Does Free Speech Offend You?

[ENMaker]

That's also implying that every thing someone says can be justified.  Then, there could be productive conversation and an approach from both sides.  But how do you justify racism?  

 

That's it though. If they can't justify themselves against basic questioning then they're either going to realise they're wrong and change how they think, or disregard it and go on being a jabroni, at which point there's nothing you can do and nothing that any speech regulation would do to change their mind.

[chairman ali]

That's it though. If they can't justify themselves against basic questioning then they're either going to realise they're wrong and change how they think, or disregard it and go on being a c***, at which point there's nothing you can do and nothing that any speech regulation would do to change their mind.

 

But a lot of people, especially in the U.S, use the podium without sufficient evidence, or any, yet many will still listen to them for many reasons. Preconception, hatred, idiocy (not an insult but are generally less intelligent than others), etc.

[Arctic55]

If you claim that confronting them might change the way the[y] think (Which, let's be honest, how often has anyone changed their opinion because someone said why they were incorrect, when it comes to morals?).

Let me step in and address this thought with a tangent example of why this is wrong.  When abortion became a HUGE political issue, support was VERY much lopsided in favor of the pro-abortion forces, as time went on, more and more scientific information through Embryology (the branch of biology that studies the development of gametes) has given the pro-life forces the data to changes many minds.  I've seen entire schools go from mainly pro-abortion to pro-life when logically, scientifically, and non-aggressively debated by pro-life speakers.  This is a clear example of why your statement is wrong.

 

Now back to the topic at hand.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Let me step in and address this thought with a tangent example of why this is wrong.  When abortion became a HUGE political issue, support was VERY much lopsided in favor of the pro-abortion forces, as time went on, more and more scientific information through Embryology (the branch of biology that studies the development of gametes) has given the pro-life forces the data to changes many minds.  I've seen entire schools go from mainly pro-abortion to pro-life when logically, scientifically, and non-aggressively debated by pro-life speakers.  This is a clear example of why your statement is wrong.

 

Now back to the topic at hand.

One example so I'm not sure that negates the entire thing, especially as I don't know all the factors. But thank you for the example, it's good to know.

[vla1ne]

But a lot of people, especially in the U.S, use the podium without sufficient evidence, or any, yet many will still listen for many reasons. Preconception, hatred, idiocy (not an insult but are generally less intelligent than others), etc.

then you bring reasons. if somebodies bigoted, then you might not change their minds off the bat, but as long as you can hold the conversation in the open, you can at least prevent people from sympathizing with them on the grounds that they're being censored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

also i edited my above response.

[ENMaker]

But a lot of people, especially in the U.S, use the podium without sufficient evidence, or any, yet many will still listen to them for many reasons. Preconception, hatred, idiocy (not an insult but are generally less intelligent than others), etc.

 

What do you do at that point? Make stupidity illegal? If people want to follow a sentiment that the people expressing it can't even defend then there's not really a solution to that. You can do whatever you can to try and change their minds but there's a point where that becomes futile and you just accept that idiots exist who can't defend their own beliefs but will stick doggedly to them.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Illogic will weed itself out. If you oppress them and make them shut up like PC does you give validity to their fight...it's not hard to understand

 

PC is the fight against these people, but PC shoves their people against the rock and then justifies it's existence when they lash out as any human would do.

 

If you guys are so unwilling to see the Hydra you've all created, I nor anyone else can make you see it

[Arctic55]

then you bring reasons. if somebodies bigoted, then you might not change their minds off the bat, but as long as you can hold the conversation in the open, you can at least prevent people from sympathizing with them on the grounds that they're being censored.

Let me expand on this: We got into a discussion about this in class.  We saw two debates on the same argument (different people in both videos).  One side was right (team A), the other was wrong (team B).  Debate 1: The team B was being censored but team a, so we all felt sorry for team B and some in the class even sided with team B even though they were arguing for something that was wrong.  Debate 2: A calm, logical debate where team A listened to team B's arguments and then explained why team B was wrong.  Team B understood they were wrong and changed sides of the debate.

