Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: In sum, we cannot be expected to think for ourselves if we put effort into the creation of a society that expressly forbids the act of speaking for ourselves, as the conscious creation of these morays and taboos not only retards society, it damages the individual.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the contrary, it makes you a better individual because you will have to grapple with your conscience constantly, and are forced to make value judgements, something you are abdicating when you just allow anything to be said. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: On the contrary, it makes you a better individual because you will have to grapple with your conscience constantly, and are forced to make value judgements, something you are abdicating when you just allow anything to be said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Au contraire, Andreas, only by advocating free speech are you forced to make value judgements, as you can only make these when exposed to ideas. By allowing the expression of these ideas, you save your judgement until after they are heard. You cannot be exposed to new, scary, exciting, evil, et cetera ideas if we have all ready declared them off-limits, instead you spend your days watching sitcoms and reading the same bland newspaper articles. A particular social ill that the US is quite stricken with. ------------------ I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve. -Meeks You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve. -Chrisl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Why don't all you guys practice some freedom of speech and IGNORE this arrogant jerk. I think he'll understand that. Silence is deafening. In real life he would have been spitting teeth by now. Mord [This message has been edited by Mord (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord: Why don't all you guys practice some freedom of speech and IGNORE this arrogant jerk. I think he'll understand that. Silence is deafening. In real life he would have been spitting teeth by now. Mord <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let's get some things straight here, Mord, first I would kick your sorry ass clean out of your pants if you talked like this to me in real life. Second, you have added nothing to the conversation with you peurile little remarks. Moron. ------------------ I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve. -Meeks You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve. -Chrisl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 I have to agree with Mister Meeks (on more than the fact that Mord's comment was juvenile and comically pathetic given the topic of this thread). Free speech is not an earned right. It is given to every man, woman, and child living in a country that advocates this freedom. This means that it is given to the strong, the weak, the healthy, the sick, the social inclined, the socially unaware, people who suffer from back-ache, people who've never felt pain in their lives, intelligent people, and stupid people. In short, much like being a parent, their is no entrance exam or pre-requisite for being able to speak your mind as you choose. This said, all of what we hear is born and bred and shaped by the experiences that one person has lived through, and another may not have. Comments are made by people who know nothing of what they are talking about, and these people will argue with experts on the subject. People think they know more about a topic than they truly do, and love to spread the ignorant word. What does this mean? It means that much of what Free Speech allows us to hear is dead wrong, ridiculous drivel blowing around like pollen in the spring. Now much of what we hear is wrong, why listen to it? Naturally, we don't. We can't stop people from saying what they'd like, but we do have the power to tune them out and ignore them. This, as Elijah said, forces us to think for ourselves. It forces us to analyze what we hear, and decide for ourselves - morally, financially, physically - does this idea make sense to me. And that, I believe, is what Mister Meeks is trying to say. We need to exercise our abillity to weed out the drivel so we can learn from the gems among us. Said in another way: I don't agree with a word you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. And posted inside the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.: I have sworn on the altar of God, eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the minds of men. That is the ideal being discussed here, and the mere fact that we are discussing it is the proof to my argument. ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 I will say this though, seeing that I figured out what this was all about and deleted all the nastiness here before. The Pathetically Comical topic of this thread is: Pillar/Chupacabra. Go figure..... [This message has been edited by Mord (edited 11-10-2000).] [This message has been edited by Mord (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Wow, and I thought I made an ass of myself in the ScoutPL thread. Way to go Mord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Well if you call sticking up for yourself making an ass outta yourself than fine so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 No, it's the method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 What did you expect from a purile juvenile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Join the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Elijah, I come from a country where we have seen what unlimited free speech and a weak, defenseless democracy can do. If they tomorrow start locking up people pouring out racial hatred, I'll assist and throw away the keys. We will never see eye to eye on that, and you simply have a lot more trust in humanity than I do. I have been to Dachau, and my trust is still there. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Elijah, I come from a country where we have seen what unlimited free speech and a weak, defenseless democracy can do. If they tomorrow start locking up people pouring out racial hatred, I'll assist and throw away the keys. We will never see eye to eye on that, and you simply have a lot more trust in humanity than I do. I have been to Dachau, and my trust is still there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it was the weak and defenseless democracy, Andreas, not the free speech, that rotted the social fabric of Germany. Too many are too willing to ignore the responsibility of the many, many people who wanted facism and try to blame all the evils on Goebbels or Nazism or Hitler or the SS. It was not words that killed Jews, it was not arguments that created Zyklon-B, it was not the idea of Lebensraum that murdered Russian citizens, it was the German people. Censoring what they said or printed or believed neither brings back the dead nor safeguards the living, rather it makes it easy to ignore the people who committed these actions and instead concentrate on the few who lead them and what those few wrote, said and thought. If I walk into a crowded theatre and maliciously yell fire, that does not make me responsible for your trampling to death of another person. It may explain your actions but it does not excuse them. [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 