, on the basis of the content mentioned above, Airmax bans ADOX. No free speech issues exist here, because the the right to free speech does not entitle people to post obscenity.

That said, the threshold for what 'constitutes' obscenity is really, really high. Someone posting a parody of a subject that is generally associated with criminal sexual deviancy is not the same situation as someone actually advocating for rape, as an acceptable practice -or tacitly enforcing that by silently allowing it to continue. Silence in the face of vile, disgusting behavior is endorsement -but there is a difference between silence when someone is parodying something and silence when someone is actually advocating for an otherwise unacceptable behavior to be accepted.

However, banning someone from DDO because they are a rapist, talk about rape and advocate for criminal sexual behavior, on that basis, will never become a free speech issue. Banning TheSerb, for example, is not a free speech issue. It's an act in defense of the community. Why? The fact that content is found objectionable does not mean that free speech rights are called into question.
Tsar of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:31:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:24:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just realized that might be the longest post I've ever typed.

It was aight. Pretty liberal but okay just the same.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:34:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:31:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/29/2014 7:24:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just realized that might be the longest post I've ever typed.

It was aight. Pretty liberal but okay just the same.

Lol...thanks. I guess that's the closest to a stamp of approval I'm going to get tonight :)
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:35:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:34:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/29/2014 7:31:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/29/2014 7:24:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just realized that might be the longest post I've ever typed.

It was aight. Pretty liberal but okay just the same.

Lol...thanks. I guess that's the closest to a stamp of approval I'm going to get tonight :)

Combat liberalism
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 7:40:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:35:56 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/29/2014 7:34:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/29/2014 7:31:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/29/2014 7:24:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just realized that might be the longest post I've ever typed.

It was aight. Pretty liberal but okay just the same.

Lol...thanks. I guess that's the closest to a stamp of approval I'm going to get tonight :)

Combat liberalism

Lol...maybe some other night when I'm a bit more philosophically gung-ho.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 8:38:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:30:31 PM, YYW wrote:
There are some circumstances where freedom of speech may be rightfully called into question:

Suppose that Airmax decided that, because he hates Libertarians, he was going to ban all libertarians. WSA, gone -first among them. Suppose that the Arimax was devious about this, and started inventing false charges for why WSA was banned. Perhaps Airmax alleged that WSA was trafficking magic mushrooms to various DDO users through the latest incarnation of The Silk Road, and used that as 'justification', although the real reason that Airmax banned WSA was because he just hates libertarians. There, we have a clear freedom of speech issue.

But, where one member is saying "I find content [x] objectionable for A, B and C." Is not the same kind of situation. To put that in less abstract terms, suppose that there is a member, who we will refer to as ADOX who is a pedophile. Suppose that this user posts certain 'fan fics' that involve the sexual abuse of children. Suppose that another user finds this objectionable, and points out that ADOX's post is contextually inappropriate and ADOX should be banned on the basis of his posting what appears to be pedophilloic fantasies. Suppose, on the basis of the content mentioned above, Airmax bans ADOX. No free speech issues exist here, because the the right to free speech does not entitle people to post obscenity.

That said, the threshold for what 'constitutes' obscenity is really, really high. Someone posting a parody of a subject that is generally associated with criminal sexual deviancy is not the same situation as someone actually advocating for rape, as an acceptable practice -or tacitly enforcing that by silently allowing it to continue. Silence in the face of vile, disgusting behavior is endorsement -but there is a difference between silence when someone is parodying something and silence when someone is actually advocating for an otherwise unacceptable behavior to be accepted.

I dunno. I tend to be more concerned with the subtle racist/sexist things than overt ones. The overt one's give people comfort in "knowing" they aren't racist/sexist, because this other person is clearly racist/sexist, i.e. America is great about rape because South Africa "corrects" lesbians by raping them. The subtle racist/sexist things, the things that aren't as distasteful to white male sensibilities--those things I find can do the most harm.

Having a game about rape I think is not so subtly awful, but maybe not so obvious that members thought were prevented from having fun. Wylted seems to think saying "I don't support rape" after a long, long time makes his post better. I'm not so sure.

However, banning someone from DDO because they are a rapist, talk about rape and advocate for criminal sexual behavior, on that basis, will never become a free speech issue. Banning TheSerb, for example, is not a free speech issue. It's an act in defense of the community. Why? The fact that content is found objectionable does not mean that free speech rights are called into question.

I think the above is smart.
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 4:46:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 7:24:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just realized that might be the longest post I've ever typed.

Eh... that's YYW's average post length.
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:05:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think some people are mixing up Free Speech and An Agenda.

Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.

An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.

Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:14:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 4:46:36 AM, UchihaMadara wrote:
At 9/29/2014 7:24:12 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Just realized that might be the longest post I've ever typed.

Eh... that's YYW's average post length.

Rofl...I know. Even in our PMs he write 2 words to my one. It's so adorable... :)
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:14:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:05:06 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
I think some people are mixing up Free Speech and An Agenda.

Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.

An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.

Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.

And this is relevant how...?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:35:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:14:48 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:05:06 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
I think some people are mixing up Free Speech and An Agenda.

Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.

An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.

Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.

And this is relevant how...?

YYW is claiming that this is "not a Free Speech issue". This is a Freedom of Speech issue.

The small contribution that was made by myself will be able to reshape this debate into what it is really about, which is freedom of speech.