 

Illogic will weed itself out. If you oppress them and make them shut up like PC does you give validity to their fight...it's not hard to understand

 

PC is the fight against these people, but PC shoves their people against the rock and then justifies it's existence when they lash out as any human would do.

 

If you guys are so unwilling to see the Hydra you've all created, I nor anyone else can make you see it

I hope you were not trying to be insulting and meant "people in general" when you said "you guys".

[Bellringer Angel]

You guys seems to be in a heated conversation, so I will join too.

 

Free speech in Thailand is accepted, but there is still one thing that denies freedom of speech.

 

Lèse-majesté. It is a very outdated law that still exist in my country. I cannot say too much about the law (since I'm Thai), so google it yourself.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Let me expand on this: We got into a discussion about this in class.  We saw two debates on the same argument (different people in both videos).  One side was right (team A), the other was wrong (team B).  Debate 1: The team B was being censored but team a, so we all felt sorry for team B and some in the class even sided with team B even though they were arguing for something that was wrong.  Debate 2: A calm, logical debate where team A listened to team B's arguments and then explained why team B was wrong.  Team B understood they were wrong and changed sides of the debate.

 

I hope you were not trying to be insulting and meant "people in general" when you said "you guys".

Was the debate held by people who legitimately believed in their "wrong" beliefs, or was it a mock-up for an example? Because that makes things a lot different. Those who truly hold these views aren't so easily swayed by logical debate all the time after all.

 

And Winter you've said that line about illogic being weeded out before and yet there's no proof of such a thing.

[vla1ne]

You guys seems to be in a heated conversation, so I will join too.

 

Lèse-majesté is a very outdated law that still exist in my country (Thailand if you want to know). I cannot say too much about the law (since I'm Thai), so google it yourself.

 

Edit

that's pretty much what i mean when i say "who dictates what hate speech is?".

 

Edit

Was the debate held by people who legitimately believed in their "wrong" beliefs, or was it a mock-up for an example? Because that makes things a lot different. Those who truly hold these views aren't so easily swayed by logical debate all the time after all.

 

And Winter you've said that line about illogic being weeded out before and yet there's no proof of such a thing.

not really. he also mentioned that some of the people sided with team B simply because they were being censored. that's how it works at times.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Sure there has, ever heard of the Geocentric Model? People got put in house Arrest for years for denying that. Ever heard of creationism? Wonder why that phased out.

 

It takes time mate

[Arctic55]

Was the debate held by people who legitimately believed in their "wrong" beliefs, or was it a mock-up for an example? Because that makes things a lot different. Those who truly hold these views aren't so easily swayed by logical debate all the time after all.

Oh, both sides were very gun-ho about their beliefs.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yeah, you guys =people in general

 

Also can a mod tell me why I'm not getting notifications?

[chairman ali]

then you bring reasons. if somebodies bigoted, then you might not change their minds off the bat, but as long as you can hold the conversation in the open, you can at least prevent people from sympathizing with them on the grounds that they're being censored.

 

You seem to forget that not everyone can be televised or talk at Madison Square Garden or reach millions. It's usually the higher ups or those whom have a connection, or an agenda. And if there does happen to be a debate, they usually bring the dumbest of the other side.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Sure there has, ever heard of the Geocentric Model? People got put in house Arrest for years for denying that. Ever heard of creationism? Wonder why that phased out.

 

It takes time mate

Um. Creationism hasn't phased out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

 

This was 2012 but you get the picture.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Um. Creationism hasn't phased out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

 

This was 2012 but you get the picture.

Mate, you know what would happen to you if you said creationism was wrong in the 1500's it's gotten a LOT better. The fact that evolution is winning out over creationism should tell you a lot. Want a better example?