Whoa wait a second. You thought I was calling you an arrogant jerk didn't you Meeks? I was talking about the Tris guy. that's why you attacked me. My apologies. We both misunderstood one another I think. [This message has been edited by Mord (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 My mistake, Mord, sorry about getting riled up. ------------------ I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve. -Meeks You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve. -Chrisl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 10, 2000 Share Posted November 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: I think it was the weak and defenseless democracy, Andreas, not the free speech, that rotted the social fabric of Germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are being naive now. So the fact that they were allowed to use hateful, violent language had nothing to do with the political climate of the Weimar Republic? If you want to believe that, fine. Never underestimate the power of words. People need a leader to make them do these things, they need the ideas spelled out. Take that away, and make them pay for being stupid, and that will work wonders at prevention. If Hitler and the communists on the other side had been checked (i.e. locked up before they had a chance to poison the political climate to a degree that democracy became unworkable) there would not have been a 3rd Reich in all likelihood. That is not negating individual responsibility (that is a whole different topic) and I have not done that, you are completely misinterpreting me on that. Anyway, this is a pointless discussion, I am mainly posting because I want to make it clear that I am not using the idea of free speech to negate private responsibility. We will never agree Elijah. I think you are being dangerously naive, and trust too much into peoples' ability to reason. I don't - unless proven otherwise I believe people are morons and will follow whatever stupid ideas are being peddled at a given time. I would love to be proven wrong though. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 You know, if were were simply talking about political free speech, much of what people have said on both sides of the FSA debate would be reasonable. But we're talking about a privately-owned BBS, so the 1st Amendment, which prohibits the *government* from interfering with free speech, has no relevance. And to be less parochial, the Meinungsfreiheit section of the German Grundgesetz, while more restrictive than the US provision, is also a bar on governmental power, which has little to do with a privately-run BBS. Plus, "freedom of speech" on the BBS could quickly make it unusable. What if there were 1000 posts per day on the theme of "MAKE MONEY FAST!!!!!!" or similar non-gaming topics? Or even extended political screeds? I would think that it would be very difficult for anyone, even FSA's, to think, that this is the way a BBS should be run. FS does not mean, and has never meant, the right for anyone to say anthing to anyone at any time anyplace. Otherwise, it would be illegal to prohibit, say, members of religious organizations from proselytizing with bullhorn in my bedroom at 4:00 a.m. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Anyway, this is a pointless discussion, I am mainly posting because I want to make it clear that I am not using the idea of free speech to negate private responsibility. We will never agree Elijah. I think you are being dangerously naive, and trust too much into peoples' ability to reason. I don't - unless proven otherwise I believe people are morons and will follow whatever stupid ideas are being peddled at a given time. I would love to be proven wrong though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This will be my final post on the subject, Andreas, as you've mischaracterized my argument. I totally agree that people suck. They're stupid, lazy and, sometimes, evil. However, I am not and I know that, regardless of whether they waste or misuse this or any other right, I do not. I'm selfish Andreas, not naive, and I do not want my rights to be curbed for the safety of a gaggle of idiots. ------------------ I've got far more annoying things than that up my sleeve. -Meeks You must wear awfully loose shirts to fit an oompah band up your sleeve. -Chrisl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 Don't chew me up for this, but doesn't censorship imply the omniscience of the censoring body? I mean, if a dictator says "People can't reason, thus, I must censor their speech" doesn't that imply that the dictator *can* reason better than everyone else? And would you rather rely on many independant minds or a single one? Would you rather rely on persuasive discussion, in which each individual is free to make up his own mind? Or coercive legislation and absence of individual decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 I'm selfish Andreas, not naive, and I do not want my rights to be curbed for the safety of a gaggle of idiots. Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 Ok kiddies, time for me to exercise some evil censorship and lock this one up Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philistine Posted November 11, 2000 Share Posted November 11, 2000 I've got to agree with Andrew Hedges. This forum isn't a public place, it's not a government or any other type of public forum. I liken it to the back room of your friendly local hobby store where people get together, play some games and bitch about gaming and things in general. When things get too loud or unruly the owners asks the offenders to either tone it down or leave. (That's where Steve, MadMatt and the other moderators come in). The problem (I believe) is the use of the term "censorship." At least in the U.S., the term has taken on very negative connotations, and is generally used to refer to improper infringement of speech. (BTW, courts and lawyers generally use the term "restriction" of speech when they are talking about permissible governmental limitations on speech such as not yelling "fire" or libel law, not "censorship"). Being accused of "censorship" in the U.S. is taken by most people as an insult (and I've found it's generally meant that way also, despite wide-eyed innocence and references to "dictionary definitions"). Simply put, restrictions put on subject matter by private forum moderators is NOT any kind of restriction on free speech which the Constitution (or any other rational body of law) is concerned about. No jail-time is given, no fines are levied. All the moderator is saying is "talk about it SOMEWHER ELSE." Just like any store, or other private place, start talking about things that upset the other customers or use inappropriate language, or just ramble on about unrelated issues...you'll be asked to leave. Nobody will tell you you can't continue the conversation...just not here. Does anyone think free speech means I can go down to my local television or radio station and demand to be put on the air to talk about anything I feel like? Their failure to let me do so is technically censorship. Just rambling on about one of my pet peeves. Sorry for the disturbance. --Philistine (BTW, does anybody think if you're in a store and you insult the storekeeper, he shouldn't ask you to leave?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts