BREAKING Multiple people stabbed at far-right rally, and counter protest

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Your name-calling, your fallacy, your words, say more about you than anyone else.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LOL!!! This is hilarious.
I have been a public speaker - well received. I have written academic and professional proposals and fiction and non-fiction articles and been well-received. I have published articles and am well-received.

If you're trying to piss me off, you're doing a good job. "Don't be a dick!" That's all there is to it! I'm done. Don't be surprised if people are turned off by your arrogance and ignorance. If you don't comprehend that, get some professional help or a communications coach.
I'll know not to give anything you say in the future any respect at all....

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What would I be projecting? I understand the difference between your philosophical exercise and the meaning of a common phrase which says more than the sum of its words.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm not trying to piss you off. That was never my intention. You are pissing yourself off and getting riled up over a conversation.

a reply to: daskakik

I understand your point, but my effort is to show that the agent of any subsequent action, for instance stabbing someone at a March, is the one holding the knife, not the one holding the March.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I understand your point, by my effort is to show that the agent of any subsequent action, for instance stabbing someone at a March, is the one holding the knife, not the one holding the March.

If the march hadn't been held it would be physically impossible for the one holding the knife to stab anyone at the march.

ETA: Also if the one holding the march hadn't said certain words then nobody would be holding the knife.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I understand your point, by my effort is to show that the agent of any subsequent action, for instance stabbing someone at a March, is the one holding the knife, not the one holding the March.

If the march hadn't been held it would be physically impossible for the one holding the knife to stab anyone at the march.

ETA: Also if the one holding the march hadn't said certain words then nobody would be holding the knife.

There is a correlation, but still no causation.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So the phrase "words have consequences" implies correlation and not causation. It still does not imply that the words are interacting with matter.

a reply to: daskakik

It does imply causation. That's what "words have consequences" means.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That could be just you. It doesn't mean that to me.

The way I read it, it isn't the words that cause things to happen but the act of saying/hearing those words.

Reminds me of something I saw recently. Someone corrected somebody else's use of the term racist. A third person comes in and explains that racist is just the lazy way to say xenophobe.

Now, I may not agree with you but I support your right to be a grammar nazi.

a reply to: daskakik

I get it. Their words are despicable, their ideas morally indispensable. But the only way to prove that is through more free speech, not violence and censorship. When fighting monsters, we should be wary of becoming monsters ourselves.

silencing speech we do not like is a far greater crime than speaking words others do not like to hear. We deny them their right to say it, along with our right to hear it. We deny truth to grapple with error and falsity. We deny people to tell us who they are, and deny ourselves to learn who they are. Freedom of speech is the basis of a free society.

The body count alone is enough proof for me. The history of censorship is a long and bloody one.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I get it. Their words are despicable, their ideas morally indispensable. But the only way to prove that is through more free speech, not violence and censorship. When fighting monsters, we should be wary of becoming monsters ourselves.

I'm not fighting for or against anything.

silencing speech we do not like is a far greater crime than speaking words others do not like to hear. We deny them their right to say it, along with our right to hear it. We deny truth to grapple with error and falsity. We deny people to tell us who they are, and deny ourselves to learn who they are. Freedom of speech is the basis of a free society.

The body count alone is enough proof for me. The history of censorship is a long and bloody one.

Yeah but in reality your freedom of speech ends at the same spot as my patience.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DBCowboy

Look at the magical thinking implicit in the claim "words have consequences". Words can manipulate and move matter, aka, sorcery.

Witches, all of them are witches.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I get it. Their words are despicable, their ideas morally indispensable. But the only way to prove that is through more free speech, not violence and censorship. When fighting monsters, we should be wary of becoming monsters ourselves.

I'm not fighting for or against anything.

silencing speech we do not like is a far greater crime than speaking words others do not like to hear. We deny them their right to say it, along with our right to hear it. We deny truth to grapple with error and falsity. We deny people to tell us who they are, and deny ourselves to learn who they are. Freedom of speech is the basis of a free society.

The body count alone is enough proof for me. The history of censorship is a long and bloody one.

Yeah but in reality your freedom of speech ends at the same spot as my patience.

I imagine my rights end at your patience as well.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I imagine my rights end at your patience as well.

I was hoping that you would have seen that phrase is a rehash of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" with emphasis on the fact that there is a very subjective element when it comes to respecting freedom of speech.

I also thought that you would have understand that "your" and "my" in that phrase isn't "you and me" but two individuals at odds.

a reply to: daskakik

That's why it is best to approach this issue objectively, which is what I am attempting.

I don't think you personally would suppress my rights to speak, if it makes you feel any better. You couldn't anyways.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's why it is best to approach this issue objectively, which is what I am attempting.

Some people will attempt to suppress other's rights, that is being objective and realist.

ETA: It doesn't matter who thinks they are right or wrong in doing it. And since you know those people exist then there is nothing wrong with saying "Although philosophically you should be able to say whatever you want, your mouth can get you into trouble".

I don't think you personally would suppress my rights to speak, if it makes you feel any better. You couldn't anyways.

It's isn't about you and me anyway.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's why it is best to approach this issue objectively, which is what I am attempting.

Some people will attempt to suppress other's rights, that is being objective and realist.

ETA: It doesn't matter who thinks they are right or wrong in doing it. And since you know those people exist then there is nothing wrong with saying "Although philosophically you should be able to say whatever you want, your mouth can get you into trouble".

I don't think you personally would suppress my rights to speak, if it makes you feel any better. You couldn't anyways.

It's isn't about you and me anyway.

I wouldn't say people were superstitious towards words if they weren't. Of course people try to suppress the voice of others through violence. My only point is that to blame the victims for doing so is objectively absurd. It's like saying people can wear whatever they want, but your clothes will get you into trouble. It's victim blaming.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
My only point is that to blame the victims for doing so is objectively absurd. It's like saying people can wear whatever they want, but your clothes will get you into trouble. It's victim blaming.

And my point is that there isn't always a victim. This is a perfect example. Both sides here went looking for a fight.

Some might throw a rock and hide their hand and those who do are not victims either.

ETA: Also saying that victim blaming is wrong isn't going to help the victim. You would be doing them a bigger favor if you told them that their mouth was going to get them into trouble.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

a reply to:
daskakik

Totally impartial here, but I have a relevant question and would be interested to see if your opinions also differ:

Let's say a certain religious doctrine compelled an adherent to commit an act of violence, citing said doctrine as the inspiration. Is the perpetrator to blame, or is the rhetoric that led to his actions to be blamed?