 

1970's LGB got sheet on 

2016 50%+ support it

 

it takes time, and if one people were less in your face about it, it would go faster even

[Arctic55]

Here is how I see freedom of speech.  You probably have a favorite candy.  Chances are, my favorite candy is different.  We both state our favorite candies (which are different) and then decided to have a debate.  How it should NOT happen: (for sake of the illustration, I'll go first) I go first and gave ten reasons why my candy is better than yours.  You then go and give your ten reasons and proceed to question mine.  But then I yell out "HATE SPEECH" or "DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MY CANDY" and get you censored.  That is wrong because you have a right to your opinion and I should not have the right to just shut you up because I don't like it.  How it should happen: (for sake of the illustration, I'll go first again) I go first and gave ten reasons why my candy is better than yours.  You then go and give your ten reasons and proceed to question mine.  We should then have a healthy, (maybe even animated) debate and essentially joust with ideas and arguments.  In the end, we may both come away without changing our ideals.  But we should be able to agree to disagree and still be friends and move on.

[vla1ne]

You seem to forget that not everyone can be televised or talk at Madison Square Garden or reach millions. It's usually the higher ups or those whom have a connection, or an agenda. And if there does happen to be a debate, they usually bring the dumbest of the other side.

it doesn't have to be televised all the time. it just has to become commonplace. the more an ideas is debunked, be it online, televised, or in everyday life, the more the knowledge of how to debunk said argument is spread. the argument (and the ignorance) become well known, and thus the argument cannot garner sympathy as easily, and thus it slowly dies out. also what do you mean dumbest of the other side? debates are often on a volunteer basis, what you're saying is essentially that they choose the dumbest of the applicants (of whatever side) on purpose.

 

EDIT

@lucifer, check your settings, you may have the wrong boxes clicked.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Mate, you know what would happen to you if you said creationism was wrong in the 1500's it's gotten a LOT better. The fact that evolution is winning out over creationism should tell you a lot. Want a better example?

 

1970's LGB got sheet on 

2016 50%+ support it

 

it takes time, and if one people were less in your face about it, it would go faster even

Thing about that though.

It took how many years to change creationism from being the massively predominant thing. Yet it took less than 40 years for LGB to gain support.

Do you really think that was done because people sat back and let others be against it calmly? The fact that nowadays positive changes happen faster only shows me that the way it's been done doesn't work as well.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Lets look at homosexuality. There's a couple ways free speech works here.

 

1) You're offensive and rude about it, and have nothing of real substance - you're a jerk and people won't listen to you

2) You don't like it, but are polite about it - people don't bite back at you. Not biting back at you, converts people from 1)->2)

3) You don't like it and have a rational reason behind it - people will listen if you're polite, but many will still bite back (as of now 3 doesn't have merit)

 

and there's the other half of the spectrum going in support of it. Lets see what PC does

 

Support Homosexuality - You're a progressive Standard

Don't Support homosexuality - Burn Bigot

 

you're throwing 1&2&3's together and then using their anger at being lumped together as bigoted justification for further marginalizing them

 

I hate to break it to you guys, but you can dislike something and not be a bigot. Bigot means you're unable to accept the other's view, not that you're unable to agree or like it.

 

Ex.

 

I hate abortion, I really do. But why am I pro-choice? Because  while I may not like it, I won't force my belief on others (abortion actually works better than LGB here cause laws are being passed to discriminate vs the LGB's atm)

 

Anyone who calls me a bigot for having the belief doesn't understand English

Thing about that though.

It took how many years to change creationism from being the massively predominant thing. Yet it took less than 40 years for LGB to gain support.

Do you really think that was done because people sat back and let others be against it calmly? The fact that nowadays positive changes happen faster only shows me that the way it's been done doesn't work as well.

Pretty sure you didn't get publicly shamed and get Carl the Cuck'd for not liking it though. That's something my beloved generation has come up with

 

the LGB movement used to fight for IT'S rights, now it just fights the opposition, cause that's what PC does, creates conflict with no end in sight

 

You're not furthering any LGB agenda by calling everyone who isn't thrilled about it a ignorant backwater bigot

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Wait I'm confused do you think public shaming only existed in recent years?

 

Also that's just a ton of generalizations so can't really go any farther here.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait I'm confused do you think public shaming only existed in recent years?

It's certainly gotten worse and more acceptable in recent years

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

It's certainly gotten worse and more acceptable in recent years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_humiliation#Shameful_exposure

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_humiliation#Shameful_exposure

And this disagrees with me how? I didn't say it didn't exist in the past, and those weren't pseudo-sentient like PC is