A firm, decisive announcement by DDO that freedom of speech will not be put at stake by any amount of pressure by oppressive opinion, will be able to help end this censorship agenda.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:41:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:35:53 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:14:48 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:05:06 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
I think some people are mixing up Free Speech and An Agenda.

Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.

An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.

Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.

And this is relevant how...?

YYW is claiming that this is "not a Free Speech issue". This is a Freedom of Speech issue.

If it violates the TOS, it isn't a free speech issue. Moreover, even if it didn't violate the TOS, the question of whether Wylted should have said what he said (not a free speech question) is different from whether Wylted can say what he said (a free speech question.) We're investigating the former, not contesting the latter; thus, no free speech issue is in play.

But, even if it were a free speech issue, my OP goes through possible free speech objections and analyzes them with the conclusion that what Wylted said wasn't actually protected by free speech.

The small contribution that was made by myself will be able to reshape this debate into what it is really about, which is freedom of speech.

So, you want to move the goalposts? #LogicalFallacies

A firm, decisive announcement by DDO that freedom of speech will not be put at stake by any amount of pressure by oppressive opinion, will be able to help end this censorship agenda.

I am not calling for censorship. I am calling for prudence.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 5:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:35:53 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:14:48 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:05:06 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
I think some people are mixing up Free Speech and An Agenda.

Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.

An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.

Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.

And this is relevant how...?

YYW is claiming that this is "not a Free Speech issue". This is a Freedom of Speech issue.

The small contribution that was made by myself will be able to reshape this debate into what it is really about, which is freedom of speech.

A firm, decisive announcement by DDO that freedom of speech will not be put at stake by any amount of pressure by oppressive opinion, will be able to help end this censorship agenda.

I wasn't aware DDO was owned and operated by the U.S. government...
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 6:06:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:35:53 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:14:48 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:05:06 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
I think some people are mixing up Free Speech and An Agenda.

Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.

An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.

Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.

And this is relevant how...?

YYW is claiming that this is "not a Free Speech issue". This is a Freedom of Speech issue.

The small contribution that was made by myself will be able to reshape this debate into what it is really about, which is freedom of speech.

A firm, decisive announcement by DDO that freedom of speech will not be put at stake by any amount of pressure by oppressive opinion, will be able to help end this censorship agenda.

I'm reasonably sure you don't understand what a free speech issue is, or the circumstances in which this would become a free speech issue. The small contribution to this discussion you have made has been irrelevant to the issue at hand, and I've explained why. It is not unusual that what I write goes over some people's heads, but in your case, the phenomenon especially poignant. I'm also reasonably sure you don't know what censorship is, or what it would mean to have a 'censorship agenda'.

Are you, like, 12 or 13, btw? The reason I ask is because how sharp I am in explaining why you're wrong is going to be directly proportional to the extent to which you should have known what you're talking about.
Tsar of DDO
thehumanistpreacher
Posts: 252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 6:11:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 5:41:49 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:35:53 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:14:48 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:05:06 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
I think some people are mixing up Free Speech and An Agenda.

Free speech is the right to say I disagree with you.

An agenda would be the goal to ban the subject or person you disagree with.

Saying you disagree with someone is fine. The agenda of censorship is not.

And this is relevant how...?

YYW is claiming that this is "not a Free Speech issue". This is a Freedom of Speech issue.

If it violates the TOS, it isn't a free speech issue. Moreover, even if it didn't violate the TOS, the question of whether Wylted should have said what he said (not a free speech question) is different from whether Wylted can say what he said (a free speech question.) We're investigating the former, not contesting the latter; thus, no free speech issue is in play.

But, even if it were a free speech issue, my OP goes through possible free speech objections and analyzes them with the conclusion that what Wylted said wasn't actually protected by free speech.

The small contribution that was made by myself will be able to reshape this debate into what it is really about, which is freedom of speech.

So, you want to move the goalposts? #LogicalFallacies

A firm, decisive announcement by DDO that freedom of speech will not be put at stake by any amount of pressure by oppressive opinion, will be able to help end this censorship agenda.

I am not calling for censorship. I am calling for prudence.

Do you agree with the following 2 statement.

DDO supports the idea and principles of Free Debate and Free Speech.

DDO supports the idea that one should be able to debate anything that is debatable.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 6:15:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 6:11:03 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:41:49 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/30/2014 5:35:53 PM, thehumanistpreacher wrote:
YYW is claiming that this is "not a Free Speech issue". This is a Freedom of Speech issue.

If it violates the TOS, it isn't a free speech issue. Moreover, even if it didn't violate the TOS, the question of whether Wylted should have said what he said (not a free speech question) is different from whether Wylted can say what he said (a free speech question.) We're investigating the former, not contesting the latter; thus, no free speech issue is in play.

But, even if it were a free speech issue, my OP goes through possible free speech objections and analyzes them with the conclusion that what Wylted said wasn't actually protected by free speech.

Please respond to the above instead of just ignoring what I say and then asking other tangential questions.

Do you agree with the following 2 statement.

DDO supports the idea and principles of Free Debate and Free Speech.

Yes.

DDO supports the idea that one should be able to debate anything that is debatable.

The idea of what is or is not debatable is highly subjective. Theoretically, ANY issue can be debated (as Wylted's debate on Flat Earth Theory proves remarkably well). But that does not mean that ANYthing ought to be debated. So no, DDO does not support the idea that one should be able to debate anything that is debatable (e.g. -- it would violate TOS to debate "bsh1 is a fvcking, retarded a$$hole.")
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...