Total Posts:213|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hate Speech

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:24:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's actually an interesting video I saw that talks about how we have an artificial sense of free speech in society. I may post it at some point, maybe tomorrow.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:29:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:25:34 PM, Viper-King wrote:
People think we should restrict freedom to not hurting others at all!

Well, in my opinion, I think that's utter crap. In a society built around freedom as a core principle, worrying about if people will be offended by something is truly silly.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:34:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:23:11 PM, Viper-King wrote:
Who here thinks that hate speech is right???? Lots of people think that speech should be restricted to not hurting anyone.

"is right" or "is a right"?

big difference.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:43:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:23:11 PM, Viper-King wrote:
Who here thinks that hate speech is right???? Lots of people think that speech should be restricted to not hurting anyone.

There is nothing wrong with offending someone... I believe that whole heartedly. If my beliefs offend you... deal with it.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:43:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You do realize that saying "The State is doing a bad job" was essentially the premise of the Declaration of Independence, don't you?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:08:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:43:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You do realize that saying "The State is doing a bad job" was essentially the premise of the Declaration of Independence, don't you?

Yes. What's your point?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:31:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 11:08:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:43:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You do realize that saying "The State is doing a bad job" was essentially the premise of the Declaration of Independence, don't you?

Yes. What's your point?

Do you believe that he US shouldn't have declared independence from Great Britian?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:39:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You hate obama... You have said it, Obama= part of the state. So eah politician needs 100% approval? Fail
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:41:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:43:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You do realize that saying "The State is doing a bad job" was essentially the premise of the Declaration of Independence, don't you?

Technically, the premise of the DoI was not "The State is doing a bad job" unless you assign "The State" as only the British government (a particular state, rather than government in general).

As such, the founding fathers declaring independence from England does not merit support for pulling the same statement out now and using it, since "the state" now is not "the state" then.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 11:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
New sig! Thanks LK
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 12:25:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 11:39:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You hate obama... You have said it, Obama= part of the state. So eah politician needs 100% approval? Fail

yea, but he also said you can say "blacks are bad". So lordknuckle can insult him as a black person, but not as a president.

Based on Lordknuckle logic:
Bad: I hate Obama's healthcare policy.
Good: Obama is a n*****r
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:31:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 11:39:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You hate obama... You have said it, Obama= part of the state. So eah politician needs 100% approval? Fail

I hate Obama because my ideal policy is not implemented. If it were and a person like Obama would come to power (no), then I would praise him.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:36:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:31:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2012 11:39:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You hate obama... You have said it, Obama= part of the state. So eah politician needs 100% approval? Fail

I hate Obama because my ideal policy is not implemented. If it were and a person like Obama would come to power (no), then I would praise him.

......I'm thinking LK, you made a contradictory statement, and your not admitting it, cause that makes no sense.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:50:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

Y you hate youselvez?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 12:11:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:36:32 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:31:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/26/2012 11:39:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You hate obama... You have said it, Obama= part of the state. So eah politician needs 100% approval? Fail

I hate Obama because my ideal policy is not implemented. If it were and a person like Obama would come to power (no), then I would praise him.

......I'm thinking LK, you made a contradictory statement, and your not admitting it, cause that makes no sense.

No, I did not make a contradictory statement. Let me explain.

What I said is that I have no problem with individuals having "free speech" against other individuals. Basically, I don't care if person X says that Person Y sucks or something along that line. As long as the speech is strictly from person to person about anything other than the State, then I have no problem with it.

However, I do have a problem when the State gets involved in the freedom of speech. A person should not be able to say anything negative about the State as an entity as it is societal detrimental.

Since my ideal proposal is not implemented currently, I am allowed to say "The State sucks" or something along that line. However, under ideal circumstances and with the right laws, nobody will be able to do it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 3:59:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:23:11 PM, Viper-King wrote:
Who here thinks that hate speech is right???? Lots of people think that speech should be restricted to not hurting anyone.:

Deeming unpopular speech as "hate speech" is a form of censorship. That is completely separate from threatening speech.

The same principle goes for "hate crimes," as if it's somehow more reprehensible to kill someone for money versus killing them for being Asian when the net result is still two dead people.

They're both essentially "thought crimes."
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 4:30:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

Saying "The State is doing a bad job" does not interfere with the alleged duties or abilities of the State at-all whatsoever.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 4:31:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 12:29:44 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I almost sigged that same quote but LK is almost too easy.

I agree lol I responded accidentally.
President of DDO
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2012 4:58:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 11:41:01 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:43:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:32:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Free speech as entity, should be allowed as long as it does not interfere with the duties or abilities of the State. For example, I have no problem with you saying "Blacks are bad", however I do have a problem with you saying "The State is doing a bad job".

You do realize that saying "The State is doing a bad job" was essentially the premise of the Declaration of Independence, don't you?

Technically, the premise of the DoI was not "The State is doing a bad job" unless you assign "The State" as only the British government (a particular state, rather than government in general).

The British government was at the time "the" state.

As such, the founding fathers declaring independence from England does not merit support for pulling the same statement out now and using it, since "the state" now is not "the state" then.

However, if LK is going to be consistent, then they should not have been allowed to use the statement then, either.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 12:10:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's the problem, a right cannot be a right if it takes away your life liberty and pursuit of happiness. If Hate speech takes away happiness then it should be censored, but here's the problem, who chooses if it is offensive? If it offends 1 person it can be constitutionally censored as it took away their pursuit of happiness temporarily. But a good argument is "how does the government know?" And their he government they would screw it up. So...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 2:10:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a difficult issue tbh. I'd be all for banning speech that could potentially incite harm, but it could be a slippery slope too.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 7:45:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 2:10:48 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a difficult issue tbh. I'd be all for banning speech that could potentially incite harm, but it could be a slippery slope too.

Why?

If I for some reason or another I despise Jews, and if I say mean things about them, should I be fined? Of course not!

I might as well point out, that this law mainly targets Christians, who preach against cults, homosexuality ect.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 7:51:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:45:46 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:10:48 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a difficult issue tbh. I'd be all for banning speech that could potentially incite harm, but it could be a slippery slope too.

Why?

If I for some reason or another I despise Jews, and if I say mean things about them, should I be fined? Of course not!

I might as well point out, that this law mainly targets Christians, who preach against cults, homosexuality ect.

Such laws would not target Christians; they would ban the behavior of individuals who use hate speech. If most happen to be Christian, then that indicates that the "peace-loving" Christians need to regulate their behavior. It does not suggest that the government is targeting Christians.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 8:02:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 7:51:16 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/29/2012 7:45:46 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/29/2012 2:10:48 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a difficult issue tbh. I'd be all for banning speech that could potentially incite harm, but it could be a slippery slope too.

Why?

If I for some reason or another I despise Jews, and if I say mean things about them, should I be fined? Of course not!

I might as well point out, that this law mainly targets Christians, who preach against cults, homosexuality ect.

Such laws would not target Christians; they would ban the behavior of individuals who use hate speech. If most happen to be Christian, then that indicates that the "peace-loving" Christians need to regulate their behavior. It does not suggest that the government is targeting Christians.

Does it pass the lemon test?
1. The goverments action must have a secular purpose (this law would)
2. The laws primary effect cannot enforce or inhibit any one religeon. (this law passes)
3. The law must not have exsesive entanglement with religeon. (pass)

The law passes that part. It is constitutional but is a kinda dumb law.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:31:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 10:23:11 PM, Viper-King wrote:
Who here thinks that hate speech is right???? Lots of people think that speech should be restricted to not hurting anyone.

I have a right to tell you to F*** off. You may not like what I say, and I may not like what you say; sticks and stones my friend, sticks and stones.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2012 9:33:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/29/2012 9:31:00 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/26/2012 10:23:11 PM, Viper-King wrote:
Who here thinks that hate speech is right???? Lots of people think that speech should be restricted to not hurting anyone.

I have a right to tell you to F*** off. You may not like what I say, and I may not like what you say; sticks and stones my friend, sticks and stones.

This is not the issue. We are discussing speech that demonstrates hatred towards a group of innocent people. We are not discussing your anger management issues.